-1-
INTRODUCTION
Food Production in New York City: Past to Present

What did you have for breakfast this morning? What are you going to eat for dinner
tonight? Food may be important to everyone, but it takes on a whole new dynamic in the
lives of New Yorkers. It is essential to the city’s identity. Nowhere else could you find a
Halal stand in front of a Thai restaurant across the street from an Armenian cuisine on the
outskirts of Chinatown. But what is the history behind New York’s food? Food has always
been critical to New Yorkers, but nearly every aspect regarding what we eat has changed
over time, from where our food is obtained to the types of food offered. This book offers a
brief overview of food provisioning in New York City throughout time.
One of the main focuses of this book is production and its role in New York City.
Production over this extensive time period saw a great number of changes. As time marched
on, production moved farther and farther away from New York City, the main area of
consumption. Over the time period considered, local water supplies, such as the collect
pond, became less important as new feats of engineering, such as the Croton Aqueduct,
paved the way for New York to grow exponentially. Grains also moved in a similar fashion,
going from the fields of Manhattan to the surrounding region and ultimately, with the wide
development of railroads in the Eastern United States by the middle of the 19th century, to
the heartland of the country. Similar trends can be observed for the production of meat, fish,
and shellfish. Even early in New York City’s history a wealth of foods were produced. Local
oyster beds provided seemingly limitless shellfish supplies until overfishing and pollution
drove the beds into terminal decline by the early 20th century. With the improvement of
both rail technology and shipping vessels, the importation of endless varieties of fish put
nutrient rich food on the table of those too poor to afford meat. The establishment of the
Meatpacking District and the High Line in lower Manhattan helped consolidate the
production of meat for the entire region. Great varieties of grain and vegetables and corn
became an important part of nearly every New Yorkers’ diet. Lastly, one cannot discuss New
York food production without mentioning beverages. From the earliest settlers of New
Amsterdam, alcohol played an important role. Beverage production would also see great
changes over this time period as prohibition helped reformulate the now global beverage
that is Coca-Cola.
Another main focus is the evolution of New York City's marketplaces over the
course of history. What were markets like? Where were they physically located? How many
points of exchange were there? These questions give a general framework to determine how
food and beverages made their way from the producers to the consumers. The actual
exchange is an intriguing idea to explore as well. What role did middle men play in getting
food from the producer to the consumer? At what points did the number of middlemen
increase or decrease, and how did these changes affect the economics of food production?
These questions are vital to examining the changes of New York City's food system. Perhaps
the most dynamic aspect of the food system, though, is technology. Innovation is the one
factor of production whose growth is seemingly random, yet whose effects are massive. This
book will seek to examine these effects on the food supply and demand. How did advanced

1
  

transportation change the way materials got to the producers, and how food got to the
market? How did the location of production change because of new methods of
transportation? What technological changes made food production more efficient or more
effective? Did advanced technology change the setting of the marketplace? These questions
are not only pertinent to the past, but also the present and the future. Technology is forever
changing, and thus the implications stand to affect the dynamics of New York City's food
system for years to come.
A third focus of this book is to look at how food production can effect how we live
and the way we think about what we eat. Studying the agricultural system in our nation can
help change the way we look at farming and food in the future. Although agricultural policy
has become more efficient and healthy, there are still many things that need to be fixed and
changed regarding the food we eat and the industry that produces it. For starters, farming
subsidies must be managed better, and the government must ensure that farmers are not
receiving subsidies when they are making more than the cutoff point required for the
government to step in. We need to focus on giving support to local communities, and
represent the actual consumers in all communities, rather than just a focus on farmers and
the agricultural business. Studying past laws and policies allows us to figure out what needs
to change and how we can begin to go about managing our food system. We also need to
focus on a decentralized food system and a revival of local agriculture, which can be easier
with support from the government for more organic food markets. Agriculture is currently
the largest contributor to greenhouse gases, and the reason we as Americans suffer from
obesity, heart disease, and other major health problems. Ultimately, when environmental
factors and increasing health care costs are considered, cheap fast food markets are more
expensive for our country. The main focus of this research is to learn about our past and
therefore see how we can make our country healthier in the future by being more conscious
of the effects of our food production and consumption.
The history of food and nutrition in New York City is an extensive one, and to truly
understand its evolution we must consider a number of sources for research. If this text
were focused on one specific time period, then the range in types of information presented
would be rather small. For example, the earlier decades of New York City would most likely
be explored using primarily historical texts or even archaeological evidence, depending on
how far back one looks. On the other hand, food culture is becoming an increasingly
popular subject of research; as a result, there is a much wider selection of research to
explore.
Many texts have been written pertaining to the general diets of the native people of
the United States. The books that attempt to describe the lives of the natives pre-contact
consist largely of archaeological evidence; for example, the locations of various sites and the
items found in those locations, or photos of tools and items found at dig sites. Though these
texts provide some of the only information we might find about this time period, as
secondary sources a researcher must analyze them carefully; as objective as a scientist might
try to be, it is impossible to truly eliminate one’s voice from a text. As time has progressed,
attempts have been made to analyze the developing food culture of New York City using
more convincing data and statistics. These studies and research, however, are also secondary
sources and often seek to make connections and correlations, which may or may not have
existed. Because of these stipulations, authors have tried to distinguish between fact and
opinion to form their own observations about the topic in question. From these early time
periods, some primary sources do exist in the form of archived newspaper articles and

2
  

preserved journals of some unknown Dutch colonists. While these sources can give us a
glimpse into the past, they are not abundunt enough to form an entire history.
One idea which seems to prevail throughout this history of food in New York City is
that as time has passed, things have grown more complex—market locations, regulations,
and even the diversity of the foods themselves. With this increasing complexity there has
also been a surge in the amount of information available to the people. For example, records
concerning the consumption of various goods exist from as early as the colonial era. With
this information, one could attempt to find trends in the consumption of foods or
beverages, such as the huge intake of alcohol by the people of 18th century New York City.
As markets developed, they made a name for themselves and found their way onto maps
which still persist today, thus allowing students to learn about the movement and
distribution of these markets. Government interference into the food culture of New York
City created additional records in the form of official rules and regulations which can be
found today by anyone with internet access.
The history of food production, consumption and distribution in New York have
revealed compelling repeating patterns that have been grouped into themes for the purpose
of this book. The overarching themes include complexity, geographic spreading,
diversification and technological advances.
From the early colonial era to the present day world, the production, distribution and
consumption of food has become highly complex in an attempt to meet the needs and
demands of a growing and diverse population. From the mere process of growing crops to
the methods of distribution and marketing, the New York City food system has developed
intricate rules and regulations to comply with the growth in size of the city. Historically, New
Yorkers have purchased food that was grown on a farm near the city, transported in
caravans to the local open-air markets and sold straight to the customers. As New York City
transformed into a melting pot of millions of different people, however, this simple process
grew in complexity as food began to go through multi-processing steps before being
transported through complex transportation arrangements to get to large distributors before
they reached the consumers.
The food process also went through a pattern of geographic spread. With the
convenience of quick transportation, New York began to import food from other states that
was not grown and processed in the city due to climate issues and lack of land. The
production of wheat, for instance, shifted away from New York into the Midwest because of
better agricultural conditions for growing the wheat. In general, the city was capable of
importing food from various areas around the globe.
As food processing increased in complexity and moved further away from New
York, food types and sources also diversified. The open-air markets and specialized food
stalls were replaced by large supermarkets that carried meats, produce, sea food and dry
good all in one place. The food types also increased as complexity in processing allowed for
a greater variety of the same product. Beverages, for instance, began to be offered in a
variety of favors. The irony of diversity was that as food types diversified, the markets for
these foods became increasingly conglomerated into single supermarkets.
Lastly, all of the themes discussed above cannot be qualified without considering the
role of technological advancements in food production, distribution and consumption.
Compared to the simpler technology of the past, today almost 80 to 90% of all food
produced in America goes through some sort of processing. Technology has allowed food to
be processed to increase the diversity of flavors; it has also allowed the food system to

3
  

spread geographically through advancements in transportation and made the production of

food more complex through mechanization.
This book will cover food production and trade within New York City from the pre-
colonial era to present day. It is divided into 14 chapters, each covering a different aspect of
food consumption during the city’s history. The chapters are then divided into categories
that cover more specific features of this topic.
Chapters two and three are grouped together under the time period of the pre-
colonial era until the American Revolution, or from 1500 to 1790. Chapter two discusses
how and where native New Yorkers used technology to produce food, and what foods they
frequently ate. Chapter three explores the colonial era, and how new food technologies
affected the foods that were consumed. It also examines where markets were located in New
York City at that time.
Chapters four and five cover the time period from 1790 to 1860. Chapter four discusses the
changes in technology that subsequently led to changes in food production and
consumption. Chapter five explores where different markets opened up in the city as the
population grew.
The years of 1860 to 1940 are grouped together in chapters six, seven, eight, and
nine. Chapter six examines the different agricultural policies that were put in place during
this time. Chapter seven covers the changes in food distribution as technology advanced.
The production of various foods during the early industrial era is discussed in chapter eight.
Chapter nine focuses on urban food markets during the Industrial Era. This book’s last time
period focuses on the year 1940 until present day, and is grouped together by chapters ten,
eleven, twelve, and thirteen. Chapter ten covers the development of agricultural and food
safety policies in New York City during this time. Chapter eleven discusses the changes that
occurred in distribution technologies, such as those seen in freights and trucks. Chapters
twelve and thirteen explore the evolution of food production and food markets and how
they have changed during the global era.
This book will focus mainly on how patterns of food consumption, production, and
technology have changed throughout the history of New York City and how these past
events will effect how we approach the city’s future.

4
  

-2-
BEFORE AND AFTER CONTACT
The shift from the hunting and gathering to more sedentary life in the New World
by Shadi Ali & Michael Behan

INTRODUCTION
Since its birth, America has often been referred to as the “melting-pot” of the world.
Indeed, the United States that we see today is a melting pot of different ethnicities, cultures
and religions from all over the world, and the city of New York is a rather unique example of
this. The use of the term “melting-pot” to describe America, and especially New York City,
is particularly adequate because when it comes to food, and the allusion can be taken in a
literal context. With people from all over the world moving into New York City, and
blending their various food traditions and customs with those of the previous inhabitants,
this city has been, for centuries, an actual melting pot of nutrition from all around the world.
The first true inhabitants in the area now occupied by New York City were a group
of Native Americans known as the Lenape. Now, when one considers the Indians of the
United States, certain names and images come to mind: the Sioux Indians traversing the
Central United States on horse, living in tee-pees and also the Pueblo Indians of the
Southwest, surviving the desert heat in their adobe structures. It is safe to say that the extent
of our knowledge about the Native Americans who lived in the New York region is limited
to the anecdotal claim that “the island Manhattes from the Indians for the value of 60
guilders,” (Grumet 2009, p. 11). It is tempting to clump this group of people with the other
Native Americans of the Northeast such as the Iroquois or the Algonquin. However, due to
the rather unique ecology of the region surrounding New York City and the culture of the
Lenape, a distinction must be made between these Woodland Indians and their northern
neighbors. For all these native peoples, however, food was an item of vast importance and
took precedence before all else. The environment around them largely determined the
dietary culture of each group.
Just as with the Native Americans, food was also a key issue for the European
settlers arriving in the 17th century, the “native New Yorkers.” Once the explorers decided
where to build their homes, shelter was no longer a problem. Furthermore, as the first
outsiders to settle in New York City and with fur trading as their main source of income,
clothing was also not a problem. Food, however, was not something that could be shipped
from their home countries on a daily basis. Once the colonists had run out of their stock of
food they had brought with them to the New World, it became imperative that they adapt
and learn how to acquire resources from the land around them.
As the first outside settlers in the New World, the Europeans brought with them
their recipes, cooking methods and even supplies with them; what these outsiders brought
with them depended primarily upon which part of the world they had come from. During
this period, explorers from not just the Netherlands but also France, Spain and England
were claiming territory in the New World causing an influx of different cultures in different
parts of America. Thus, the Dutch settling in New York ate differently from the Spaniards
claiming St. Augustine, the English colonists in Jamestown, and also the French who had
migrated to Canada. Although the difference in the diet of each colonial group is fascinating

5
  

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

Figure 2.1. Lenape men preparing soil for cultivation. Reprinted from The Lenapes by
R. S. Grumet and F. W. Porter, 1989, New York, Chelsea House.

6
  

LITERATURE REVIEW
The Native Americans of the Northeastern United States, pre-contact
History of the natives of the Northeast
Though more specific groups exist in the Northeast, with rather distinct cultures, the
Native Americans throughout the northeastern part of the United States can be described in
a few general terms. Arriving in this area during The Woodland Period, from 1000 B.C. to
A.D. 1600, these Pre-Columbian natives can be characterized by several key traits: they
began the practical use of pottery making, domesticated various plants, and had a
progressively more settled village life (Kraft 1986, p. 89). The Archaic Period before it
ranged from 8000 B.C. to 1000 B.C., and during this time life in North America consisted
largely of hunting and gathering for survival. With each stage in the subsequent Woodland
Period, the Native Americans slowly developed the more sedentary lifestyle that the
Europeans would encounter upon their arrival in the 17th century. While the Early Woodland
Period (ca. 1000-1 B.C.) was nothing more than a continuation of the previous Archaic
Period except for the introduction of pottery, the Late Woodland Period is seen as the era
when large-scale farming became much more widespread, in particular the “three sister”
crops of corn, beans, and squash (Kraft 1986, p. 115).
Before the arrival of the Dutch in the area, the group of Native American peoples
called the Lenni Lenape settled much of the area that is occupied today by the city of New
York. These people occupied lands from as far south as the state of Delaware and as far
north as Connecticut. The two main bands of Lenape in this region can be identified by the
dialect they spoke: either Unami or Munsee, both derived from the Eastern Algonquian
language called Delaware. The Munsee primarily occupied the area of New York City and
areas further north, bordering with the Five Nations of the Iroquois (Grumet 2009, p. 11).
These were the natives of what would become Manhattan.
The Woodland Indians, including the Lenape, lived a seasonal life, characterized by
regular mass movements from the south to the north and back. During the winter, when
wild plants and animals became unavailable to the natives, “large groups of people were
unable to survive in areas with such diminished capacity for producing food…Under such
stressful circumstances, it was in everyone’s best interest to fragment into smaller bands or
family units and scatter across the landscape….” (Grumet 2009, p. 111). When spring came
about and life returned to the land, “families reunited and cooperated in sharing nature’s
bounty,” (Grumet 2009, p. 112).

Food production in the Northeast

“The food quest of the Woodland Indians was based primarily on hunting, fishing,
and gathering wild crops. They practiced some agriculture [or horticulture, according to Kraft,
which consisted more of gardening than what is considered to be larger scale farming and
agriculture], but it was definitely of secondary importance and consisted mostly of the Indian
staples—corn, beans, and squash” (Ritzenthaler 1983, p. 19). Among the things collected by
the Woodland Indians were maple sugar, various berries (cranberries, gooseberries, June
berries, blueberries, raspberries), fruit (grapes, cherries), nuts (acorns, hickory nuts,
hazelnuts), and vegetables (wild potatoes and onions, milkweed, water lily root).
“To the Woodland Indians, fishing was a year-round occupation,” (Ritzenthaler
1983, p. 21). Fish were caught in a variety of ways, including the use of fishhooks, nets,
spears, traps, lures, bait. They also hunted and trapped the animals in the forest, such as
deer, moose, fox, otter, beaver, and mink. In addition, some groups (such as the Chippewa
and Menomini) took advantage of wild rice, which grew in shallow lakes and streams.

7
  

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

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

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

History of Food Production for the Lenape

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

Importance of Maize to the Lenape

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

8
  

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

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

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

The Diet of the Early Colonists

The Dutch is credited for many of the recipes and the diet that the first New Yorkers
depended on. Their predominance in the field of baking, would eventually lead to the
establishment of America’s first bakeries in 1656 in New York. Bringing cooking utensils
from their homeland such as long-handled waffle irons, the Dutch heavily impacted the diet
of later generations who would grow up as “native New Yorkers”. As the original settlers of
the New York region, the Dutch established the basic style of nutrition with the recipes and
menus they brought over.
Other foods, such as dairy products were also popular with the Dutch; by bringing
over cattle from Holland with them, the Dutch were able to procure milk, butter and cheese.
Some of the favorite dishes of the Dutch settlers included hodgepodge (cornmeal porridge
cooked with chunks of corned beef and vegetables), roast duck with dumplings, pork with
cabbage, and roast goose (served on holidays). Dessert was also enjoyed by the early settlers,
the most popular being, “Oliekocken…pastries made with a raised yeast dough, shaped into
small balls, and fried in hot lard until golden brown” (Lee 1992, p. 51-53) which today we
widely recognize as doughnuts. Also included in their diet were, “Tea, sugar, spices,

9
  

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

Factors Involved in Determining Early New Yorker’s Diet

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

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

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

Early Menus for New Yorkers

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

Breakfast (Break of dawn/Early morning)

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

10
  

• Fruit pies and pastries

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

Dinner (Early afternoon)

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

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

Supper (More like a bedtime snack)

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

As seen in the above menu, fruits were popular for after a meal and were enjoyed
raw with no need for preparation, and were often a poor man’s dessert. Those who were
wealthier could enjoy baked goods could choose among a variety of pies such as raisin pie,
apple pie or pecan pie just to name a few. Other baked goods such as wheat bread, which
had been first introduced by the Dutch colonists remained popular throughout the
revolutionary era and even into the post-revolutionary time period.
The congregation of settlers in New York arriving after the Dutch played an
important role in providing diversity in the diet of native New Yorkers. What played an even
more important role in creating this diversity of food, however, is attributed to New York’s
involvement in the Triangular Trade during the 18th century that allowed molasses and rum
to become a staple part of the average New Yorker’s diet. After the initial colonial period but
prior to the revolutionary era, it was this Triangular Trade that allowed for an even larger
diversity of food consumed by native New Yorkers to develop.

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

11
  

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

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

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

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

12
  

Beginnings of a fishing culture

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

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

Was fertilization necessary for the production of corn?

Narrative and archaeological evidence seem to be at odds with regard to the Lenape
use of corn. Some research indicates that corn was the most important of the Lenape
resources, and that it was more or less a ubiquitous part of their diet. However, this theory
requires larger scale agriculture, which in turn requires some form of land renewal (i.e.
fertilization). Was it possible for the Lenape to settle down and cultivate corn on a large
scale, and if so, did they?
To efficiently grow the maize crop, particularly in a region such as New York, the
natives needed to have some knowledge of the benefits of fertilizers. Further south, one
“Captain John Smith…note[d] that the Indians of Virginia used no fertilizer for their corn”
(Weatherwax 1954, p. 124). Apparently in New England, the natives recognized the
importance of fertilizers, and taught the English colonists how this could be achieved by
placing a fish in each hill of corn. In addition, he mentions that there is some information
regarding the Iroquois in New York pre-contact that suggests that they also knew about the
value of fertilizers. As a result, they repeatedly planted corn in the same fields and
continually produced “some of the heaviest crops known in the eastern United States at that
time” (Weatherwax 1954, p. 124). Between the colonists who repeatedly describe the
abundance of maize among the natives, and the scientists who provide archaeological
research proving its importance, one might have trouble disputing the value of this crop to
the Lenape and related Native Americans in this area.
The central issue that is most often contested is whether fertilizer was used or not.
The Lenape were a mobile people, and “could only plant in one place for about twenty years
before the soil was depleted and a new field was needed,” (Sanderson 2009, p. 123). This
suggests that the Lenape did not understand that the resources in the soil could be renewed
through the use of fertilizer. However, twenty years is still a fairly long time for the soil to
remain fertile enough for growth. The inconsistency can be accounted for by the oft-
mentioned fact that when the corn crop was grown, it was not solitary but one of three sister
crops: corn, beans, and squash. “…The beans, which have nitrogen fixing nodules on their
roots, transformed nitrogen from the atmosphere into a natural fertilizer, which fed the
maize and the beans. The squash, growing its large green leaves between the mounds, kept

13
  

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

Figure 2.3. Model of effects of different levels of bean-facilitated nitrogen on corn

production over time. Reprinted from Mannahatta: a natural history of New York City (p. 121),
by E.W. Sanderson, 2009, New York, Abrams.

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

Eventual Displacement of the Lenape Indians

With the arrival of the Dutch in New York City came the eventual demise of the
Lenape people and culture. While for the most part many American Indian groups were
eliminated through direct conflict with the Europeans who settled in the New World, their
displacement was facilitated by the exchange of culture between the two groups. As detailed
above, at the time of the Dutch’s arrival, the Lenape were nearing the end of the Late
Woodland Period, when the hunter-gatherer culture was beginning to die out. Their stays in
Manhattan involved some regular growth of crops and new means storing food (which
usually indicated long-term settling as opposed to nomadic movement). By introducing the
use of fertilizer and certain agricultural tools to the Lenape, the Dutch only furthered the
Lenape transition away from their previous migratory lifestyle. Despite this, the Lenape did
not develop their own sedentary, agricultural societies alongside the Dutch, and few
members of that tribe exist today.
On the other hand, the Lenape provided the newcomers with trade and introduced
them to many new resources that would become central to a colonial diet. This allowed the
Dutch to easily adapt to this new land; for the most part it was not the techniques they used
to sustain themselves which they were forced to change, but rather the actual food supplies
that they could use. With the aid of the Lenape, the native New Yorkers were given a leg up
in the New World, and as a result they continued to grow and expand. The Lenape, who
were still adjusting to settled civilization, were no match for the quickly growing colonial

14
  

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

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

REFERENCES

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

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

Beauchamp, W. M. (1978). Aboriginal occupation of New York. New York, AMS Press.

Becker, M. J. (1999). "Cash cropping by Lenape foragers: preliminary notes on native maize
sales to Swedish colonists and cultural stability during the early colonial period."
Bulletin 54(1999): 45-68.

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

Ceci, L. (1990). "Maize cultivation in coastal New York: the archaeological, agronomical, and
documentary evidence." North American Archaeologist 11(2): 147-176.

Danckaerts, J., P. Sluyter, et al. (1913). Journal of Jasper Danckaerts, 1679-1680. New York,
C. Scribner's sons.

15
  

Dimmick, F. R. (1994). "Creative farmers of the Northeast: a new view of Indian maize
horticulture." North American Archaeologist 15(3): 235-252.
Grumet, R. S. (1995). Historic contact: Indian people and colonists in today's northeastern
United States in the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries. Norman, University of
Oklahoma Press.

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

Press.

Grumet, R. S. and F. W. Porter (1989). The Lenapes. New York, Chelsea House.

Hart, J. P. (2000). "New dates from old collections: the Roundtop site and maize-beans-
squash agriculture in the Northeast." North American Archaeologist 21(1): 7-17.

Jameson, J. F. (1909). Narratives of New Netherland, 1609-1664. New York, Charles

Scribner's.

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

New Amsterdam/New York." Historical Archaeology 27(2): 6-24.

Kraft, H. C. (1986). The Lenape: archaeology, history, and ethnography. Newark, New
Jersey Historical Society.

Lee, H. G. (1992). Taste of the states: a food history of america. Charlottesville, VA: Howell Press.

McLanahan Elverson, M.A., & T. Elverson, V. (1975). A cooking legacy. New York : Walker
and Company.

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

http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodmeats.html

Ritzenthaler, R. E. (1983). The Woodland Indians of the western Great Lakes. Milwaukee,
Milwaukee Public Museum.

Root, W, & De Rochemont, R. (1981). Eating in America: a history. New York: Ecco.

Rose, P. G. 1989. The Sensible Cook. Syracuse University Press: Syracuse NY.

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

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

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

16
  

Strelch, M. (2009, September 5). Colonial american foods and diets: meat, fish, and a variety
of vegatables & fruits in the 13 colonies. Retrieved from
http://www.suite101.com/content/colonial-american-foods-and-diets-a145814
Walsh, L.S. (2000). Feeding the eighteenth-century town folk. Colonial Williamsburg Interpreter,
21.

Weatherwax , P. (1954). Indian corn in old America. New York, Macmillan

Weslager, C. A. (1953). A Brief Account of the Indians of Delaware. U. o. Delaware.

Newark, Delaware. 1.

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

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

17
  

-3-
POPULATION GROWTH AND MARKET DEVELOPMENT
IN COLONIAL NEW YORK CITY
by Ana Billingsley, Tamara Del Rosario, Maria Dimitropolous & Shekeima Dockery

INTRODUCTION
When we think of colonial New York City from 1500-1790, how do we figure food
markets developed? Did they exist? We imagine the colonists living on farms in which they
grew their own vegetables, and practiced simple agricultural techniques. We see them raising
chickens, harvesting their eggs, and killing them to make their meals. Our minds would also
lead us to believe that the markets in existence then were elementary. We would think there
were probably three or four of these markets in existence and families had to travel far to
reach them and receive the goods they needed. Before beginning our research, we speculated
that there were no marketplaces in existence before the eighteenth century. We assumed that
settlers traded with the Native Americans instead of forming legitimate stores, and if there
was an established food trading system, the methods and means of selling food would have
been considerably less structured. Our ideas about food markets were incorrect. Although
informal trading with Native Americans was quite common, market places did exist; our
chapter reinforces this finding and explicates specifically what these markets consisted of.
The first informal markets occurred amongst the first human inhabitants of New
York City: the Native Americans known as the Lenape. They were one of the oldest cultures
of Algonquin civilization in northeastern America (Sanderson 2009). The Lenape lived in
Manhattan and other surrounding areas dating back to 1000 B.C.E (Pritchard 2002). They
had a distinct food culture, cultivating corn, squash, and other crops using technologies
made from plant and animal materials (Pritchard 2002). However, with the arrival of Dutch
colonists in 1609, a whole new variety of animals, traditions, tools, and foods were
introduced. This marked a cultural transformation of New York City as Dutch cooking
methods, technologies, and trading processes predominated with the growth of the colony.
This culture shift also brought about few gradual changes in the crops produced in New
York City because of the lack of commercial farming and trade during this period. This
demonstrates how the evolution of food production in the early colonial era set up the roots
of modern farming, as well as changes in types of food consumed in New York City. Our
claim is that colonial New Yorkers used complex food markets similar to the markets of
today. New York became urbanized early in its colonial existence, and this allowed the
development of complex markets to be in important part of the culture of New York (Voe
1862).
Food markets during the early colonial period were highly organized; they developed
in a way that would allow for great economic expansion. Though early New Yorkers did
practice some simple agricultural techniques, these techniques were mostly used for
producing staple crops for simple production and trade (Cochrane 1993). The use of
agriculture for sustenance was more characteristic of the Native American Indians (Duffy
1968, Cochrane 1993). We compiled research on the history of food trade in America,
specifically looking at data pertaining to the Northeast and the colonial era. This data was

18
  

useful in examining what foods, methods, and technologies were native to New York City,
and which arrived with the colonists themselves. We included an extensive account of the
early history of New York and the colonists’ forms of settlement and survival. After
concluding this background research, we were left with three interrelated questions: How
were food markets structured? How did they develop? How did this process relate to
population growth in colonial New York City?
In order to better organize the information gathered, we have chosen to divide this
chapter into several sections. In our literature review, we describe the history of New York
City from as early as the Dutch rule during the seventeenth century to the English capture of
New Amsterdam in the eighteenth century. This background information is essential in
understanding the development of markets and trading. We then identify food production
and trading specific to the Lenape and the Dutch, and describe any changes that occur
during the colonial period. Our literature review also includes an overview of urbanization
and the significance of marketplaces. The findings use case studies to recount several
marketplaces that formed along the East River, including their structure, location, and
development. Our discussion addresses the uncertainties and biases in our research, as well
as the implications that our findings have. Finally, our conclusion is a very brief summary of
our research and results.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Lenape Culture
The Lenape were the primary inhabitants of New York for thousands of years. They
witnessed the arrival and eventual settlement of Europeans from the appearance of
Giovanni da Verrazano in 1524, to the arrival of Henry Hudson in 1609 (Wallace 1999).
Their lifestyle was well adapted to the natural terrain of pre-settled New York City. They
were avid users of the many New York City waterways, whether for fishing, hunting trips or
wars amongst themselves and nearby tribes. The Lenape also developed many techniques for
hunting and fishing, as it was a main source of trade as well as food a source for them. To
support their growing population, the Lenape planted beans and maize, and harvested large
quantities of shellfish and regular fish from the bay. Unlike later European settlers, the
Lenape lived in temporary campsites across the city, migrating with the seasons. As Burrow
and Wallace (1999) write:

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

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

19
  

Because of the Lenape lifestyle, sixteenth century New York would have been
considered a non-urbanized region. Urbanization requires the existence of a factor that
would allow for economic growth and complex production methods, cause many individuals
to gravitate toward one particular area, and increase capital interest. The conditions under
which the Lenape existed would have prevented a phenomenon like urbanization because
there was not any capital interest or economic growth present. Also, the population density
of the Lenape people remained relatively low; the Lenape did not gravitate towards one
particular area. Keeping the lives of the Lenape in mind, we can see a change in climate
occur when the colonists begin to occupy and alter the land.

European Settlers
It is estimated that by the time the Dutch began the first European settlement of
New York City there were approximately 15,000 Lenape in the region. However, European
settlement became a long and complicated process that resulted in a European population
that far outnumbered the Lenape. In 1609, the Dutch East India Company hired a seaman
named Henry Hudson to sail in the name of Amsterdam to the East. Hudson chose to
navigate to the West, despite the orders he was given. He arrived in New York and obtained
several animal furs to return to Europe. The Dutch Republic quickly recognized the
possibilities that the New World had to offer (Brown 1934). By 1610, there were already
various fur trade stations established from Maine to New Jersey. Four years later, Captain
Hendrick Christiansen raised a fort in what is now Albany. The territory between the
Delaware and Connecticut Rivers became known as New Netherland.
The traders sent to New Netherland upon Hudson’s return to Holland in 1609 had
no intention of remaining in America beyond the time that they could secure fur trade. The
States General in Holland granted a three-year trade monopoly to Dutch Merchants who
formed the New Netherland Company in 1614. Therefore, Fort Manhattan was built as a
temporary shelter and trading post until the Dutch West India Company became officially
organized. Their charter expired, yet no other merchants were excited about establishing a
colony in this uncharted continent. The Dutch agreed that in order to remain successful, a
permanent residence must be formed. As a result, New Amsterdam became the seat of a
colonial government that controlled the possessions of Holland in America (Janvier 1894).
Thus, the monopoly known as the Dutch West India Company was created. The Dutch
sought to base the Dutch West India Company on the original East India Company. The
corporation was given a twenty-four year contract on June 3, 1621. The rules for the Dutch
West India Company were formed in 1623; they were called an Artiklebrief. One year later,
the first few families set out and colonized the area from Fort Orange (present day Albany)
to Fort Nassau (now Gloucester, New Jersey). As more settlers arrived, the New York Bay
became filled with people all the way down to its Brooklyn shore. Manhattan Island was
becoming New Amsterdam; ships filled with cattle, settlers, and goods were sent across the
Atlantic Ocean to help support the new colony (Wallace 1999).
Commerce was the very heart of New York City, even at its beginnings. In 1625 the
Dutch founded New Amsterdam in search of fortunes and within a few years traders
became successful merchants. Many new colonists were arriving to New Amsterdam because
commerce was opened to all residents of Dutch Providences due to the Proclamation of
Free Trade. The Dutch learned that New Netherland would not be a success unless a more
liberal policy was used, so they removed trade barriers in 1640. The monopoly was destroyed
and trade developed (Rankin 1948). Article six of this document proposed that, “Amsterdam
shall provide a suitable piece of land on the banks of a river for a proper dwelling-place for

20
  

the colonists. The place shall be provided with a trench and wall on the outer side, and the
inner ground be laid out with streets, a market, and in lots, for the advantage of merchants,
mechanics, and those who will pursue agriculture-the whole to be done at the cost of said
city.” After article 6 was passed, many Englishmen took advantage of mercantile
opportunities and in due time outnumbered the Dutch, according to customhouse records
(Archdeacon 1976). Eventually, every inhabitant of New Amsterdam had shares in
shipments. In 1650, a resident claimed, “Everyone here is a trader” (Shorto 2004).
Although the original inhabitants did not mind new settlers, they strongly petitioned
against itinerant traders. Around this time, piracy became frequent in New York City and the
first crimes of fraud and smuggling appeared. In fact, by 1657, even the most honest of
traders were in some way involved with piracy. The pirates were chiefly Englishmen and
once the city fell to the English corruption became widespread; even the most prominent of
merchants acquired their fame through illegal terms. Finally, the Earl of Bellomont, Sir
Coote, who was the governor of New York in 1698, removed the officers at the customs
and buffered the amount of trading crimes in the colony (Singleton 1930).
In 1647, Peter Stuyvesant replaced Kieft as governor of New York, hoping to make
trading regulations even more effective. He designed rules to end smuggling in an attempt to
correct Kieft’s mistake of overlooking this crime. He also created a much more efficient
system in his seventeen years in position. He passed laws that restricted trading because he
required all merchants to obtain “burgher’s rights,” the rights of official residents. His
attempts helped create a more sophisticated society.
Meanwhile in England, the Duke of York had plans to expand British control in the
New World. By the 1660s there were thirteen English towns in Long Island and five Dutch
towns. The Duke of York continued to persuade the king to allow him to rule the land from
the Delaware to the Connecticut River-which was, in essence, New Netherland. He sent two
thousand men under the order of Colonel Richard Nicolls to New Amsterdam. Although
Stuyvesant was prepared to fight, the other settlers were not willing to risk their lives,
especially because Nicolls guaranteed them their freedoms and their estates. Therefore, on
September 8, 1664, the English seized New Netherland from the Dutch (Rensselaer 2007).
With the takeover of the British in 1664, New Netherlands was renamed New York
and many of the Dutch were pushed out. The settlers continued with their subsidence
agriculture, while other farmers created trade-centered communities. The biggest change in
the region during this period was the building of plantation-like farms, which would lease
land to the more ambitious farmer. Yet, during this time, there was a very important
expansion happening in New York City that once again had much to do with the Dutch
(Linder 1999).
Before 1790, following the British invasion, Brooklyn had become a Dutch
community of farmers. The Dutch were booted off Manhattan and moved to Brooklyn.
They created six townships of farming communities: Bushwick, Brooklyn, Flatbush,
Flatlands, New Utrecht, and Gravesend. By 1790, “Kings County had long been an
agricultural producer for the rest of New York City” (Linder 1999). These Dutch “ Farmers
there... were among the first to develop intensive agriculture in the United States and use
fertilizer” (Linder 1999) as well as produce enough to feed the entirety of the New York
population which even in the late eighteenth century was a large one with a huge prospects
of becoming larger. It is important to note that “[f]arming in the New York City Area... had
been devoted largely to grains and livestock [before 1790]” (Linder 1999), but by this time in
the late eighteenth century, many new types of crops had been introduced in Brooklyn.
Brooklyn produced mostly grains because chief amongst the crops of colonial New York

21
  

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

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

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

The lives of early New York colonists were very much intertwined with the lives of the
Lenape. Thus, the settlers were prevented from completely dominating the land, at first.
Though there was some European-American Indian trading practices before the official
establishment of any European colonies on the island of Manhattan, it was not enough trade
to change the environment of Manhattan at that time. During the early seventeenth century,
New York could not be completely urbanized because the Indians still occupied a large part
of the land (Kammen 1996). In fact, Manhattan's environment didn’t change until a while
after the colonists had settled. One of the earlier settlers even describes his surroundings as
wilderness and acknowledges the presence of many Lenape around him. Europeans would
spend most of the first half of the seventeenth century buying land from the Lenape
(Rodgers and Rankin 1948, Shorto 2005). Europeans had complete domination of the land
after a few European-Indian wars. Later in the seventeenth century, things in New York
changed dramatically. The economic climate changed, and markets were introduced (Duffy
1968). It happened slowly, at first, but Manhattan soon became highly urbanized and super
developed. The history of the Lenape and the Europeans in New York City reveals a steady
emphasis on food production and trade that laid the foundation for the later development of
markets.

Markets and Urbanization

What exactly is a market? For the purposes of this chapter, markets can be described
as systems in which goods are bought and traded (Stigler and Sherwin 1985, Gehlhar and
Regmi 2005). Many factors can contribute to the facilitation of goods sold or traded in a
market: the region in which the market exists, the people that the market serves, and the
economic climate in the environment (Gehlhar and Regmi 2005). Markets in colonial
America have a history of being complex and numerous (Breen 2004). Early complications
of New York markets could be a response to many factors, one of which is urbanization
(Stigler and Sherwin 1985, Gehlhar and Regmi 2005).
Urbanization is often seen as a factor that creates impersonal relationships between
people, ruins the environment, and causes the economy to soar. These depictions of

22
  

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

FINDINGS
Food markets in New York City increased in complexity from 1500 to 1790. By
about 1628, the population of Manhattan was at 270. At this time, Dutch colonists had
finally settled onto New York. The population continued to grow. They occupied most of
the land, but there were still a few remaining Lenape. Between the 1640s and 1650s, the
population size of New York increased exponentially. The population grew from about 400
or 500 people to approximately 1,000 people. By the year 1664, the population was at about
1,500 people (Cantwell and Wall 2001, Duffy 1968).
There were few but gradual changes in the types of food produced from 1500 to
1790. The only types of crops that were introduced in this three-century period were
cabbage, beans, pumpkins, leeks, gourds, squash, sage, onions, rosemary, mint, as well as
barley, buckwheat and oats. Although these crops may seem numerous, it must be noted that
there were 300 years between the time at which these crops were introduced and the time at
which they became fruitful. As mentioned, the significant changes illustrated in these
findings were not in the variety of crops but in quantity and in the type of farming that begot
them. Furthermore, the six towns of Brooklyn, which did so much for the feeding of the
city, have been virtually erased. These factors set up the stage for the beginning of a great
boom in commercial farming and production in general.

Figure 2.1
Main Crops Produced 1500-1790:

After 1614
Before and During 1500 (Settlement of the Dutch) After 1624-1790

• Corn • Oats • Corn

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

23
  

• Mint
• Sage

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

Tools needed: 12 plough shares with coulters, 1 first class wheel plow with pulleys, 12
two-prong hay and grain forks, 13 three-prong hay and grain forks, 100 iron teeth to
make harrows, 24 best scythes, 24 good reaping hooks, 50 steeled axes, 20
winnowing fans, 30 spades, 30 shovels, 30 hoes, 20 iron rakes, 12 hay knives (Oliver
1956, p.7)

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

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

In addition to these larger technologies, the Dutch used silverware made in Holland,
including items such as silver tankards, spoons, coffee-pots, teakettles, cups, salt-cellars and
pepper-pots (Earle 1896, 1968).
This new variety of products led to the creation of markets. The number of
marketplaces at such an early time is surprising, there was many as forty. Although several
market places have been discovered on or around the same locations, these markets were
presumably erected after the prior marketplaces had ceased to exist. Governor Kieft issued
many series of regulations that would control trade. Outside of the markets, no shops were
allowed to sell meat, fish, or fruit. Authorities required that food be sold strictly in
designated markets. There were also several regulations created to protect the public; there
were penalties for expired meat or stale bread, and many items had stamps that displayed
their weight before they were sold. Every day was a “market-day” except Sunday, which was
the day of rest. The markets were at several appointed locations. Over time the market
places began to have structure and organization. Eventually, market places were so well
supplied that the tables of New York were set with an abundance of the finest delicacies in
every season (Singleton 1930).
Map 2.1

24
  

Markets in 1695

(Rothschild, p. 60: Markets in 1695)

By 1661, according to Rothchild’s map, there was at least one market located very
close to the fort. New Amsterdam was still a small community, however, by 1695, three
more markets appeared at the fort, at Broad Street, at Old Slip, and at Coenties Slip. The
Old Slip market specialized in meats, while the Coenties market specialized in fish.
Specialization of products indicates a development in market structure. However, these
marketplaces differed in location than the primary market because they were concentrated
along the East River. The placement of markets at the edge of Manhattan Island infer that
they were constructed to serve the needs of the merchants and the people who worked on
the docks; they were not at the center of the town, catering directly to the residents. They
were more efficient for the merchants rather than the consumers. These early marketplaces
were outdoor stores; they eventually moved indoors in the eighteenth century (Rothschild
1990).
There were a few food shortages following the population boom. Because of the
food shortage, attention was drawn toward bakers. The production of breaded materials was
beginning to be heavily regulated; it was used as a staple food to avoid starvation in times of
bad crops. Soon after the regulation of bread, other food markets were further developed,
and regulated. In October of 1656, a meat market was officially established. Butchers were
sworn in, and certified. Because specialization was required to slaughter meat, butchers
charged for meat to make a living. Thus, organized markets came to exist. In 1659, a
baker and a butcher opened a shop in which they sold their specialized goods. There were
three reasons why regulations of food became important in New York after the population
exploded: there were several food shortages, there were plagues of diseases, and a more
efficient way to feed a population was needed. Not only was food regulated, but the
government also began to develop laws for sanitation. The biggest factor affecting the
attention paid to sanitation was the Bubonic Plague in London in 1665. After this plague,
people around the world began to notice the connection between dirt and disease, and
disease and close contact (Duffy 1968). New York was turning into a highly organized place
because of sanitation control and population growth. The regulations implemented created

25
  

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

West India Company’s Store

This stone warehouse was located on Winkle Street (which was also known as
Market Street), facing Fort Amsterdam. It consisted of five stone buildings, and was the first
regularly appointed marketplace. Before its construction, the Lenape mainly supplied the
inhabitants of New Amsterdam. At its beginnings, the store was not maintained well and
many complained that the goods were overvalued and unfairly priced. The storekeeper,
Ullrick Lupold was found corrupt, in fact. There was also much strife in the community
because of daily complaints made about the theft of livestock.
When Peter Stuyvesant was appointed governor, he made many changes regarding
these complaints. He put up proclamations in the public marketplaces that established
several rules:
1. All inhabitants of New Netherland were required to fence their plantations, (which
would control the problem of theft and robberies).
2. No person could keep a retail business unless they had taken an oath of allegiance to
New Netherland and planned to reside in the area for at least four years.
3. Mondays were the official market days for all traders, which included the Lenape.
Goods could be taken to the company store where they were sold or traded.
Stuyvesant helped the city become prosperous to the point where the influx of immigrants
was so great, that the food supply was threatened. By 1653, there was a shortage of food. In
order to control this situation, Stuyvesant enforced new regulations. The consumption of
grain by brewers was forbidden and exporting grain became prohibited. Although the city
felt drawbacks, Stuyvesant led New Amsterdam in as organized a fashion as he could (Voe
1970).

Market-Place at the Strand

During the two-year period when the residents of New Amsterdam were faced with
the food shortage, a new market place began to form. Instead of going to the Company’s
store, the traders chose to go to the shore of the East River to meet the market boats.
Eventually, the East River shore meeting place (the “strand”) became a popular location to
trade, and a market was erected from Whitehall Street to the “Graft” canal at the bottom of
Broad Street.
Market rules and regulations were soon required to keep up with an increasing
population. Monday became the declared official market day because it came after the
Sabbath on Sunday. However, people were not especially thrilled with this proposition
because it meant that the goods had to be prepared on Sunday so they could sell them on
Monday. Therefore, on September 12, 1656, Stuyvesant declared Saturday as the new market
day. Markets would be held at the strand, where everyone was permitted to enter and buy or
sell, but this soon changes.
By 1657, certificates of delivery were required for selling meat products that had to
pass a farmer’s inspection and required an accounted precise weight. Later, in 1658, a cattle

26
  

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

Custom-House Bridge Market

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

DISCUSSION
Part of our results revealed an increase in the complexity of food technologies used
during the colonial era. It appears that the Lenape and Dutch colonists' technologies were
suited to their respective lifestyles, but there were shared technologies between the Dutch
and the Lenape. One implication of these findings is that the more developed Dutch
colonial food technology replaced many of the natural methods used by the Lenape. The
data suggests that as trade increased between the two populations, it became more difficult
for the Lenape to maintain their simpler way of life. Certainly, looking back at the evolution
of New York City, we see the use of Dutch food technology such as plows and ovens more
so than the use of bows, arrows, and shells. Therefore, the changes in food technology
during the colonial era could be attributed to the population increase with the influx of
settlers. It could also be attributed to the fusion of different cultures. However, the data does
not account for the possibility of other social changes occurring within the Lenape and
Dutch populations at the time. Increased tensions and rivalry between the Lenape and
neighboring cultures such as the Mohawks and the Iroquian confederacy certainly could
have altered their use of technologies. In addition, the transformation of New Netherland
from a primarily trading company to an agricultural colony could also have impacted their
use of technologies during this period.
Despite the change in food technology, food production in the New Netherland area
did not change very significantly between 1500-1790. Before the settlement of the Dutch,
there was little European influence in the region; thus, corn was the main crop. One can

27
  

infer that the first century after the settlement of the Dutch, in 1614, was relatively
monothematic in terms of farming. The Dutch frequently grew oats and corn, and continued
to grow these things in their long inhabiting of the New Amsterdam area. Brooklyn became
a major supplier of vegetables for the area, since grain was no longer a great profit producer.
For some time, farming brought a great deal of revenue for the city. Additionally, there was a
great boom of production some time after the creation of the Erie Canal because there was a
larger trade market open for the little business savvy farmers of the New York City area to
take advantage of.
Our results revealed that the marketplaces that formed in New Netherland did so in
a very specific way. Other colonies came into existence for a multitude of reasons, but New
York was founded on trade and commerce, thus, the markets that formed are distinct to the
city. The findings suggest that that the food markets in New York City were fairly
developed. The condition of the economy in New York City was complex as well. The
settlers that colonized America were from fairly developed nations, and New York appeared
to be fresh land in which they could implement new economic goals for success. New York
seemed like a promising place in terms of economic capacity. The rate at which individuals
were moving into and investing in the city allowed for New York to advance its food market
system. The population growth and urbanization that occurred in this period called for a
more complex means of trade.
Several concerns arose during the research for this chapter, but the greatest concern
was the uncertainty of the accuracy of the research conducted during 1500 to 1790. Many of
the researchers translated important documents from Dutch to English and as a result some
information might have been misinterpreted. In addition, statistics from that time period
may not have been as trustworthy as they are today. For example, we now use a more precise
method of gathering and collecting information to be analyzed by computers. Now there are
also censuses that record trends and changes in our population. Seventeenth century New
York did not have such organized ways of storing data, so much of the information we have
today may have been determined based on less reliable methods.
There is also a very limited amount of information on the Lenape that lived in New
York before it was colonized. The relatively small amount of information we have about the
way the American Indians lived before contact with European explorers does not explore
every detail of their lives. The Lenape very well could have had complex markets; they could
have had an advanced sanitation system and have been experiencing a period of economic
growth and expansion. However, because we do not have detailed records of their culture
before European contact, it is difficult to determine how they lived. Finally, the one flaw that
may exist in the characterization of New York City is that there is not a detailed account of
the trading system that existed before the Dutch settlement. The city may have already been
prepared for an inevitable economic explosion and elaboration of markets upon the arrival
of colonists, and one cannot be sure how economically advanced the region was before it
experienced a population increase.

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

28
  

this history, it is apparent that market development occurred at the same time as population
growth because as more European settlers arrived, more formal markets were created. Both
the Lenape and the Dutch focused on agriculture as a means of food production. There
were few but gradual changes in the variety of crop that was cultivated in New York City
from 1500-1790, however, there was great change in the scale of production and the
locations in which agriculture was practiced. These changes are also attributed to the growth
of the New York City population in correlation to the amount of food the citizens needed.
As the population increased, a more elaborate method of food supply had to be constructed.
Therefore, trade became a prominent part of pre-colonial life in New York, and the Dutch
settlers strove to perfect their businesses by regulating the markets scattered along the
perimeter of Manhattan Island. The English who took over New Amsterdam in the
eighteenth century further developed the markets into fully functioning and well-established
centers of commerce. Markets from 1500-1790 started out as elementary and became
increasingly complex as time progressed.
Our findings demonstrated the simultaneous changes that occurred in population
growth and market development during colonial New York City. In the early 1600s, when
Europeans settled and began to urbanize the lands, food markets were created; as the
population of Europeans in New York increased, these food markets became more
developed and regulated. Colonial New York City used more complex methods of food
trade and regulation in order to properly accommodate its increasing number of residents.

REFERENCES

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

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

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

Breen, T. H. (2004). The Marketplace of Revolution: How consumer politics shaped

American independence. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

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

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

Greenwood Press.

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

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

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

29
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pursell, C. (1995, 2007). The Machine in America; A Social History of Technology

Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

30
  

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

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

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

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

Voe, T. F. D. (1970 ). Market Book. New York, A. M. Kelley.Wallace, E. G. B. M. (1999).

Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898. New York: Oxford University Press.

31
  

-4-
FOOD PRODUCTION IN NEW YORK CITY FROM 1790-1860
by Eli Bierman, Christina Borovilas, Melanie Boyce, Lucia Cappuccio, Khatiya Chelidze &
Stephanie Cherestal

INTRODUCTION
New York City today teems with life and boasts one of the most compelling reasons
to visit any location: incredible food. Thousands of restaurants, street vendors, and small
shops crowd the streets, offering the inhabitants a large variety of culinary delights. Poised
on the Hudson River, New York City benefited from the temperate climate and its bay,
which made foodstuffs plentiful and readily available. In today’s world, a rich assortment of
food is available for consumption, affected largely by the global market and cultural diversity
of Gotham. Centuries ago, however, it was more common to eat what was locally produced.
Local markets were accessible in many points throughout the city, particularly on the
island of Manhattan; New York City’s proximity to farmland and major waterways allowed
these markets to flourish. An increase in immigration to the city and population led to a
demand in agricultural goods, meats, fish, shellfish, and alcoholic beverages. The
accessibility of these products, especially fish and shellfish, was an important factor in the
availability and variety of goods found in the city’s markets, frequented by people of all
socio-economic backgrounds.
Consumption of these products increased over the time period of 1790 to 1860, and
was fueled by an ever- growing population. Agriculture provided the primary source of
income for many of the colonists who, especially during the earlier years, were self-sufficient
because of New York’s fertile and plentiful land. Technological advancements aided in the
production of foodstuffs, strongly affecting grain productions and the brewing process.
Advancements in transportation later became vital in supplying the city; as the value of land
increased, farming was pushed further away from the inner boroughs. Developments in
technology led to canals, steamboats, and railroads, all of which transported more products
eastward as less land became available for agricultural use.
New York City in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century was a
center for trade and contained active markets thanks to high availability of goods supplied
local land. During the years 1790 to 1860, consumption of agricultural goods, meats,
seafood, and alcoholic beverages increased tremendously. Demand grew and New Yorkers
expected to obtain a wide assortment of food products to suit their needs. Although
consumption grew, production gradually moved away from New York City as population
increased, and the metropolis came to rely heavily on outer portions of New York and
neighboring states to supply its ravenous inhabitants.

LITERATURE REVIEW

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

32
  

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

Consumption
During the 1790s, New Yorkers expected to obtain foods from their neighborhood
marketplaces; various items, such as produce, meat, seafood, and alcohol, were available for
sale and included in meals for people of all socio-economic backgrounds. Produce was
grown, meat was butchered, and seafood was caught locally. All collected, they were brought
to and sold in local markets. An area where businesses offered goods, services, and labor for
sale, markets flourished within New York City due to the close proximity to farmland and
waterways. A variety of trade professions were represented, including carpenters, grocers,
coach makers, and stonecutters (Burrows and Wallace 1999). Fly Market, Fulton Street
Market, and Harlem Market were popular places for shopping during this time.
During the 1820s, immigrants began to add to New York’s population in large
numbers. As the urban population in New York City grew, a large market for fruits and
vegetables arose. This demand was soon filled as farmers in nearby areas like Brooklyn and
Queens began to focus on growing fruits and vegetables to sell to New Yorkers.
The types of meat available for sale were influenced by local tastes; beef was especially high
in demand. In 1760, the consumption of fish per year rose by 23 percent (Hauck-Lawson &
Deutsch 2009). This change was brought on by the flourishing fishing industry; new cultures
added to the demand of fish, making the industry more productive. Oystering also saw a
major increase in production as its popularity increased both domestically and
internationally.
New York and Philadelphia had established themselves as prime centers for trade,
especially in the alcoholic beverage industry. Downard writes that more than twenty brewers
were working in the city from the years 1695 to 1786 (by comparison, there were no working
breweries in the city by the 1970s) (132). Despite these isolated industry centers, the
colonists soon realized that the ingredients conducive to good beer were simply not available
to them in their new land. Their British inclinations would soon be forced to change not
only in the vote, but also in the glass.

Production
In the British colonies of the United States, the primary source of income was
agriculture; 85% of colonists farmed for a living. They grew crops to sell and make a profit
rather than to merely feed their family. Farmers in New York typically grew corn, wheat,
barley, oats, and rye for profit. Each individual household commonly grew fruits and
vegetables in small kitchen gardens, so there was not much demand for large-scale
production of these items until later.
Important meats consumed included beef (cattle), pork (pig), and mutton (sheep).
Originally, these animals were raised and slaughtered within New York City. Afterwards, the
meat was brought over to local markets for sale and consumption. Beef was the most
profitable and popular of the meats due to its taste and texture. Wild game was also popular,
but once the first era of settlement passed, beef took prominence over other meats in New
York.
Many different kinds of seafood were found in New York’s surrounding waters,
including striped bass, cod, oysters, and clams. This gave consumers a wide variety of
seafood to choose from in markets. Fisherman and oyster merchants were able to make a
good living because of the dependability of their product. Fish and oyster demand during

33
  

this time were incredibly high because of their easy accessibility, almost effortless
production, and cheap price. Fishermen native to the Atlantic Ocean traded along foodways
to a variety of different ports and markets. Fisheries began humbly, slowly developing to
propel community interest in the fishing economy of local waterways like the Long Island
Sound and Hudson River. Oysters were cultivated by thousands of sea farmers, and
merchants sold millions of oysters every year.
During the early 1800s, the search for the new national American drink was
underway. Researchers have found countless recipes for beers in the records from this time.
These include instructions on how to make beer from the local crop, maize, ingredients like
grains and fruits, and even more unorthodox beers crafted from items such as “essence of
spruce” (Baron 1962), as well as traditional recipes based on barley and hops. This suggests
that there was a brewery in every home during the colonial period; this implies that much of
the brewing and distilling ‘industry’ was in fact a loose network of private home brewing at
this time. Some historians are now dubbing one of America’s greatest folk legends, Johnny
Appleseed, the “American Dionysus” because he “brought alcohol to the frontier” (Pollan
2001). Alcoholic beverages were deeply ingrained in the American daily way of life during
the colonial era, and this continued into the days of the early republic.

Technology
Progression in the creation of new technologies was relatively new during the first
half of the 19th century. Later developments, however, especially in the steel industry,
sparked a wave of advancements that would lead to less local trade and a greater dependence
on national markets.
In the early stage of American colonies, farming was done largely by hand.
Technology was not highly developed, nor was it readily available. Plows, now considered a
vital tool in agriculture production, were hard to come by. Technology improvement during
this time mainly affected grain production, which was no longer taking place in New York
City when significant advancements began to happen. Advances in fishing technologies,
based on what kind of fish fishermen were trying to seize, were relatively stagnant as well.
Hooks and nets were the preferred gear of choice. Instruments used for shellfish include
nets and cages (usually used for lobsters and crabs). Concerned more about the size of their
daily catches, fishermen left the expensive developments of safer gear for a later era.
Contrastingly, the brewing industry invented three items that would hold great importance:
the hydrometer, the thermometer, and the steam engine. Both the hydrometer (along with its
offshoot, the saccharometer) and the thermometer gave the brewer instruments to measure
and monitor processes more exactly, and the steam engine—which replaced horses—opened
possibilities of working with greater volumes in the brewery (Olsson 2010).
Advancements in transportation came to impact the exchange of various food
products, such as grains, wheat, corn, seafood, alcohol, sugar and meat. This trade of food in
turn had an enormous impact on the country’s economy. New York offered a multitude of
transportation options that allowed for trade over long distances. Canals were frequently
used in the early nineteenth century. One example is the Erie Canal, which shuttled
agricultural commodities. The steamboat, invented by Robert Fulton, was used in
conjunction with canals to provide a faster way to transport both people and goods than
horse ferries (Burrows and Wallace 1999). The steamboats ensured that New York remained
economically linked to the mid-west.
Railroads, adapted from the developed railways in England, were an important
technology as well. After the Reconstruction era, it was clear that railroads were needed to

34
  

shuttle settlers west and agricultural products east. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Companies were licensed in 1827 to build a steam railroad to the west. A number of shorter
lines were additionally built to provide connections to river systems, such as the
Pontchartrain railroad, which connected the Mississippi to Lake Pontchartrain in New
Orleans (Burrows and Wallace 1999). Beginning in 1840, refrigerated cars, patented by J.B.
Sutherland, were used to transport milk and butter. By 1860, refrigerated transportation was
limited to seafood and dairy products; later, there were various car designs based upon the
type of cargo, such as meat and fruit (Krasner-Khait 2010).

RESULTS
While compiling the research for this chapter, various trends in food consumption,
production, and trade became apparent from 1790 to 1860. Production and consumption of
meat, primarily beef, increased. This increase was also seen with fish and shellfish.
Consumption and demand for various alcoholic beverages rose dramatically, reached its peak
in 1830, and then later saw a steady decline. Agriculture and trade saw a subtle decline.

Meat
Types of meats
Common types of meats eaten in New York City between 1790 and 1860 included
beef, pork, mutton, veal, lamb, and poultry (Jackson 1995). These meats were consumed
because major ethnic groups in New York City retained their eating habits when they settled
in the New World; often they brought a taste for domestic animals with them. Occasionally,
wild meats such as venison, turkey, wildfowl, and small animals like rabbits were consumed
on special occasions (Oliver 2005). Domestic animals were found primarily on family farms
in the Colonial era into the late eighteenth century, but in the nineteenth century, an increase
in population and land value spurred an increasing arrival from areas outside New York City
(Well 2004).

Markets and population

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

The population of New York State and New York City

35
  

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

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

36
  

Figure 4.2 Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages and Absolute Alcohol

(Rorabaugh 1976)

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

37
  

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

Fish and Shellfish

The Hudson River, Raritan Bay, and Long Island Sound can all be found within the
confines of New York. The Hudson is located to the west of the Manhattan Island. Flowing
for over three hundred miles, the river serves as a boundary between New York and New
Jersey (Jackson 1995). It is home to hundreds of species of fish and shellfish (Levington &
Waldman 2006). Raritan Bay is located in the southern-most tip of New York. Throughout
the 1800s the bay was a vital area for fishing as well as clamming and oystering (Jackson
1995). Over-extraction of these resources led to the bay’s downfall; productivity peaked
around the late 1880s (USGS). The Sound can be found between Connecticut and Long
Island, New York. With about 1310 square miles of water stretching 110 miles long, the
Sound was home to a bevy of saltwater fish (Andersen 2004). Great prosperity came to the
sound for its whaling and sealing industry, but only for a limited time.
Colonists developed the Port of New York from the Upper New York Bay. Its size
and proximity to the open sea made it an ideal location for trading (Jackson 1995). So many
fishing vessels and merchants passed through the port to trade fish and other seafood that
by around 1850 it became one of the world’s most important ports (1995).
Deerfield, a town located in the upper mid-west of Massachusetts, provided a great
deal of fish to New York. Sold by the quintel, the most popular fish brought from Deerfield
to New York were salmon and shad. Fish in barrels were preserved by pickling; in the late
1700s, salt would become the main method of preservation (Benes 1984). Gloucester, also a
Massachusetts town, is located in the upper east tip of the state. Winter fishing was a very
popular occurrence in Gloucester for it brought year-round employment for fishermen
(Kurlansky 2008).

38
  

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

The most popular types of fish provided for New York City included cod, mackerel,
bluefish, striped bass, salmon, shad, and sturgeon. Eels and some species of sting ray (Clear-
nosed, Spotted, and Whip-Sting to name a few) were also sold in markets (De Voe 1867).
Fish were reared and locally brought to markets, or they were preserved and shipped to
trading ports to be sold. Menhaden, a miniature fish used mainly for oil and bait, was caught
around the metropolitan area.
Fishhooks, nets, and the occasional spear were most commonly used in procuring
fish. Passive gear, such as gill nets (nets attached to poles that could tangle a fish’s gills), fyke
nets (nets that trapped fish into pockets), and the classic hook-and-line fishing poles, relied
heavily on the movement patterns of the fish. The gear was kept still on the waterway’s
floor, then reeled up and brought to the surface once full of fish (Hubert 1996). Active gear,
such as dredges (half-oval shaped nets) and trawls (funnel-shaped nets), is attached to
moving vessels to capture fish as it moves along (Hayes, Ferreri, and Taylor 1996). Both
passive and active gears were used primarily during deep-sea fishing and could rear a great
amount of fish; fishing poles and spears were usually utilized in freshwater fisheries and
could only capture 1-2 fish at a time.
An assortment of fishing boats were used during the first half of the 19th century.
Schooners, a boat created in 1713, were “sleek, two-masted vessel[s] with fore–and-aft
rigging and the ability to put a tremendous amount of canvas in topsails” (Kurlansky 1997).
Their speed reduced sailing time between ports. Dories were smaller than schooners and less
heavy, making them easier to paddle until the boat was full of fish (Kurlansky 2008). Some
fishermen would unload their catches from the nets into cars. “Cars” (large covered boxes
floating in the water with cracks to keep water flowing in an out) would travel alongside
boats and were equipped to carry up to 4,000 pounds (McKay 1969).
In regards to the shellfish industry, the Hudson River was one of the most important
oyster areas not only because of its closeness to the heart of Manhattan and the seaport, but
also because of its prime conditions for oysters. Staten Island’s Raritan Bay, the Great South
Bay, Jamaica Bay, and the Long Island Sound were also home to many of the oysters that
were traded and sold in the city. Staten Island’s waters produced the greatest amount of
oysters in the city and were eventually some of the first to be depleted.
The demand for oysters in New York led to a depletion of oyster beds throughout
the city and forced farmers to find innovative ways to revive these habitats. Farmers began

39
  

to import oysters from out of state to replace the native oysters. The locations of these
oyster beds changed because of depletion and polluted waters. New transportation methods,
such as steamboats, canals, and railroads, increased the shellfish trade in and out of New
York and allowed oysters to be exported and imported more easily.

Agriculture and trade

Grain production
During the years between 1790 and 1860, grain production moved increasingly further
away from the city. When the Erie Canal opened, grains could be imported from interior
states at a lower price than it would cost to produce them closer to New York City. Many
farms around New York City that once produced grains, especially in Kings and Queens
County, began to focus more on fruit and vegetable production instead (Linder and
Zacharias 1999).

Technology and farming

As this machine-focused farming began to emerge, the shift of focus of agriculture in
New York from grains to fruits and vegetables also began to occur more rapidly. While corn
shelling was one of the most time consuming chores of farm life, this practice stayed
relatively constant until shelling machines were introduced in the early 1800s.
A-shaped drags were commonly used to break up soil. Hoes were used to plant corn, and
small grains such as wheat, oats, and rye were seeded by hand. Sickles were the main tools
used to reap the grain harvest until 1750 when the cradle scythe became popular. This simple
tool increased efficiency threefold. Small weeds were fought off with hoes, and flails were
used to thresh the grain. In New York, however, where a greater volume of grains were
produced, this method was not efficient enough. Farmers instead used horses and oxen to
tread on the grain to thresh it. Although this method was crude and not much faster, it
required less labor, and therefore kept costs down.
Winnowing, or removing the chaff from the grain, was done by hand by farmers until well
into the nineteenth century. Generally, the grain would be put in a basket and repeatedly
thrown into the air so that the chaff could fly away in the wind. This chaff blew into the
fields, which helped to fertilize them. Harvesting corn, also known as shelling, was also done
by hand and was very time consuming and labor intensive. This practice stayed relatively
constant until shelling machines were introduced in the early 1800s, but the chore was still
labor intensive (Hurt 2002).

Food consumption
The diet of New Yorkers did not change dramatically between 1790 and 1860, but one
significant change was the popularity of potatoes. The potato had been seen as a food fit for
hogs rather than people ever since it had been brought to America. Its production remained
low, and it would mainly be found growing in people’s home gardens. Around the year 1850,
however, the potato began to assert itself as a major starch in Americans’ and especially New
Yorkers’ diets (Hedrick 1933).

Agricultural trade
In different regions of the United States, certain agricultural products were better suited to
be cultivated, so oftentimes regions would specialize in producing and exporting different
foods. For instance, the New England region, while able to produce a variety of agricultural
goods, was never able to produce export goods comparable to those of the middle or

40
  

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

Figure 4.4 American crop yields in bushels per acre (Gallman 1791)

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

41
  

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

DISCUSSION
Consumption
Meat
The region of New York was settled by an ethnic mix, and the meats eaten reflected
characteristics of the people who settled there. (Oliver 2005) The Dutch brought cattle and
hogs to America and bought hardy beef cattle from New Englanders. The Dutch also ate
thick, Holland hogs and made certain to have a variety of domestic fowl, including chickens,
turkeys, and geese. Among affluent Dutch, meals consisted of mutton, beef, veal, and
poultry with seasoned vegetables (2005). It is interesting to note that a much greater amount
of meat was consumed in the New World than in Europe (2005).
The English took advantage of the New World’s climate because it was similar to the
country they had left behind. Pigs and cattle were raised on family farms and slaughtered in
the fall or winter to take advantage of the natural preservation that would occur in the cold
(Smith 2006). Beef was salted and smoked and sausage was occasionally produced. Mutton
was also consumed, but the consumption and use of the sheep itself depended on the value
of wool. Breakfasts for the wealthy usually consisted of chicken, ham, veal cutlet, beef, and
pork, along with various fruits and breads (Oliver 2005). English style boarding houses,
taverns, and chophouses were scattered throughout the city offering beefsteaks,
muttonchops, and broiled chicken (Grimes 2009).
The Germans were known for cooking salty meat and sweet fruit. They thus made
plenty of use of smoked ham and pork sausage. The Germans continued their meat-eating
habits from the old world, displaying a preference for pork, lamb, venison, turkey, chicken;
pork was consumed most widely (Oliver 2005).

Alcohol
In this age of extreme drinking in American history, it becomes of interest to address
the question of why people drank so much during the early nineteenth century, as the
reasons for consumption will have profoundly affected its rate. One frequently cited reason
for the circumstance of drinking is that of medicinal health. There is a perception among
scholars that alcohol was prescribed left and right.
One historian writes, “Doctors …suggested consumption of alcoholic beverages for
a wide variety of ailments” (Williams 1980). Not only was alcohol considered healthy, but
water was considered unhealthy. As a beverage, beer “was still required in New York during
the eighteenth century because the public water supply continued to be unsafe…people
would go on drinking manufactured beverages, preferably those with some alcoholic

42
  

content” (Baron 1962). The fact of alcohol’s prevalence as a medicine is reflected in the
positive attitude the general public had toward this beverage. “Most people thought whiskey
was as essential as bread” (Lender 1982). This also gave rise to a change in the way drinking
was displayed and perceived. Within the home, the religiously inclined society of the
nineteenth century northeast curbed any deviant and disturbing acts one may associate with
drunkenness. However, “The explosive growth in the number of taverns [in New York City]
between 1830 and 1860, [and] their roles as centers of working-class recreation and social
life” promoted an amazing surge in tavern violence and social conflict (Kaplan 1995).
It is in such behavioral issues that the origins of the Temperance Movement found
themselves. A desire to curb drinking existed even in colonial times, but gained speed during
the second quarter of the nineteenth century as the loss of certain religious, social, familial,
and institutional mores that controlled behavior became more and more apparent.
Temperance was a way to “re-establish control over the increasingly popular middle classes
making up the American ‘modern man’ (Grusfield 1986). This movement began in an
organized way with the establishment of the American Society for the Promotion of
Temperance in 1826, and continued until the prohibition of alcohol in 1920.

Fish and shellfish

Deep-sea fishing was the most popular form of fishing. The amount of fish brought
to markets from the sea spurred an increase in demand. Farmers living on New York City
and Long Island shores would also contribute to fishing production. Seen as a means to
supplement their income, farmers would often fish in their local fisheries. Afterwards, they
would either personally bring their catches to markets or load them onto boats that operated
between their towns and Manhattan (Jackson 1995).
In addition to deep-sea fish, oysters, which were native to New York City harbors,
were also very popular. Oyster consumption in New York City was so high that by the
1820s, most beds in New York had been overharvested and were nearly barren (Kurlansky
2008). With depleted beds, farmers had to come up with a way to keep oyster production
strong. They did this through a process called cultivation. Artificial beds would be created
where natural beds once stood and oysters from other locations would be brought in to
grow in the water. This oyster farming including planting seed, cultivating the bottom,
putting down shell material called cultch, and then transplanting and harvesting outside
oysters (Timmons et al 2004). By 1830, many of New York’s oysters were no longer natives
from the city’s waters. Cultivation allowed the city to continue to produce oysters even if
they were not naturally from New York.

Agricultural Products
The ethnic mix of people in New York City created a demand for a wide variety of
fruits and vegetables. Grain consumption generally consisted of wheat, barley, rice, and oats
from the Europeans with corn from the Native Americans, but fruit and vegetable
consumption was much more diverse. The influx of German and Irish immigrants changed
the market and created a demand for products like cabbage and potatoes. The market
responded to this demand by growing more potatoes and cabbages commercially, mostly in
Queens and Brooklyn. Racist attitudes towards the Irish, who were often thought of as
inferior to other white Europeans at the time, kept the “Irish potato” in America limited to
being merely a small garden crop for home use until around 1850, when potatoes began to
be more widely accepted in the American diet (Hedrick 1933).

43
  

Technology
Meat
As the United States entered the nineteenth century, the northeastern states were
becoming industrialized and rapidly growing in population, and therefore, increasing
amounts of foods were needed to sustain these regions. The development of steamboats and
the construction of the Erie Canal created a new passageway to ship from the interior of the
country to New York City in order to supply the ever-increasing demand for food. The Erie
Canal grew in significance and had considerable influence in shipping meat products from
the Midwest to New York City. Pork and beef packed in Chicago were regularly shipped to
the city through the water routes. The opening of the canal pushed horse, cattle, and sheep
production further from New York City. The Erie Canal remained economically competitive
until the development of road and refrigerated train cars, which led to a decline in bacon and
pork trade on the river (Clemen 1926).

Agriculture
The growing urban market in New York City created a demand for grains that could
not be met by local farms, which were now focusing more on fruits and vegetables. The
importation of grains was made possible due to the technological advances mentioned
previously, specifically the Erie Canal and steamboats. An illustration of this situation can be
seen in the New England area: “New England, an importer of certain kinds of food even
during the colonial period, became increasingly important as a food deficit area throughout
the 19th century…Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York actively imported western
foodstuffs as early as 1820 (Hilliard 1972).”
Through this data, it is clear that, when certain regions in the United States lacked
the ability to cultivate certain food products, they developed the ability to import what they
needed from distant regions with the help of new technologies. This is never clearer than
when one looks at the effect of trade in New York City: “Farming in the New York City
area, which had been devoted largely to grains and livestock, was transformed by the
opening of the Erie Canal in 1825. On the one hand, the canal made it possible to transport
grain cheaply from the Ohio Valley, where the cost of production was lower, to the
city…On the other hand, the canal helped spur the transformation of New York into the
country’s leading port and most populous city” (Linder & Zacharias 1999). We can see here
that the evolution of technology in New York not only helped to feed the city, but it helped
it to grow, both financially and in population.

Fish & Shellfish

Most advances in fishing technology during this time were made solely for the
reaping of more fish, not for safety precautions; fishermen didn’t see fish “as a finite
resource until the twentieth century” (Kurlansky 2008). Big catches equaled more money,
and fishermen were more interested in reaping a profit than taking cautionary actions. Small-
to-medium sized boats were ideal in the fishing industry for fish capture because fish tended
to steer clear of the larger ships, like steamboats. Because of this, boats were subjected to
dangers like capsizing or sinking under heavy loads. Though these dangers were present,
fishermen continued to overfill their boats for chances of more profit.
Several advancements in technology benefitted the oyster trade. The introduction of
the steamboat and steam technology increased trading between New York and other
locations, particularly Connecticut and Philadelphia. New York was also now able to ship
enormous quantities of fresh oysters upstate to Albany and to Europe as well as import

44
  

oysters from Long Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Steam powered dredges were
introduced to collect more oysters from the water. This new method increased the number
of oysters brought to the market dramatically. Because of the havoc it wrecked on beds,
however, the use of steam-powered dredges was soon banned in New York (Kurlansky
2008). The finished construction of the Eerie Canal in 1825 also brought more efficient and
profitable trade to the city. Connecting New York Harbor to the Great Lakes and Midwest,
the canal opened the oyster trade up to the western region of the United States, and helped
put more money in the hands of merchants. The rise of railroads had similar positive effects
on trade. Railroads to Boston, Washington, the Great Lakes, and the West allowed New
York oysters to be shipped out to these places on beds of ice (2008).

Production
Meat
After the Revolutionary War, thousands of settlers began to pour into the Ohio and
Mississippi valleys. Thus, the heartland of agricultural production in America was pushed
father west, away from Manhattan (Benes 1984). New York compensated by ensuring that
connections to the west were still established through the development of the Eerie Canal
(Burrows and Wallace 1999). As farmland disappeared from Manhattan, meats were acquired
from further locations, such as Westchester and Duchess counties, New Jersey, and New
England (Horowitz, Pilcher et al. 2004). The products of the farms of more northerly states
such as Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois could travel to Manhattan on the Eerie Canal (Danhof
1969).
Although most meat was imported, early New Yorkers were able to provide some
of their own food by keeping domestic animals; Manhattan was full of English Cattle, hogs,
sheep, and goats. As population increased, however, land became too valuable to use for
food production. Inhabitants of the city came to rely almost entirely on food through the
market. The practice of keeping domestic animals, particularly pigs, continued into the next
century, however, as signified by a succession of laws that kept them from running free
(Rothschild 1990). By the eighteenth century, most food came from the markets. The first
markets arose in the late seventeenth century, and slowly became more abundant; the
marketing system existed without any intermediaries. Legislation prevented middlemen from
buying cheap and hiking prices, and protected the quality of food. Meat, poultry, fish, and
produces were acquired on a daily basis (Rothschild 1990). It took a small amount of time
for a cattle market to develop in New York, although pigs were driven to market as well as
some wild game. Meat and poultry, though widely available in city markets, were often
expensive, even at a reduced price at the end of the market day. Thus many working class
wives kept their own animals, mainly pigs (Burrows and Wallace 1999).
Beef was a highly cherished domestic meat among European settlers. Within a
decade or two of colonization, raising cattle became an economically significant activity.
After the era of first settlement, wild food decreased in importance and beef predominated
over other meats. Most people preferred to eat beef fresh, but the fatty portions were corned
or salted; later, some of the corned or slated meat were smoked. Making sausage was another
way to preserve beef: Beef was produced on farms for family use, usually slaughtering in the
fall or winter to take advantage of natural cold for preservation, so that most was available
for use fresh. (Oliver 2005)

45
  

Fish & Shellfish

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

Agriculture
During the years between 1790 and 1860, grain production moved increasingly
further away from the city. As described above in the meat section, the location of major
farms began to shift west, and grains began to be imported along with meats. Although

46
  

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

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were exciting
moments in the history of New York City’s food and beverage production and
consumption. The onerous demand for goods that arose from the bustling city’s rapidly
growing population fostered an enormous boost in New York’s reputation as a center for
trade. Marketplaces expanded and popped up all over the city, and many different kinds of
meat, seafood, and produce were sold there. Alcohol likewise was produced heavily in New
York, and consumed both privately and publicly. The technological advancements that came
about in virtually every city food industry allowed for the movement of production from the
inner city center to the rest of the state, the rest of the region, and eventually, the rest of the
country. This chapter has outlined the boom in trade that occurred in the early nineteenth
century, its subsequent tapering, and eventual decline. This drama of trade is part of the
never-ending one that defines our city.

REFERENCES

Andersen, T. 2004. This Fine Piece of Water: An Environmental History of Long Island Sound. Yale
University Press.

Baron, S. (1962). Brewed in America: A History of Beer and Ale in the United States. Boston, Little,
Brown and Company.

Benes, P. & J. M. Benes. 1984. Foodways in the Northeast. Boston University.

Boyer, Paul S. "Brewing and Distilling." The Oxford Companion to United States History.
2001. Encyclopedia.com. (October 24, 2010).
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O119-BrewingandDistilling.html

47
  

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

Clark, John G. 1966. The Grain Trade in the Old Northwest. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Clemen, R. A. (1926). "Waterways in Livestock and Meat Trade." The American Economic
Review 16(4).

Danhof, C. H. (1969). Change in Agriculture : The Northern United Satets, 1820-1870. London,
Oxford University Press.

Davis, L. E., R. E. Gallman & T. D. Hutchins (1988) The Decline of U.S. Whaling: Was the Stock
of Whales Running Out? The Business History Review, 62, 569-595 %U
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3115618.

Downard, W. L. (1980). Dictionary of the History of the American Brewing and Distilling Industries.
Westport, Greenwood Press.

Galloway, J. H. 1989. The Sugar Cane Industry. Cambridge University Press.

Gallman, Robert E. "Changes in Total U.S. Agricultural Factor Productivity in the Nineteenth
Century." Agricultural History 46.1 (1972): 191-210. Print.

Grimes, W. 2009. Appetite City: A Culinary History of New York. New York: North Point Press 1st ed.

Grusfield, J. R. (1986). Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance
Movement. Chicago, University of Illinois Press.

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

Hedrick, U. P. (1933). A History of Agriculture in the State of New York. New York, Hill and
Wang.

Hewitt, J. H. 1993. Mr. Downing and His Oyster House: The Life and Works of an African
American Entrepreneur. In New York History, 228-252.

Hillard, Sam Bowers. 1972. Hog Meat and Hoecake: Food Supply in the Old South, 1840-1860. Southern
Illinois University Press.

Horowitz, R., J. M. Pilcher, et al. (2004). "Meat for the Multitudes: Market Culture in Paris,
New York City, and Mexico City over the Long Nineteenth Century." The American
Historical Review.

Hubert, W. A. (1996) Passive capture techniques. Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 157–192.

Hurt, R. D. (2002). American Agriculture: A Brief History. West Lafayette, Purdue University
Press.

48
  

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

Jones, K. A. (1851). Map of That Part of the City and County of New York North of 50th
St. . New York, M. Dripps.

Kaplan, M. (1995). "New York City Tavern Violence and the Creation of a Working-Class
Male Identity." Journal of the Early Republic 15(4): 591-617.

Krasner-Khait, B. "The Impact of Refrigeration." Retrieved October 5, 2010, from

http://www.history-magazine.com/refrig.html.

Kurlansky, M. 1997. Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World. New York: Walker and Co.

Kulansky, M. 2007. The Big Oyster: History of the Half Shell. New York, New York: Random
House Trade Paperbacks.

Kurlansky, M. 2008. The Last Fish Tale: The Fate of the Atlantic and Survival in Gloucester, America's Oldest
Fishing Port and Most Original Town. Random House, Inc.

Lender, M. E. L. J. K. (1982). Drinking in America: A History. New York, The Free Press.

Levinton, J. S. & J. R. Waldman. 2006. The Hudson River Estuary. Cambridge University Press.

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

McFarland, R. 1911. A History of the New England Fisheries: With Maps. University of Pennsylvania.

Moment, D. (1957) The Business of Whaling in America in the 1850's. The Business History Review, 31,
261-291 %U http://www.jstor.org/stable/3111833.

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

Oliver, S. L. (2005). Food in Colonial and Federal America. Westport, Greenwood Press.

Pollan, Michael. (2001). The Botany of Desire: A Plant's-Eye View of the World. New York,
Random House.  

Rothschild, N. A. (1990). New York City Neighborhoods; The 18th Century. London, Academic
Press, Inc.

Rorabaugh, W. J. (1976). "Estimated U.S. Alcoholic Beverage Consumption, 1790-1860."

Journal of Studies on Alcohol 37(3): 357-364.

Smith, D. V. (2006). Staten Island: Gateway to New York. Chicago, Arcadia Publishing.

49
  

Tanner, H. S. (1835). City of New York. Philadelphia, H. S. Tanner.

Timmons, M., G. Rivara, D. Baker, D. Barnes & K. Rivara. 2004. New York Aquaculture
Industry: Status, Constraints and Opportunities. Ithaca, New York: Cornell
University.

Voe, T. F. D. 1867. The Market Assistant: containing a brief description of every article of human food sold in the
public markets of the cities of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Brooklyn; including the various
domestic and wild animals, poultry, game, fish, vegetables, fruits &c., &c. with many curious incidents and
anecdotes. Hurd and Houghton.

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

50
  

-5-
Feeding the Hand that Bites
Metropolis Market Madness in New York from 1790-1860
by Ralph Dweck, Maria Enache, Kimberly Fung, Eon Goldson, Rachel Ilg

INTRODUCTION
Patience. It is something not many New Yorkers have, especially when it comes to
food. Today we expect to be able to have whatever we want to eat, whenever we want, in
the vast city of New York. Diners serve almost any meal imaginable, bodegas are open
24/7, food is served rapidly on the street, and we almost never cook at home. The food
industry has catered to our every want, need, and convenience. You may think that in the
18th and 19th Century, getting food was not as convenient as it is today. However, street
vendors could be found on almost every block, peddling their oysters, fruits, vegetables and
even meat.
Because only lower Manhattan was developed during this time, all markets around
1830 were found below present-day Fourteenth Street. One might ask how this came to be.
How did the locations of these markets change from 1790 to 1860? What were these
markets like, anyways? How was food processed and delivered to the market?
A general pattern seems to appear as far as the locations of these marketplaces and
how that changed. In actuality, the markets themselves generally did not relocate. In the
earliest portion of this time there were five main marketplaces approved by the Committee
on Markets. By 1832 there were twelve, and this number grew to forty by 1861 (Jackson
1995). As more of Manhattan was developed, newer markets were built further and further
North. Of these markets almost none relocated.
To better understand the research findings summarized previously, a clear and
organized structure is to follow. The pertinent fields of interest will be elaborated upon in
the “Literature Review” section. The results themselves are stated under “Results and
Findings” and then briefly analyzed in the “Discussion” section. Finally, a short summary
may be found in the “Conclusion.”

LITERATURE REVIEW
To better understand what exactly these markets were like, the field of literature
reviewed was primarily non-fiction narrative. One main question was, “what is a market?”
The first example of a market was simply the area of land dedicated to trading between the
Native Americans and the early settlers of New York. As it is used in this paper, a market is
referring to the official establishments that were approved by the law. In fact, there were
many laws regulating these early markets. One law banned any residents from transacting in
sales outside the official markets (Jackson 1995). This rule remained until 1841.
Additionally, trade with slaves and Indians in the market was outlawed for “promoting
disease” (Jackson 1995). Early markets even sold slaves along with food. Subsequently,
mostly white men and women were found shopping in the early market.
Among the most highly esteemed individuals at the market, and in the entire city,
were the butchers who, “…usually wore high hats and long-tailed coats” (Jackson 1995).

51
  

The clerk, who often lived in a residence within the market, was also greatly appreciated
(Ground Plan of the 12 Markets of New York, 1832).
One way in which we know what the markets of New York were like is by studying their
problems, which arose within and around them. Space was one major issue. Many farmers
ended up desperate when they could not find or afford a stall to sell their goods in any
markets. This made them vulnerable to exploit by “forestallers” who would buy their
products for low value.
Disease also interrupted the functioning of markets, specifically yellow fever
epidemics in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. All the certified butchers abandoned the
markets in areas with the fever due to a lack of business and sanitation. Subsequently, the
residents in these areas were forced to buy from “shark” butchers who were not necessarily
trained to prepare meat.
In the typical market, one could walk in and buy grains, fruits, vegetables, seafood,
and meat. The architecture had a square shape, most commonly, with stands separated by
large circumferential aisles. The butchers’ stands occupied most of the space in all markets.
In order to enjoy beverages such as alcohol, however, locals could venture to taverns and
bars.

Grains
The early 1800s saw many improvements in transportation, especially beneficial to
the east coast. Several canals were opened in the 1820s such as the Champlain Canal and the
Delaware and Raritan Canal. After the War of 1812, Dewitt Clinton proposed the grand idea
of constructing the Erie Canal from Lake Erie to Albany. Railroad construction also
developed by 1860. In 1853, Erastus Corning, a merchant, linked several small lines and
created the New York Central railway network. By 1860, New York had effectively adapted
to the railroad phenomenon and established its hold on the continent (Well 2004).
There were different advantages and disadvantages to railroads and canals. Railroads
required less initial investment, had more direct routes, and worked during winters unlike
canals, which froze during cold times. However, there was no unity between the many
railroads, so costs were higher and efficiency was lower in the beginning. In the late 1840s,
however, railroads worked towards fixing these issues, and surpassed the canals.
Transportation proved to be a main aspect of the grain industry in New York in the early
1800s, and its changes therefore coincided with new grain processing and production
developments (Well 2004).

Fruits and Vegetables

Production on market gardens, or fruit and vegetable farms, developed strongly
during the nineteenth century in Kings County (Linder and Zacharias 1999). Queens County
farmers experienced similar developments and engaged with farmers in Kings County
(Linder and Zacharias 1999 p. 53). Both of these counties underwent a systematic
suburbanization, losing their rural identity, and in turn began producing food for
overcrowded markets.
Changes in transportation were pertinent to the changes in the production of fruits
and vegetables as well. The growth of shipping outlets, in general, opened New York State
farmers to move from subsistence farming to focus on selling their product for profit
(Parkerson 1995). For the most part, though, the changes in transportation did not bring
fruit and vegetable production away from New York City. This is because fruits and

52
  

vegetables were too perishable and too heavy to allow for cheap, long distance shipping
(Linder and Zacharias 1999 p. 24).

Meat
New York’s markets were composed of stalls allotted to butchers, fish stalls, and
separate areas for farmers to sell their produce. All the city’s markets were constructed
following a similar design: The meat stalls were located in the covered “upper market”,
which was set aside for the licensed butchers by city officials, while farmers’ stalls were
placed in the open-air “country” or “lower” market (Lee 2008 p. 195). “The [meat] stalls
were simple affairs, with a wooden table upon which to cut meat and a few hooks on upright
posts to hang the joints and other large pieces. Often the butcher’s wife handled the
transactions while the butcher did the cutting, with the apprentice then conveying the meat
to the customer’s residence” (Lee 2008 p. 169). The meat stalls throughout the public market
system were operated in a similar manner.
"However in 1841, they began to sell meat from shops…The public preferred the
shops, and thus shops came to eclipse the public markets” (Hauck-Lawson 2010 p. 154-5).
These meat shops were not owned nor regulated by city officials, but instead by butchers.
Therefore, the primary food distribution mechanism changed from public markets to
privately-owned shops by the middle of the nineteenth century.
However before the meat could be sold to the city’s residents for consumption, it
was a live animal transported from the stockyard to the slaughterhouse and lastly to the
market. A stockyard was where the live animals were kept before they were transported into
the city for slaughter. A slaughterhouse, often called an abattoir, is a facility where the animal
is killed for food. The public slaughterhouse, which was regulated by municipal officials and
the slaughterhouse owner, was abolished in 1790. As a result in 1806, the Common Council
appointed butchers as inspectors to regulate the slaughterhouses, enforce the laws, and
punish those who disobeyed the law. When the city officials started to lose their regulating
powers, the slaughterhouses became largely independent (Lee 2008). The last stop for the
butchered animal, after additional processing, would be the market where it is sold as meat
to consumers.

Seafood
Fish and shellfish thrived in the markets from 1790 to 1860 because they were
affordable and considered to be delicious by many. Some poor families lived only on oysters
and bread (Hauck-Lawson and Deutsch 2009). Some farmers supplemented their income by
fishing, if they lived close enough to shore. “The tremendous variety of fish in the harbor
and [New York’s] rivers, like oysters, provided the livelihood of many New Yorkers. By
tradition, a poor family, short of money, could always gather oysters or catch a fish for
dinner” (Kurlansky 2006).
Oyster markets in Manhattan were actually barges, not buildings, lined up in groups
along the waterfront. They were two stories high with packaging and distribution located on
the first floor and offices on the second (De Voe 1866). These oyster markets sold
wholesale to street vendors as well as those who owned oyster bars. The oyster markets
themselves received the oysters straight from the schooners and skiffs that caught them
(Kurlansky 2006).
“From the 1830s to 1870s oyster bars enjoyed great popularity in New York City,
which was surrounded by waters containing enormously rich oyster beds” (Jackson p. 870).
An oyster bar was a restaurant in the cellar of a building that served mainly oysters, and beer

53
  

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

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

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

54
  

Map 5.1 Raritan Bay and the East River, Manhattan

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

55
  

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

From 1790 to 1860, location of each market did not change, but rather
rearrangements within markets took place, as well as new markets being built. Rules and
regulations seemed to keep markets within certain limits allowing only price and presentation
to change, and only slightly.

Grains
During our researched time period, markets were always located along the edges of
Manhattan, with the exception of one on Broadway. During the beginning of the research
period, transporting food was difficult and expensive, therefore most production and
marketing was local (Rothschild 1990). According to Figure 2.26 in Rothschild’s New York
City Neighborhoods, in 1797 there were six markets in New York City, five by the East
River and one on Broadway, four blocks up from Wall Street. Map 5.2 below has the
markets marked with triangles.

Map 5.2 Markets in 1797 (Rothschild 1990)

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

56
  

Map 5.3 Markets in 1808 (Rothschild 1990)

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

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

57
  

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

Map 5.4 The Eerie Canal (Abbott 1852)

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

58
  

The foundation of grain processing was milling. Mills had existed prior to the time
period focused on. However, the 1790s were the beginning of a new era for the milling
industry. In 1795, Oliver Evans published “The Young Mill-Wright and Miller’s Guide” as
the first technical manual in the industry. He enforced the idea of a mechanized mill, where
the ingredients would be moved through by machinery, not people, as had been the custom
until then. Evans described a system of automatic devices all connected by chutes and bins.
Soon after, mills along the Eerie Canal were created and they adopted his technology. The
improvements and addition of machinery to mills allowed for finer and more consistent
grains (Howell and Keller 1977).
Mills, during this time period, existed everywhere, including New York City and
regions like New England. Grain mills were powered by water and contained wheels made
of wood. Therefore, mills were either built on natural waterfalls or the construction of dams
was required. Basically, the water would be directed to the water wheel along a channel and it
would then put the wheel into motion. The wheel, in turn, drives the motion of a central pin
that then activates the machinery. This activated one of the two burr stones and then the
kernels of the respective grain were ground between the stones (Howell and Keller 1977). In
“The Mill at Philipsburg Manor: Upper Mills and A Brief History of Milling”, the three types
of breastshot wheels are described: the low, middle and high wheel, along with the
undershot and pitchback wheel. The breastshot wheels only differ in the fact that water
passes under for the low and middle wheel, while it passes over for the high wheel. The
overshot wheel has the head of water that powers it directly above, causing the water to
strike the wheel at its highest point. The water strikes the pitchback wheel just at the back of
the highest point. There was much debate and discussion over which style was actually the
most effective, but usually, it was said that the overshot and pitchback methods were most
efficient (Howell and Keller 1977). By the mid-nineteenth century, millers were able to
process wheat so that the bran surrounding the grain came off in big flakes, better separating
the white section of the wheat. Due to these capabilities, white bread became popular by
1860. (Frisch 2008)

Fruits and Vegetables

As cities grew and industrialization began, including the milling advancements
previously mentioned, there was a shift in the desires of farmers. Those who owned farms in
the Northeast noticed the shift in prices of everyday items that were originally expensive,
and sometimes considered luxuries. A grandfather clock would cost around $60 in the early
nineteenth century, which was more than the value of all household goods combined in
farmhouses; however, several decades later, simpler wall clocks could be had for just $3
(Parkerson 1995 p. 11). Even necessary household items grew drastically cheaper in just a
short period of time; a wool mattress cost $50 in 1811, but was replaced by a cotton mattress
that cost $35 within ten years. This price fell to $12.50 in the 1830s, and eventually became
just $5 by the 1850s.
The work related expenditures of farmers also changed during this time period.
Hired labor toward the end of this time period had become scarce and more expensive
(Parkerson 1995 p. 13). Potential farm workers instead pursued income elsewhere, as in the
gold mines of California, or cheaper land in the West that was often subsidized by the
government. Furthermore, with the growth of cities many bright, young, spry workers were
leaving farms for jobs in manufacturing and trade. In addition to bearing down and paying
the higher wages for labor, the farmers also invested in new equipment. Most of the
equipment did not consist of any drastic innovation, rather each piece was a mild

59
  

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

60
  

value of market garden products produced in Kings County rose from about 24,000 to
approximately 319,000.
The proliferation of production was not without the proliferation of buyers. In fact,
most markets were so densely filled with those in demand that some sellers would cart in
their product and sell out before daybreak (Linder and Zacharias 1999 p. 53). Buyers were so
abundant that no regular relationships were formed between growers and grocers, and cash
was always exchanged in lieu of keeping accounts.

Meat
Just as grains, fruits, and vegetables were grown outside the market, meat's
processing began at the slaughterhouses. It was there that live animals were early on,
transformed into meat for consumption. In 1790, the public slaughterhouse located at
Corlear’s Hook near Jackson and Water Streets was abolished. Butchers had wanted to
remove the restrictions on slaughtering because it prohibited the killing of livestock on
private property (Burrows 1999 p. 355). Meanwhile, “the city’s meat-processing industry
expanded outward from the Bull’s Head Tavern, abattoir, and stockyards. In the early 1800s,
as additional butchers herded into the area, slaughterhouses multiplied along Chrystie and
Elizabeth Streets” (Burrows 1999 p. 389).

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

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

61
  

and crafted an alternative retail outlet – largely unregulated, independent slaughterhouses”

(Lee 2008 p. 191).
As the control of municipal authorities was broken down, the number of
independent slaughterhouses increased. Thus “by the early 1860s, there were over two
hundred largely independent slaughterhouses located mostly in the Lower East Side” (Lee
2008 p. 193). The great increase in the number of slaughterhouses in the city indicated the
success of the meat industry’s development and attributed to New York City’s growing
significance in America’s meat-processing industry.
After the animal was slaughtered, the butcher had to prepare the meat for sale in the
market. Butchers adjusted their preparation methods and cuts in order to meet the
preferences of consumers. In New York City, “fresh beef was clearly the most desirable
meat” (Horowitz 2006 p. 20). However, beef was an inconvenient meat to preserve because
beef became tough and unpalatable with the severe salting method used on pork. Also,
refrigeration was not yet available. Refrigeration was not adopted into production and
distribution until 1856. Thus, the cattle had to be slaughtered close to the time of sale and in
small amounts to prevent the beef from putrefying. During the summertime, slaughtering
occurred at night, so the meat would not spoil before coming to the market. “Butcher
Thomas De Voe decried the preferences of New York shoppers who “would rather pay
their last dollar for half as much meat in an expensive steak or chop, than purchase
inexpensive cuts” (Horowitz 2006 p. 20).
After the meat was prepared for consumption, it had to be transported to the
markets. Many butchers relied on licensed cartmen and wagon drivers to transport their
meat to the market. Cartmen often traveled on Mulberry Street, sometimes called
“Slaughterhouse Street” at the end of the 18th century, to get to the city’s markets. In Map
5.4, cattle are driven to the slaughterhouses north of Division Street. Once the animals are
slaughtered, the hides and byproducts are sold to their respective trades people for
transportation to their own premises. Lastly, the butchers would transport the meat to the
market (Lee 2008).

62
  

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

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

63
  

Figure 5.3 Catharine Street Market, 1850 (Horowitz 2006)

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

64
  

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

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

In 1824, 4 of the markets (1, 4, 6, 7) were located along the East River with 2 (5, 9)
by the Hudson River and the other 4 spread out through the city. A mega-market was
located at the side of each river. The Fulton Street Market could be considered the “city’s
first “mega”-market” because when other markets typically contained 10 or 20 butcher stalls,
the Fulton Market accommodated around 89 stalls (Lee 2008 p. 193). The Washington
Market was even larger and after several expansions, it became the “largest municipal market
in the industrialized world” (Lee p. 193). A mass of butchers lived nearly Bowery Street,
which was where the slaughterhouses of the city were located (Refer to Map 5.6).

65
  

Map 5.7 Ground Plan of the 13 Markets in New York City (Imbert 1833)

From 1800 to 1835, the city constructed the most public markets because the
number doubled. Figure 5.4 displays a ground plan for the 13 markets to be constructed
during the 19th century. However in 1843, “the city council legalized meat sales in private
stores. By 1850 there were 531 butcher shops scattered through the city in addition to the 11
public markets” (Horowitz 2006 p. 25) Thus, there was a shift from public markets to
privately-owned stores with a greater distribution throughout the city.
The following statement summarizes it all: “it has become fashionable to have a meat
shop on almost every corner” (Horowitz 2006 p. 25). Thus, the number of markets including
the butcher shops increased from 1790 to 1860.

Seafood
Both the Fulton and Catharine Fish Markets received many types of fish and
shellfish. Generally they carried fresh-water, salt-water, and fish that lived in both
environments such as salmon, shad, and smelt. Oyster, mussels, and lobsters could also be
found in shellfish stands. Oysters, in particular, were more popularly eaten in oyster bars or
on the street from vendors.
The Catharine Market, which thrived throughout the early and middle nineteenth
century, eventually became known as the “great fish market” (De Voe 1866). In comparison
to earlier markets, some located on top of the sewer system, the Catherine Market truly was
great for fish. It held a prime location on the East River between the water itself and
Catharine Street. Initially this market-house was “nearly filled with butchers, leaving but a

66
  

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

Map 5.8 Catharine Fish Market with 14 Stands (Imbert 1833)

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

67
  

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

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

68
  

Figure 5.5 Thomas Downing (Kurlansky 2006)

The inside of Downing’s oyster bar was perfectly suited for its customers. The
clientele included important politicians, businessmen, and oyster captains. Also women, not
prostitutes as in the less expensive oyster bars, were allowed to accompany their husbands to
the bar. Because he owned an oyster bar, and knew every wealthy, respectable individual in
New York, Downing was considered one of the most respected black men in pre-Civil War
New York (Kurlansky 2006).
Thomas Downing’s oyster bar was not just a place for eating oysters and drinking
champagne. Many men, including the businessmen and politicians, would meet at
Downing’s to do business. It was there that deals were made, checks were signed, and
oysters were eaten.

Beverages
Early American settlers made different beverages including cider, brandy, and rum.
The government tried to control consumption, but distilled spirits were still fully enjoyed. At
the time distillation was decentralized, meaning it moved from being controlled by the
central government to the local government. This decentralization meant that there was no
mass production of the spirits. In the American Revolution, the British wound up cutting
Americans off from molasses and rum imports so Americans turned to whiskey, which the
government began to tax starting in 1790. The beginning of the Industrial Revolution
happened to come at a time when Americans relied heavily on alcohol. Throughout the
Revolution we see a huge peak and also fall-off of alcohol use. Whiskey was cheaper and
easier to make a profit off of for western farmers than corn. Since the west did not have as
much access to the waterways as the east, they needed a way to avoid loss of profit and
goods. Consequently, the western farmers distilled corn into whiskey, which enabled a safer,
more economical travel to the east. Whiskey, the specialty of the Scotch-Irish immigrants
was produced in Kentucky because that was where these immigrants settled (Pennock p.
504). According to Rorabaugh, “by the 1790’s an average American over fifteen years old

69
  

drank just under six gallons of absolute alcohol” (p. 17). This surprisingly was not a strong
concern for everyone at the time.
By the 1820’s whiskey sold for “twenty-five cents a gallon, making it cheaper than
beer, wine, coffee, tea, or milk. In many places whiskey was also less dangerous than water
which was frequently contaminated” (Rorabaugh p. 17). Less dangerous than water and the
cheapest drink on the market, alcohol catered to Americans, resulting in many alcoholics.
Following the peak of alcohol consumption, came the temperance movement led by
religious heads and doctors. Doctors claimed that the overuse of alcohol was very unhealthy
and the ministers attacked the use of alcohol by calling it a sin (Rorabaugh p. 17). “Both the
Quakers and Methodists had urged their members to abstain from hard liquor and its
manufacture and sale” (Lender and Martin p. 34).
The main problem with alcohol consumption during the Industrial Revolution was
the effect it had on the workers and their work. The factory owners could not deal with
drunkenness on the job, for a plethora of reasons. The main reason being that the alcohol
made the workers careless and inefficient. “As new machines and technologies were
developed, more specialization, precision and speed were required from the workers, and
those who drank became a risk to employers and their fellow workers” (Engelmann p. 12).
The abuse of alcohol was thereby working adversely against the Industrial Revolution,
affecting it in horrible ways. Without responsible workers to deal with the technology of the
revolution, the work that America needed to do in order to become an independent nation
would never have been done.

DISCUSSION
It is noticeable that the location of the markets changed greatly over the time period
from 1790 to 1860. Markets were originally placed on slips at the foot of major streets. The
waterside location was more convenient for the butchers to transport their meat, and for
farmers who brought their produce into the city, as well as for the transportation of fish and
other food. However over the years, “markets were located along the waterfront on both
rivers, and they were spaced at rather uniform intervals” (Rothschild 1990 p. 57). Since the
population of the city had increased, the market locations were shifted more towards
consumer demand as opposed to the seller. The consumers were the ones purchasing the
food products, and increased population meant a greater amount of food needed to be
distributed to a greater mass of people. Thus, the locations of the markets had to be spread
out more to allow greater access to the food. Consumers were also petitioning the Common
Council to open markets in their neighborhoods because it became very inconvenient for
consumers living away from the waterfront to obtain their food supplies. Thus, the basis of
market location was shifted to consumer demand which led to a more even spread of food
distribution venues.
Also due to the lack of commercial and home refrigeration, meat was obtained from
cattle slaughtered at the source and close to the time of sale. Refrigeration was not used in
transportation until the invention of refrigerated freight trains, so locations closer to the
municipal markets were used by butchers transporting their meat from the slaughterhouse to
keep their meat from putrefying before arrival. It is possible that this lack of refrigeration
was the cause of diseased meat and oysters.
Other successes were purely the result of circumstance. The wide availability of
manure, for example, cannot be understated in the success of market gardening. Intensive
farming, which is specialization in a specific crop and the backbone of fruit and vegetable

70
  

production, often robs land of its fertility after long periods of time. The general availability
of manure from carriage and wagon pulling animals was one of the strongest tools available
to these farmers. A much more efficient use of waste is the epitome of how the city and the
farms held a mutually beneficial relationship. More importantly, though, this is directly
related to growth in New York City as a metropolis.
Effectively, the model exemplified by nineteenth century New York City may still
apply to other countries where development is beginning to accelerate. In all phases of a
city’s development, constructing an efficient supply system is integral to continued growth.
All the more so, in a developing city, efficiency is crucial to maximizing the city’s potential.
Part of the reason New York City was able to grow tremendously during this period was the
way that its supply system was shaped, particularly being replenished with an abundance of
freshly grown fruits and vegetables, grains, seafood, meat, and beverages.

CONCLUSION
The food-lifestyle in the city of New York from 1790 to 1860 may not be so
different from that of today. The technology and the new forms of transportation helped to
increase the sale of goods because production could be changed in order to suit different
purposes. Food could be found on every block either in a market, being sold by a street
vender, or for alcohol and oysters, at a bar. While markets did not often relocate, the
number and location of stands dedicated to the sale of certain foods within them did.
Additionally, new markets were built so that by 1861, New York housed 40 officially
recognized markets. As the efficiency of food distribution increased, it became more
convenient for New York residents to purchase food for consumption.
As this research ultimately shows, some of the success of the supply system in New
York City can be linked to unique circumstances and luck. The geographical and
infrastructural elements cannot necessarily be replicated in other situations. Still, an analysis
of what led to the success of these New Yorkers can lead to critical analyses of other systems
at various points. In all scenarios, relevant questions will always exist pertaining to the
incentive of certain producers to actually produce. What they will create and how they do it
is something that depends on what is the highest incentive to them. Furthermore,
eliminating waste of resources is vital to creating the greatest benefit to producers and
consumers. Waste is not only limited to physical capital being unused; avoiding waste means
using human capital for the labor that it is best equipped to undertake. Together,
circumstance and efficiency brought the markets of nineteenth century New York great
success, which in turn helped the city grow.

REFERENCES

(1832). "The ground plan of the twelve markets in the City of New York: approved by the
Market Committee."

(1833). "The ground plan of the thirteen markets in the City of New York: Market
Committee."

(1995). The Encyclopedia of New York City. In The Encyclopedia of New York City, ed. K. T.
Jackson. New York: New York Historical Society.

71
  

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

Bidwell, P. W. & J. I. Falconer. 1941. History of Agriculture in the Northern United States, 1620-
1860. New York: P. Smith.

Burrows, E. G. a. W., Mike. 1999. Gotham : a history of New York City to 1898. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Collaborative (October 2, 2010). Fulton Fish Market, Wikipedia.

De Voe, T. F. 1862. The market book : containing a historical account of the public markets of the cities
of New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Brooklyn, with a brief description of every article of human
food sold therein, the introduction of cattle in America, and notices of many remarkable specimens.
New York.

De Voe, T. F. 1867. The market assistant, containing a brief description of every article of human food
sold in the public markets of the cities of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Brooklyn; including
the various domestic and wild animals, poultry, game, fish, vegetables, fruits &c., &c. with many
curious incidents and anecdotes. Riverside Press.
De Voe, T. F. 1970. The market book; a history of the public markets of the city of New York. New
York: A.M. Kelley.
Engelmann, L. 1979. Intemperance - The lost war against liquor. New York: Free Press.

Frisch, T. 2008. A Short History of Wheat. In The Valley Table

Grimes, W. 2009. Appetite City: A Culinary History of New York. New York: North Point Press.
Hauck-Lawson, A. and J. Deutsch (2009). Gastropolis : food and New York City. New
York, Columbia University Press.

Horowitz, R. 2006. Putting Meat on the American Table (Taste, Technology, Transformation).
Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Howell, C. & A. Keller. 1977. The Mill at Philipsburg Manor Upper Mills and A Brief History of
Milling New York: Sleepy Hollow Restorations, Inc.

Images, C. (1869). "1869-New York, NY: Fish stand in Fulton Market, N.Y. 1869.
Illustration.". from http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/B97FF619-77E2-
49BB-85AB-D83E1CA745E2/BE047938.jpg.

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

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

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

72
  

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

Lee, P. Y. 2008. Meat, modernity, and the rise of the slaughterhouse. Hanover: University
Press of New England.
Linder, M. & L. Zacharias. 1999. Of cabbages and Kings County : agriculture and the formation of
modern Brooklyn. Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa Press.

Martin, M. E. L. J. K. 1982. Drinking in America: A History. New York: The Free Press.

New York Times, The. September 20, 1860. Live Stock Markets. In The New York Times.
Olson, S. 1985. Alcohol in America: Taking Action to Prevent Abuse. Washington D.C.: National
Academy press.

Parkerson, D. H. 1995. The agricultural transition in New York State : markets and migration in mid-
nineteenth-century America. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Pennock, P. E. 2003. Spirits Industry. In Dictionary of American History, 504-505.

Reese, J. 2010. Bull's Head Tavern: Then. In Knickerbocker Village. New York.
Rorabaugh, W. J. (1976). Estimated U.S Alcoholic Beverage Consumption, 1790-1860.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 37.

Rothschild, N. A. 1990. New York City Neighborhoods: The 18th Century New York: Academic
Press, Inc.
Schafer, J. 1970. The social history of American agriculture. New York,: Da Capo Press.

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

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

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

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

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

73
  

-6-

EARLY NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL POLICY

by Kristin Jones and Polina Katkovskaya

ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on the legislation passed concerning agricultural policy. This
policy extended not only to education and research but also to land grants, farm credit and
parity.
The purpose of the establishment of educational institutions involved in agricultural
research and development was to increase the efficiency of agricultural practice and quality
of the product, while the land grants, farm credit and parity were designed to incorporate the
needs of those working the farms and the new agricultural improvements.
The purpose of this chapter is to clarify how early national agricultural policy
reflected and catered to the needs of the country at the time. The laws passed clearly evince
the scientific, academic, and economic situations taking place in the United States in the
period from 1860-1940. This period is historically one in which many changes took place in
the farming community, and the legislations clearly illustrate this fact.

INTRODUCTION
The period from 1860-1940 encompassed numerous changes within American
society, government, and economy. To accommodate these changes, the government passed
several laws ensuring that the needs of society, and in the case of agricultural legislation, the
needs of the farmer were met. These government efforts can be seen in many aspects of
society beginning with the establishment of higher educational institutions which focus on
agricultural education, and extending to laws such as parity which focus on ensuring that the
farmers earn enough money for the crops which they produce, even in times of economic
hardship.
Extremely large sums of money were spent between 1860 and 1940 in America to
promote research and education in the agricultural field. The total annual appropriation for
Agricultural Education and Research was approximately $18,231,942.51. The breakdown of
how these funds were distributed can be seen in figure 1.(Richardson 1918) Such an
unprecedented distribution of both Federal and state funds for education caused great
concern in America and in my research. As a result, an additional focus of the research in
this chapter serves to investigate the extent to which America’s vast financial investment in
Agricultural education and research was financially rewarding. Based on data collected from
educational institutions of the time, not only was it rewarding and beneficial for the
economy, but also for the quality of life of Americans during and following this time period.
The policies which the government instituted towards education in this era were beneficial to
agricultural advancement in terms of technology and crop production. The financial
investment made by the Federal government and the states allowed for agricultural
experiments that lead to the discovery of new techniques that increased the efficiency with
which farming is performed in America. Simultaneously, a wider range of American citizens

74
  

were granted access to higher education; thus, increasing the quality of life of Americans as a
whole.
In terms of the financial needs of the farmers outside of education, at the start of the
1860’s, one finds that the government was especially attentive in a time as turbulent as the
reconstruction era, when the old concepts of farming were completely overthrown, most
noticeably in the south. With the coming of the Progressive and Depression eras, new laws
concerned not as much the ownership of land, but the welfare of the farmers, and the value
of their crops. The concept of parity did not change drastically since its establishment in the
1920’s, but it grew in importance during the Depression Era and was established as an
official legal concept at that time.
The establishment and evolution of farm credit, as well as the establishment of
parity, were widely a product of national events that were happening at the time of their
establishment. The passage of certain laws was clearly a reflection of the needs of the time
period during which they were passed.
Overall, the legislation passed during this time period, both concerning the education
of future farmers and agricultural workers, as well as that which directly impacted the crops
which farmers produced, the production process, and the buyers of these products reflected
the needs of the people and of the society. These needs were in large part due to the
economic turmoil taking place at the time.

LITERATURE REVIEW
On July 2, 1862 President Abraham Lincoln signed the College Land Grant Act also
known as the Morrill Act. This act permitted the states to select 30,000 acres of public land
for each member of Congress, where they would provide colleges for, but not limited to, the
study of agricultural sciences. These colleges were called Land- Grant Colleges because they
were founded on land granted by the Federal Government.(Nevins 1962) The aim of the
Morrill Act was summarized by Dr. Davenport, one of Americas leading educationists: “
The fundamental purpose of agricultural education is the development of agriculture as a
productive occupation, and of the agricultural people as an important part of the social and
political fabric.”(Richardson 1918).
AEV Richardson justifies the Land-Grant Act by summarizing the attitudes of
Americans towards financial support of education. The money put into agricultural
education in America was thought to be well worth it, as the reward would ideally be much
greater than the initial investment. However, what exactly falls under the heading of
agricultural education? It is defined as “all the activities undertaken for the promotion of
sound and profitable agriculture in a country. The activities may be classified functionally
under four distinct heads – (1) Instructional work: all formal teaching of agricultural
principles and practice to students from the primary school to the college or university, (2)
investigational or research work: the experimental and research work undertaken for the
purpose of discovering new facts and principles pertaining to agriculture, (3) extension or
publicity work : activities concerned wit the dissemination of information to those who are
unable to take advantage of the formal teaching of the schools and colleges, and (4)
regulatory, inspectional, or control work: functions for the purpose of protecting or
regulating certain industries.”(Richardson 1918) These activities were supported under the
Morrill Act of 1862.
Legislation in support of agricultural education and research did not stop at the
Morrill Act; it continued to increase funding for land-grant colleges and encourage more

75
  

extensive research. In 1887, the Hatch Act was passed, and it established agricultural
experiment stations in each state that were responsible for researching, investigating, and
experimenting with the manufacturing process to improve rural life.(Conkin 2008) This act
added $15,000 per year to each state college’s budget for the maintenance of experiment
stations and experiments conducted within them.(Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry
Experiment Station 1887) The Adams Act of 1906 extended the benefits of the Hatch Act
to $30,000 per year on the premise that funds be used for original research specifically. This
standard encouraged more ground-breaking research.(Rosenberg 1964) On March 4, 1907,
The Nelson Amendment allowed for Federal funds to be used for the training of teachers of
agriculture, and in 1908 an additional $25,000 was appropriated for this training.(Herren
1996) Again in 1914, legislation increased funding for agriculture, but in vocational and
secondary schools. This was called the Smith-Lever Act, and it set up two funds. One fund
paid teachers and their supervisors in vocational education, and another funded instruction
in trade, home economics, and industrial subjects. Each of these amounted to $500,000
in1918 and by 1926 they increased to $3,000,000.(Conkin 2008) As can be clearly seen by
the efforts of the Federal Government to ascertain that colleges and experiment stations had
the financial means to accomplish their goals, the Federal Government believed that the
results of these colleges would be extremely beneficial to America. Now that the nature and
purpose of Land-Grant Colleges is clear, an exploration of the extent to which they were
rewarding to Federal investors and to America is possible.
The concepts of farm credit and parity might as well be in a foreign language to
most, but in theory, their meaning is not as complicated as one may assume. Farm credit, is
the same form of credit one uses to purchase goods on their credit card, or to take a
mortgage on their house, except it is used to purchase farm land and all items that a farmer
would need to ensure a harvest.
Parity is the method by which the government determines the price of goods based
on a base period(Teigen 1987). For example, the buying power of a bushel of wheat should
remain constant, which means its price at a market may increase or decrease depending on
inflation and other economic factors, but its worth remains the same. By selling a product,
the farmer must be able to make the same value of profit taking into account the rates of
inflation.
Inflation is “an upward movement in the average level of prices”(Robin Bade 2006).
An increase in inflation is representative of the worth of money being less, meaning that the
economy of the federal organization producing the money is growing weaker. Therefore, in
times of economic crisis, inflation tends to go up, as do prices.
It would appear that such laws and regulations, as farm laws and parity laws have
remained stable over time, and that these concepts have remained unchanged since the time
of the Jefferson-Hamilton debates about the fate of the American nation as an agricultural
vs. and industrial society, but in truth, these laws change with the times.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Through research it was found that the legislation regarding the financial
contribution towards Land-Grant Colleges and the research that they performed were worth
the money invested, and that further legislation passed concerning agricultural policy
benefitted the society, both the producers (the farmers) and the consumers (the non-farmers
who purchased farm products). The images and charts in this section reflect the findings of

76
  

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

Figure 6.1

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

77
  

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

Agricultural Legislature

Act Year Definition

Homestead Act
Federal Farm Loan Act
Agricultural Credits Act
Emergency Farm Mortgage
Act
Farm Credit Act
Agricultural Adjustment Act
Agricultural Adjustment Act
1862 Any adult citizen, or intended citizen, who had
never borne arms against the U.S. government,
could claim 160 acres of surveyed government
land.
1916 Established 12 Federal Land Banks (FLBs) in 12
districts across the country, along with hundreds of
National Farm Loan Associations that were agents
for the land banks, to provide long-term credit to
farmers to develop and expand farms(FCA)
(www.FCA.gov).
1923 created 12 Federal Intermediate Credit Banks
(FICBs), one in each of the 12 districts established
under the 1916 Act (www.FCA.gov).(FCA)
1933 Extended repayment schedules and offered
emergency financing (www.FCA.gov)
1933 Established the Farm Credit System (FCS) as a
group of cooperative lending institutions to
provide short-, intermediate-, and long-term loans
for agricultural purposes (www.FCA.gov)
1933 Introduced the price support programs, including
production adjustments, and incorporated the
Commodity Credit Corporation under the laws of
the State of Delaware. This law also put the
concept of parity into written law (Ganzel 2003)
1938 The first to make price supports mandatory for
corn, cotton, and wheat to help maintain a
sufficient supply in low production periods along
with marketing quotas to keep supply in line with
market demand. It also established permissive
supports for butter, dates, figs, hops, turpentine,
rosin, pecans, prunes, raisins, barley, rye, grain
sorghum, wool, winter cover crop seeds, mohair,

78
  

peanuts, and tobacco for the 1938 40 period. The

1938 Act is considered part of permanent
legislation (1938).

Figure 6.2
This table illustrates the laws passed, the year in which they were passed and how they
affected the United States. As one can see, most of the laws were passed directly during or
after a large crisis, for example the Homestead Act, which was passed upon the end of the
Civil War, or the Acts passed in response to the Great Depression (1928-1940).

Figure 6.3 (Ganzel 2003)

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

79
  

DISCUSSION
As can be seen from the impact and achievements of Iowa State University, the
single discovery of a more efficient feeding style at one of 53 stations resulted in a profit of
over ten million dollars. From one accomplishment it becomes immediately evident that
initial financial investments were returned exponentially, and that they proved beneficial to
American agriculture. Iowa’s experiment station also determined that pure bread cows
produced 75% more milk fat and 50% more butter fat than scrub cows. This distinction
between quality of livestock helped to increase the value of certain livestock at markets. At
the Iowa Experiment Station, two oats named Iowa 103 and Iowa 105 were distributed to
local farmers, and these increased production by 5 bushels per acre.
By influencing not only students, but also farmers and children already active in
agriculture, the benefits of Iowa State’s research was far-reaching. This spread of
information made advancements in the field of agriculture known to a large number of
people, and it increased the efficiency with which farming was performed.
Women were also beneficiaries of the Land-Grant Colleges. Iowa State College of
Agriculture offered a Home Economics Course with 987 female attendees, 675 of whom
were taking the regular four years’ course.(Richardson 1918) Since 95% of women became
homemakers at some point in their careers during this time, typical four-year studies for
women at the agricultural college included the following: General Subjects – English,
History, Civics, and Physical Culture; Science Subjects – Chemistry, Zoology, Physiology,
and Economics; and Technical Subjects – Study of foods, hygiene, nutrition and dietetics,
household management, and textiles. While these might not be considered particularly
egalitarian courses by today’s standards, they were very practical. Women were taught how
to manage their homes, care for ailments and physical wounds, to manage money since they
dealt with most of the finances of the home, and to speak publicly. The time of study was
equally distributed between general, science, and technical subjects; so, the traditional areas
of English literature, History, Civics, and Culture were not undermined in female
education.(Richardson 1918) The access to a general education, somewhat similar to what
males were able to learn, promoted the idea of Democracy in education. The quality of life
for women was enriched as a result of the Land-Grant Colleges, and with formally trained
women, family life was also improved in America.
The access to formal education that has been previously discussed did require some
financial contribution from students. Although this might lead one to doubt the true ease
with which higher education could be accessed, the vocational education and spread of
information to local, uneducated farmers does address this concern. While it did not
become magically possible for anyone who desired to attend college to do so, it was possible
for everyone to benefit from the discoveries of these colleges. The effects of the Land-
Grant Colleges and experiment stations were felt nationwide. Additionally, the degree to
which each experiment station was productive differed. Every experiment station did not
make agricultural discoveries that earned millions of dollars; however, all of the experiment
stations shared their findings, which meant that every experiment station was privy to the
discoveries of its sister stations. Consequently, even those stations that were not as
productive as others did reap the benefits of agricultural advances made throughout the
country, and they did share this information with agriculturalists of the state.
The establishment of parity laws and the evolution of farm credit was based largely
on domestic affairs which impacted the American economy. The most influential, however,
was the state of the American economy.

80
  

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

81
  

However, according to James H. Shideler, the idea of instilling an actual parity price
formula as law came about during the economic depression of the early 1920’s(Shideler
1953). Many of the farmers argued that they are entitles to fair and equal pricing that should
be uniform throughout the country. These protests and demonstrations were fueled by the
economic issues prevalent at the time. However, such demonstrations caught the attention
of the government, and therefore, in the 1930’s action was taken to officially establish the
laws on parity in legislature.

CONCLUSION
From the period of 1860-1940 government played a major role in determining how
to respond to the changes within the country. To improve the agricultural process, and to
make advancements in the agricultural field, the government found it necessary to create
education state institutions, and to ensure that the farmers were relieved somewhat from
financial crises, since those such as the Great Depression impacted the farmers the most, the
government passed legislations protecting the farmers. Although the needs of the farmers
were not always met, and not all farmers received a degree in higher education, the
progressive nature of the government is clearly evident from the establishment of these
institutions and from the passage of the laws discussed in the paper.
One important aspect to consider is that these laws, and these institutions did not
simply disappear after this era. In fact, this time period held the foundation for later
agricultural legislature, for laws concerning food itself, for example safety and the rights of
food workers, and some of the colleges are still in existence today. Even the very prestigious
such as Cornell University have majors in the agricultural sciences. It also must be kept in
mind that as America grows as a nation, the subject of food production will become more
and more central since the human race cannot survive without food. Soon, it will become
evident what changes the government needs to make to ensure the standard of the quality of
life here in the United States.

REFERENCES

1938. Agricultural Adjustment Act 1938. ed. U. S. D. o. Agriculture.

Conkin, P. K. 2008. A Revolution Down On The Farm: The Transformation of Agriculture Since
1929. Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky.

FCA. History of the FCA and the FCS.

Ganzel, B. 2003. Farming in the 1930's.

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/money_24.htmls.

Herren, R. (1996) Agricultural Education and the 1862 Land Grant Institutions: The Rest of
the Story. Journal of Agricultural Education, 37.

Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. 1887. Hatch Act of 1887.
Mississippi State, Mississippi: Mississippi State University Extension Service.

82
  

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

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

H.J. Green, Acting Government Printer.

Robin Bade, M. P. 2006. Foundations of Economics. Adison Wesley.

Rosenberg, C. E. (1964) The Adams Act: Politics and the Cause of Scientific Research.
JSTOR, 38, 3-12.

Rucker, R. R. (1990) The Effects of State Farm Relief Legislation on Private Lenders and
Borrowers: The Experience of the 1930's. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
72, 24-34.

Sherman, W. T. 1865. Special Field Orders, No.15. ed. U. Army.

Shideler, J. H. (1953) The Development of the Parity Price Formula for Agriculture, 1919-
1923. Agricultural History, 27, 77-84.

Teigen, L. D. 1987. Agricultural Parity: Historical Review and Alternative Calculations. 1-86.
United States Department of Agriculture.

University of Northern Iowa (1875) The Granger Movement. The North American Review, 120,
394-424.

83
  

-7-

THE IMPROVEMENTS OF TECHNOLOGIES OF FOOD

TRANSPORT, 1830-1940

by Maria Mannarino and Anita Lin

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

LITERATURE REVIEW
The industrial era was a time of innovative revolution. It is characterized by major
changes in transport, manufacturing, and technology that had a great effect on the
socioeconomic and cultural conditions starting in the United Kingdom during the late
eighteenth century, and then spreading to the United States (Depew). The industrial
revolution transformed the United States into a modern urban-industrial nation.
During 1860 to 1940, New York evolved from using less advanced technologies,
such as animal-powered vehicles (wagons and boats), to more sophisticated modes of
transportation like railroads. Canals and trucks were also used during this time period. The
most popular canal used to transport food in and out of New York was the Erie Canal. The
construction of the Erie Canal was proposed in 1808 but the actual making of it did not start
until July 4, 1817. The Erie Canal was finally completed on October 26, 1825. The canal
stretches from the waters of Lake Erie in the west to the Hudson River in the east (Sadowski
Jr. 2000-2010). The Erie Canal was four feet deep and forty feet wide. The boats that
travelled along the Erie Canal carried around thirty tons of freight. Along the bank of the
Erie Canal, a ten-foot wide towpath was built for animals such as horses, mules, and oxen
(led by a “hoggee” or a boy boat driver) to walk on. The Erie Canal quickly became a

84
  

popular source of transportation. Because of the increased demands of transportation on the

Erie Canal, it was enlarged between the years of 1836 and 1862. The “Enlarged Erie”
became seventy feet wide and seven feet deep. This canal can handle boats that carried two
hundred and forty tons of goods. The common use of waterway transportation paved the
road for another expansion of the Erie Canal. In 1903, New York State decided to enlarge
the Erie Canal again by constructing a “Barge Canal” that consists of the Erie Canal and the
three chief branches of the State system – the Champlain, Oswego, and Cayuga-Seneca
Canals. This “Barge Canal” was completed in 1918; it is 12 to 14 feet deep, 120 to 200 feet
wide, and 363 miles long from Albany to Buffalo. This new canal can handle barges that
carried 3,000 tons of cargo (Sadowski Jr. 2000-2010). The use of canals decreased when
railroads began transporting food to farther places in a shorter amount of time but
nevertheless, even with the rise of using railroads as a new mode of food transportation,
canals never lost their importance as water transport was still eminent during the early 1900s.
Rail transport dates back about 500 years, in which man or horse power moved
goods along wooden or stone rails. The first railroads of Great Britain were built in the early
1600’s. They consisted of lines of wooden tracks along which ponies pulled wagons of coal
from pit-head to port or river. As England prospered during the Eighteenth Century, the
demand for coal increased. Mines were worked over a wider area, and therefore a longer and
more complex rail system was needed to connect them with water transport (Tames 1970).
Starting in 1776, the wooden rails were replaced by iron rails since they lasted longer, and
were stronger and smoother.
In February 1804, Richard Trevithick’s first steam engine tramway locomotive made
a nine-mile trip, taking about two hours (Tames 1970). George Stephenson contributed to
the invention of the train by taking Trevithick’s design and adapting it to rails, whereas
Trevithick’s was meant for roads. In 1814, Stephenson built the first locomotive for the
Stockton and Darlington Railway Line. Soon after, the horse-drawn carts were being
replaced with steam engine locomotives.

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

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

85
  

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

86
  

could now be forwarded from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia by water and then by railroad to
NYC. But freight on the Mainline canal was portaged over mountains and hence its days
were numbered. It quickly gave way to direct train service between Pittsburgh and NYC”
(Schmitz 2003) p. 1. Before the introduction of the railroad, freight was transported mainly
by waterways, and, as evident from this quote, took a very long time.
The establishment of the refrigerated cars gained more popularity for the use of
railroads in transporting food in and out of New York. However, waterways were still
important to food transportation. Animal-powered vehicles used in the late 1800s and motor
trucks were also significant technologies for food transportation. As time passed by, one
mode of transportation might gain more popularity over the others but in some point of
time between 1860 and 1940, all of the mentioned technologies contributed greatly to
distributing food in and out of New York.
Before railways became the dominant mode of food transport, agricultural
production was heavy in what today is known as the four outer-boroughs, Brooklyn,
Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island. At the time, Brooklyn was known as Kings County.
Throughout the seventeenth century, the Dutch settled this area. Dating back before the
revolution, farmers there were among the first “in the United States to develop intensive
agriculture and to use fertilizer” (Linder 1999) p. 19. In 1880, it was observed that, “The
head of every family in Flatbush, with few exceptions, was a farmer, until within the last
thirty years. They cultivated their land in the most careful manner, and were among the best
farmers in the state” (Linder 1999) p. 19. By the 1800’s, market garden production was the
main component of Kings County agriculture.

Figure 7.3 Towns in Kings County (Linder 1999)

87
  

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

Figure 7.1 Horse-Drawn Wagon (Anonymous May 17, 2008 – January 4, 2009 p.1)

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

88
  

Figure 7.2 Erie Canal Circa 1908

This is a postcard image of horses walking on the towpath along the Erie Canal. Horses
hauled the boats along the Erie (Anonymous circa 1908).

Canals:
Table 7.1 Tonnage moved on New York Canals (1860 – 1940)

1940 4,768,160 1919 1,238,844 1898 3,360,063 1877 4,955,963

1939 4,689,037 1918 1,159,270 1897 3,617,804 1876 4,172,129
1938 4,709,488 1917 1,297,225 1896 3,714,894 1875 4,859,858
1937 5,010,464 1916 1,625,050 1895 3,500,314 1874 5,804,588
1936 5,014,206 1915 1,858,114 1894 3,882,560 1873 6,364,782
1935 4,489,172 1914 2,080,850 1893 4,331,963 1872 6,673,370
1934 4,143,728 1913 2,602,035 1892 4,281,995 1871 6,467,888
1933 4,074,002 1912 2,606,116 1891 4,563,472 1870 6,173,769
1932 3,643,433 1911 3,097,068 1890 5,246,102 1869 5,859,080
1931 3,722,012 1910 3,073,412 1889 5,370,369 1868 6,442,225
1930 3,605,457 1909 3,116,536 1888 4,942,948 1867 5,688,325
1929 2,876,160 1908 3,051,877 1887 5,553,805 1866 5,775,220
1928 3,089,998 1907 3,407,914 1886 5,293,982 1865 4,729,654
1927 2,581, 892 1906 3,540,907 1885 4,731,784 1864 4,852,941
1926 2,369,367 1905 3,226,896 1884 5,009,488 1863 5,557,692
1925 2,344,013 1904 3,138,547 1883 5,664,056 1862 5,598,785
1924 2,032,317 1903 3,615,385 1882 5,467,423 1861 4,507,635
1923 2,006,284 1902 3,274,610 1881 5,179,192 1860 4,650,214
1922 1,873,434 1901 3,420,613 1880 6,457,656
1921 1,270,407 1900 3,345,941 1879 5,362,372
1920 1,421,434 1899 3,686,051 1878 5,171,320
(Bureau of the Census 1949)

89
  

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

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

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

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

Year Miles in Operation

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

90
  

Table 7.4 Railroad mileage increase by groups of states:

1850 1860 1870 1880 1890

New England 2,507 3,660 4,494 5,982 6,831
Middle States 3,202 6,705 10,964 15,872 21,536
Southern States 2,036 8,838 11,192 14,778 29,209
Western States and Territories 1,276 11,400 24,587 52,589 62,394
Pacific States and Territories 23 1,677 4,080 9,804
Totals 9,021 30,626 52,914 93,301 129,774
(Depew) p. 108

Table 7.5 Growth of Selected Systems

Name of Road Mileage, 1869 Mileage, 1879

Pennsylvania R.R. 538 4,000
N.Y. Central and Hudson R.R. 593 2,500
Chicago and Northwestern 1,150 2,158
Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul 839 2,250
(Depew) p. 110

Table 7.6 Growth of Selected Systems, 1883-1894

Name of Railroad Mileage 1883 Mileage 1894

Atchinson, Topeka, and Santa Fe 2,510 9,345
Baltimore and Ohio 1,554 2,907
Central Pacific 1,213 1,428
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy 3,322 5,730
Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific 1,381 3,572
Illinois Central 1,927 4,296
Lake Shore and Michigan Southern 1,339 1,476
New York, Lake Erie, and Western 1,025 2,061
Northern Pacific 2,546 4,457
Southern Pacific 990 6,651
Union Pacific 1,820 4,469
(Schmitz 2003)

Table 7.7 Railroad Output (millions of miles and dollars)

Year Freight Receipts Ton-Miles

1839 2.5 32.8
1849 14.1 347.0
1859 66.5 2577.7
(Fishlow 1966) p 611.

91
  

Table 7.8: Gross Investment in Construction and Equipment (millions of dollars)

Period Track Equipment Total

1828-1838 85.3 4.0 89.3
1839-1848 158.5 13.7 172.2
1849-1858 854.3 72.6 926.9
1859-1869 793.1 126.8 919.9
1870-1879 1677.7 332.7 2010.4
1880-1889 3413.4 681.1 4094.6
1890-1899 1755.8 742.8 2498.6
1900-1909 3023.4 1922.4 4945.8
(Fishlow 1966) Appendix A.

The funding for the railroads increased until the 1890’s, where it slipped back a bit for
unknown reasons, but then continued to increase (Linder 1999).

Map 7.1 United States Railroads, 1835 (railroads are indicated by blue lines)

(Anonymous) “Old Rail History.”

92
  

Map 7.2 The Railroads, 1850 and 1860

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

Maps 7.1 and 7.2 show the expansion of railways throughout the nation from 1835 to
1860. As time progressed, the rails expanded towards the west and towards the south.
“The Erie and Hudson lines sustained New York’s overwhelming advantage in
movement of western produce to the East Coast. By the late fifties, the city was handling
half again as much rail tonnage as Philadelphia and Baltimore combined. In 1860, counting
the still-heavy volume of traffic on the Erie Canal, it received $161 million worth of goods
from the West, just about the value of that year’s cotton crop” (Burrows 2000).

93
  

Map 7.3: Railroads in New York City, 1885

(G.W. & C.B. Colton & Co.)

Map 7.3 is an original map that shows the railways in NYC and the suburban lines of Long
Island Railroad and its connections in 1885.
Soon after railroads became a primary means of transport, the addition of the
refrigerated car contributed to their efficiency. “Primitive refrigerator cars, merely ordinary
boxcars insulated with sawdust and packed with block ice, had first appeared in New York in
1851 to carry dairy products. In 1861, a similar “sweat box” hauled fresh meat between

94
  

Chicago and New York. The first American refrigerator-car patent was awarded in 1867, but
the design was inefficient because the vehicle could be iced only when it was empty, and it
provided no internal air circulation” (Skaggs 1986) p. 91. Better versions of the refrigerated
railroad cars emerged as people continued to work on developing an improved design that
may accomplish their goal of transporting perishable food to farther locations quickly.
The invention was improved within the next few years. “No single event in the last
century had more significance to the perishable food industry than the successful shipment
under ice of a car load of strawberries from Anna, Illinois, to Chicago in 1872. Parker Earle
built a precooling plant at Anna, Illinois, secured a well-insulated car capable of carrying five
tons of ice in its bunkers, and in 1872 sent his epoch-making shipment of strawberries to
Chicago. The berries, which had been precooled to 50° Fahrenheit, reached the trade in
excellent condition. From that time the commercial success of the “icebox on wheels” was
assured” (Hedden 1929) p. 37-38. The success of the invention of an “icebox on wheels”
provided a novel mode of transportation for distributing perishable food. This invention
gave way to creating refrigerated railroad cars. “Under the impetus of the new device, a long-
haul railroad traffic in fruits and vegetables began. In May 1885, 435 packages of berries and
vegetables from Norfolk, Virginia, moved via Cape Charles to New York City. By April,
1888, all-rail shipments from Charleston, South Carolina, to New York had begun. By
October of the same year Florida oranges were moving, and in 1889 Georgia peaches and
New Orleans vegetables. The transcontinental traffic was not far behind. In June, 1889, the
first car load of California deciduous fruits was received in New York City. Since then the
growth has been phenomenal. The entire transcontinental fruit movement from the west
coast to New York amounted to four thousand cars in 1900. In 1927, sixty-five thousand
cars were hauled from California, Washington, and Oregon to the New York district”
(Hedden 1929) p. 39.

Figure 7.3 Plan of a Refrigerator Car

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

95
  

Figure 7.4 Refrigerated Railroad Car

This is an image of how the refrigerated railroad car really looked like (Krasner-Khait).

Table 7.9 Number of refrigerated cars used for shipping by year, 1919-1927

Year Refrigerator Cars Index Car Loads Shipped Index

1919 90,383 100 591,003 100
1920 90,978 101 663,447 112
1921 95,100 105 751,699 125
1922 104,276 115 854,081 144
1923 121,964 134 878,502 148
1924 132,585 146 923,549 156
1925 133,485 147 963,442 163
1926 144,975 160 1,023,274 173
1927 152,726 169 1,060,529 179
(Hedden 1929)

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

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

96
  

neighboring counties (Anonymous 1868). However, motor trucks were used within the city
to deliver milk to various stores and households.
The use of motor trucks was advantageous over railroad freight within 100 miles
because motor trucks save in handling and “convenience to the farmer of a single direct
movement from field to the commission merchant’s store door.” The disadvantages of using
motor trucks instead of transporting food on railroads were: “lesser dependability of
schedule, increased street congestion and delay in wholesale store district, and inability to
hold temporary oversupplies in refrigerator cars” (Hedden 1929) p. 7.

Figure 7.5 Motor Truck for Hauling Milk

(Hedden 1929) p. 8.

Advantages of using a motor truck:

1. It passes the producer’s gate and the truck driver acts as the producer’s personal
agent in the city.
2. Shipments reduce the number of handlings from at least 6 to only 2.
3. Trucks lose fewer cans.
4. “Elimination of haul from railroad milk platform to the city milk dealer results in an
estimated saving of five cents a hundredweight” (Hedden 1929) p. 8.

97
  

Figure 7.6 Trucking to the Livestock Market

(Hedden 1929) p. 8.

Motor trucks were not only utilized to transport milk. During the early 1900s,
shipments of poultry by motor trucks increased. The reasons behind the rising number of
cases in the shipment of livestock for short distances by motor trucks were: “a minimum of
shrinkage, quick delivery, ability to take advantage of favorable market prices, less cost for
food and watering stock, and ability to make shipments of a few animals at a time” (Hedden
1929) p. 8.

Comparison Between Modes of Transport:

Table 7.10Tonnage Carried by Waterways and Railway Lines between the Food-producing
West and the Consuming and Importing East, for One Year, 1871
Eastward Westward In both directions
Erie Canal 2,637,212 450,000 3,087,212
Welland Canal - - 1,250,000
New York Central Railway - - 2,250,000
Erie Railway 893,685 369,196 1,262,881
Pennsylvania Railway 879,461 412,385 1,292,846
(McAlpine 1873)

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

98
  

Table 7.11 Amount of grain and grain products that were received at the New York Port
District by Rail and Waterways in 1920
Flour (Barrels) Wheat (Bushels) Barley (Bushels) Rye (Bushels)
Rail 1,334,460,512 3,624,762,000 173,383,200 1,314,566,400
Water 19,058,844 129,638,100 86,263,536 69,709,584
(Port of New York Authority 1922)

Table 7.12 Percentages of food received in New York by Rail, Water, and Truck, 1927
Rail Water Truck
Fruits and Vegetables 70 20 10
Milk 99 0 1
Dairy and poultry products (other than milk) 92 6 2
(Hedden 1929)

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

Figure 7.7: Men loading Brewery Wagon March 25, 1933

(Bettmann 1933) p. 1

“When it becomes legal for New Yorkers to again drink real beer, they will again
become accustomed to seeing horse-drawn brewery trucks rolling through the streets of
New York City.” This is in the Ruppert Brewery in Manhattan. Even with the inventions of
steam and rail, horses were still used for transportation during the early 1900s (Bettmann
1933).
“In the years immediately preceding World War II, the proportion of total receipts
or unloads of farm products handled by rail (and water carriers) generally declined. Motor

99
  

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

Table 7.13 Shipments made by Rail and Truck, 1939 and 1940
1939 NY Rail 1939 NY Truck 1940 NY Rail 1940 NY Truck
Apples (cars) 3443 5298 3006 5283
Oranges (cars) 17,535 5 15,376 10
Grapefruit (cars) 6041 6 4879 6
Potatoes (cars) 10,126 10,724 9524 11,086
Lettuce (cars) 6520 2818 5822 2951
Tomatoes (cars) 5363 3810 5280 4292
Milk (1000-
14,857 22,755 13,950 23,475
40 qt. units)

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

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

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

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

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

Shell Eggs
4,821 1,542 4,552 1,937
(1000 cases)
(United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics 1951)

100
  

New York City Agriculture and the Expansion of Agricultural land use of the United
States:

Map 7.4 Agricultural Land Use from 1850 to 1997 (darker green indicates that a higher
proportion of the land is used for agriculture)

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

101
  

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

(U.S. Census Bureau 1890)

Table 7.14 Farms in Kings County, Selected Indicators, 1820-1929

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

102
  

1919 54 1,006 19
1924 40 275 7
1929 11 79 7
(Linder 1999)

Table 7.15 Farms in Kings County, Selected Outputs and Livestock, 1820-1934
Year Corn (bu.) Potatoes Wheat Milk (gal.) Milch Oats Hay Horses
(bu.) (bu.) Cows (bu.) (tons)
1820 1,814
1825 2,291
1835 3,355
1840 81,824 95,805 24,964 72,460 5,437 3,019
1845 124,688 178,434 26,992 64,786 4,360
1850 91,949 208,452 29,926 2,794 29,538 6,804 3,034
1855 54,179 368,243 18,086 3,033,291 16,701 6,314
1860 84,782 607,182 21,927 1,411 9,835 7,086 1,543
1865 56,351 464,887 15,803 444,530 4,023 13,657 8,463
1870 44,600 547,403 5,355 492,040 1,148 3,375 2,057 1,941
1875 35,010 420,060 2,604 25,970 315 1,580 1,068
1879 52,990 772,246 3,240 554,951 1,254 3,158 1,493 1,623
1890 29,389 611,272 925 377,514 587 1,705 1,902 1,275
1899 6,020 197,216 0 1,007,450 2,439 310 332 1,150
1909 1,682 57,728 0 78,130 113 0 90 221
1919 540 35,421 0 353,400 590 0 0 133
1924 154 11,870 0 81,700 149 0 23 32
1929 0 0 0 269,200 209 0 0 7
1934 0 0 0 475,842 426 0 0 16
(Linder 1999)

Table 7.16 Farms in Kings County, Selected Outputs, 1845-1924, Bushels produced, Acres of
land, and Bushels per Acre
Potatoes Corn Wheat
Year Bushels Acres B/A Bushels Acres B/A Bushels Acres B/A
1845 178,434 1,630 109 124,688 3,242 38 26,992 1,420 19
1855 368,243 3,089 119 54,179 1,948 28 18,086 887 20
1864 464,887 3,500 133 56,351 1,636 34 15,803 819 19
1874 420,060 2,734 154 35,010 756 46 2,604 108 24
1879 772,246 4,172 185 52,900 1,256 42 3,240 139 23
1890 611,272 3,926 156 29,389 370 79 925 54 17
1899 197,216 2,285 86 6,020 178 34 0 0 0
1909 57,728 591 98 1,682 35 48 0 0 0
1919 35,421 418 85 540 13 42 0 0 0
1924 11,870 80 148 0 0 0 0 0 0
(Linder 1999)

103
  

Table 7.17Acres of Farmland in Kings County, by Town, 1845

Town Number of Acres Percentage of Total Acres
Brooklyn 3,066.25 15
Williamsburgh 88.5 1
Bushwick 2,112.5 10
Flatbush 5,682.5 27
Flatlands 3,167.5 15
Gravesend 2,516 12
New Utrecht 4,086.75 20
Total 20,720 100
(Linder 1999)

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

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

104
  

The percentages of food received in New York by rail, water, and truck reveal the
great use of railroads during the early 1900s (See Table 7.12). As more and more railroad cars
were built from 1919 to 1927, the number of car loads shipped to New York increased (See
Table 7.9). The number of railroad cars declined from 1939 to 1940 while the amount of
motor trucks increased (See Table 7.13). The technologies used to transport food between
1860 to 1940 evolved from first pulling animal-powered wagons and boats to carrying cargo
in steamboats and steamships on New York waterways to transporting freight on railroads
to driving motor trucks directly to the front doors of stores and homes. Although one mode
of transportation was more popular than another, nevertheless, they all contributed a great
deal in transporting food in and out of New York.
As agriculture began to spread west from the east coast, it gradually moved out of
New York, and much of the North East region. This is shown in Map 7.4. By 1890, most of
the land from the east coast through the Midwest was used for agricultural purposes. This
can be seen through Map 7.5, which depicts the average size of farms in 1890.
From the early 19th century to the early 20th century, there was a substantial decrease
in agricultural output of Kings County farms. Table 7.14 shows the amount of land in Kings
County that was farmland from 1820 to 1929. Over this period, there is no distinct pattern,
since numbers fluctuate, but the farmland eventually diminishes by 1929. Table 7.15 consists
of Selected outputs and livestock of farms in Kings County from 1820 to 1934. The data
shows no distinct trends, but outputs and livestock start to decrease, and eventually there are
0 outputs for corn, potatoes, wheat, oats, and hay. Figure Table 7.16 shows the acres and the
output of potatoes, corn and wheat from 1845 to 1924. The production of wheat and corn
declines steadily during this period. Production of potatoes increases, and starts to decline
during the 1880's.
Table 7.17 shows the acres of farmland within each town of Kings County in 1845.
Table 7.18 shows the acres of farmland within each town of Kings County in 1880. The two
tables can be compared to show that the total farmland from 1845 to 1880 decreased from
20,720 to 12,345. This is a 40.42% decrease.

DISCUSSION

Animal pulled wagons and boats were popular during the late 1800s. This was
probably because it was relatively cheap to purchase animals that hauled heavy loads of food.
Also, the animals could directly carry food through the crowded city streets into markets and
homes. Animals may transport food for both short and long distances but they were less
efficient when food needs to be transported to a very far location.
Waterways (canals and rivers) became popular, as boats and steamships were able to
carry food over longer distances. Especially during war times, food and supplies were in
great demand; hence, the mode of transportation used must possess the ability to transport
food to far destinations in a short amount of time. The use of water transport slowly
declined as the invention of refrigerated railroad cars appeared.
In general, there were fluctuations between using canals and railroads revolved around the
times of war, the Civil War, and World Wars I and II. The greatest numbers of tonnage
carried on water and by rail appeared around the years of conflict. This is most likely due to
the fact that wars require more supplies of food and weapons, and therefore railroads and
waterways were both necessary for trade between distant locations. The first increase in the
use of canals occurred during the Civil War. The first decrease was after the Civil War. The

105
  

next decrease in tonnage moved on canals was during the 1870s when the successful
refrigerator car appeared. With the rise of a new transportation method, water transport
declined. The tonnage then varies due to the existence of other modes of transportation.
Through the invention of railroads there seems to be two major factors that drove
out agriculture. The transport of rail freight was significant in that food for New Yorkers
could be produced outside of the city. In addition, the use of passenger railroads made it
possible for people to travel from the outside boroughs into Manhattan. This led to the
suburbanization of the outer boroughs, because people would be able to commute to their
jobs on Manhattan (Linder 1999).
Around the same time that rails expanded West, so did agriculture. This is shown
through Maps 7.1, 7.2, 7.4 and 7.5. During the Nineteenth Century, food production and the
amount of farmland in New York City were decreasing. This is shown in tables 7.14 through
7.18. It seems from this that there is a correlation between the expansion of railways and the
geography of food production, and therefore that the expansion of railways played a large
part in shaping the New York City we know today. It was not until the use of railways that
the geography of food production started to change significantly.
“The processing of foodstuffs, the demand for agricultural machinery, and the capital
equipment required to transport agricultural commodities to market are all intimately tied to
farm output and the relative price of agricultural goods, even though agricultural production
is often characterized as acyclical” (Davis 2004). Advances in Railroad transport and
mechanical refrigeration made southern truck farmers competitors of market gardeners in
and around the cities of the northeast, including New York. Southern supplies became
commercially significant after the civil war, and increasingly so during the second half of the
nineteenth century (Linder 1999). But the north still had advantages. At this time, the freight
rates were discriminatory, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture recognized that the
advantages of southern agricultural growth had been counterbalanced by the higher
transport cost (Burrows 2000).
During the 1870’s, the demand for produce was an important factor. Although the
west may have better soil, and cheaper land, New Yorkers wanted the home grown freshness
of their own produce (Linder 1999). But soon the pressure from southern production
would be too great. After slavery ended, the south experienced a huge labor surplus,
therefore “southern planters began dedicating thousands of acres to vegetables and fruits for
northern markets” (Linder 1999) p. 68. When it came to New York City during the early
1800’s, “the majority of its population [was] living close to their food sources and personally
involved in the production and processing of foods. By 1920, the population had shifted
into urban areas and Americans were increasingly distanced from knowledge of their food's
origins" (Elias 2009) p. 2.
When it comes to agricultural production and agricultural markets, the numbers are
hard to obtain. Only samples of The U.S. Censuses from 1850, 1860, and 1870 are available,
and the agricultural section is not among these samples. In addition, truck farmers of this
time kept little or no record of their businesses.
A large amount of data from the industrial era on freight transport by rail is difficult
to acquire. The U.S. Department of Transportation did not start keeping records on railroad
transport until 1993, so data on tonnage transported annually is difficult to attain since it is
dispersed throughout various sources, and many of these sources contradict each other, or
do not match up.

106
  

CONCLUSION
The technologies that were used during 1860 to 1940 were based on increasing
demands of efficiency. Since animal-powered vehicles did not satisfy the desire to transport
food over long distances in a short amount of time, the waterways became a more popular
mode of food transportation. Railways started to become popular once it’s greater potential
in quick transport compared to the waterways was realized. In addition, the development of
the refrigerator car earned a greater popularity than the waterways because it had the
advantage of keeping food refrigerated. The railroads connected New York City with the
other regions of the United States, allowing for the transport of food from the South and
Midwest to the city. This gave New York City the ability to stop using land for agricultural
use, changing the geography of food production significantly. Because of the decrease of
agricultural land use, the city became a center of industrialization, and the outer boroughs
started to increasingly become suburbs. The rise of the motor trucks took place due to the
convenience of transporting food directly to the front doors of stores and homes, something
that railroads would never accomplish. This data may not be generalized to the
United States or world because the geography of different locations inhibits the use of
certain technologies. In addition, the different levels of advanced technology for different
cities determine the modes of transportation used. The data provided solely refers to the
technologies that were used to transport food in New York.

REFERENCES

Anonymous. "Land in Agriculture from 1850 to1997."

<http://www.hawthornevalleyfarm.org/fep/Index%20of%20maps%20and%20grap
hics/PAN%2052,%20land%20in%20agriculture%20in%20US.jpg>

Anonymous. "Old Rail History."

<http://oldrailhistory.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=190&I
temid=222>

Anonymous (1868) The City Milk Trade. The New York Times.
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0A1EFD38541B7493C1AB1
783D85F4C8684F9&scp=40&sq=food%20supply%20new%20york%201860&st=cs
e>

Anonymous. 1999-09. New York Railway Map. San Jose.

<http://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/states/new-york/new-york-railway-
map.html>

Anonymous. 2009. Agricultural Carts, Wagons, and Trailers.

<http://www.ritchiewiki.com/wiki/index.php/Carts#Grain_Carts>

Anonymous. circa 1908. Erie Canal.

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

107
  

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

Aronson, A. Strategic Supply of Civil War Armies.

<http://members.cox.net/rb2307/content/STRATEGIC_SUPPLY_OF_CIVIL_
WAR_ARMIES.htm>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Green, R. "Pre-1825 Locomotives."

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

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

Kelley, L. 1999-2010. About Civil War Transportation.

<http://www.ehow.com/about_4565239_civil-war-transportation.html>

108
  

Krasner-Khait, B. The Impact of Refrigeration. <http://www.history-

magazine.com/refrig.html>

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

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

Moment), The Johns Hopkins University Press.

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

Modern Brooklyn, University Of Iowa Press.

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

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

American Landscape), The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Port of New York Authority, E. H. O. 1922. Report on the food supply of the Port of New York
district J.B. Lyon Company, Printers.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=jVRDAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq
=the+food+supply+of+the+port+of+new+york,+1922+the+port+of+New+Yor
k+authority&source=bl&ots=nKPeZI4vi7&sig=ufZpJYosB6G4GkdQWu65ZtPoA
28&hl=en&ei=98ezTNzHNIL-8Abl-
MmYCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v
=onepage&q=transport&f=false>

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

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

Infrastructure 38(2).

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

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

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

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

109
  

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

United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 1951. Transportation of selected agricultural

commodities to leading markets by rail and motortruck, 1939-59. Washington.

110
  

-8-
Feeding a Growing City
Changes in New York food production and consumption, 1860 to 1940
by Ann Paul, Daniel Salgado, Michael Sanduski, Krishan Sharma,
Joe Tesoro and Sean Winker

INTRODUCTION
From 1860 to 1940, New York City’s population increased over nine fold, rising
from 813,669 persons in 1860 to 3,437,202 persons in 1900, to 7,454,995 persons in 1940
(Gibson). This was primarily due to immigration. Between 1892 and 1954, Ellis Island saw
over twelve million immigrants enter New York City. In 1900 an astounding 37% of the City
was foreign born, 36.1% in 1920 and 28.7% in 1940 (Gibson). This era served as a period of
profound change for the city, as New York underwent great changes to accommodate the
great increase in diversified population.
The population surge experienced in New York during this time caused profound
change towards nearly every aspect of the city. This increase in population required an
increase in the city’s food supply. This massive increase in demand for food products
affected nearly every aspect of New York’s food industry. This paper intends to document
the changes that occurred in the oyster, fish, meat, grain, beverage, and transportation
industries in New York City from 1860 to 1940.
This study will first begin with a literature review focused on the oyster, fish, meat,
grain, and beverage industries in New York City during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s,
along with a discussion on how these goods were transported. The focal points of the
literature review will be how these industries changed during this time to meet the growing
demand for food. This will be followed by a presentation of the main results and findings
with regards to each food industry. A discussion of the results will follow, highlighting how
each food industry changed in response to New York’s population surge. A brief concluding
statement will then follow.

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

111
  

also housed thousands of oysters that supplied New York. Greenpoint, Brookyln was home
to many oystermen because of its convenient location bordering the East River. Between
Long Island and Fire Island, the Great South Bay provided fat, succulent oysters known as
Bluepoints. Other areas in Long Island, including Port Jefferson, Huntington Bay and
Oyster Bay, were also popular harvesting sites throughout the 19th century. Raritan Bay was
one of the largest oyster beds in the greater New York area (Ingersoll, 2010). Oysters were
also collected near several areas in New Jersey, including Perth Amboy, Shrewsbury,
Absecon, and Cape May. New Haven, Connecticut was also once known for its oysters. In
New York, oysters were often referred to by specific names according to where they were
harvested: New Havens, Saddle-rocks, Raritan Bays, etc. (Jacobsen, 2008)
As early as 1820, several oyster beds throughout New York began to show signs of
exhaustion. Demand for oysters, however, continued to increase throughout the 1800’s. To
keep up with this demand, New York oystermen began planting beds all around New York
with oysters from other areas. By this time it was known that if young oysters, known as
spats, were taken from a source and planted in other waters, those oysters would grow and
proliferate, assuming the new habitat is suitable (Ingersoll, 2010). Small, young oysters from
Arthur Kill and the Raritan River were first planted by City Island during the 1830’s. When
these beds began to show exhaustion, oystermen turned to other sources. 1825 marked the
first time that Chesapeake spats were brought up by a sailboat and planted in Prince’s Bay,
Staten Island. By 1850, Chesapeake Bay offered a large portion of spats that were planted in
New York Waters. (MacKenzie 1996) Oysters fully grown in Chesapeake Bay were shipped
throughout the country and also were available to in New York City to purchase. (Kurlansky
2006) Throughout the late 1800’s, oystermen collected spats to be planted in New York
waters from areas including Rhode Island, New Haven, Wellfleet, Long Island, Maine, and
Perth Amboy and Keyport in New Jersey. It was impossible to tell whether a given oyster in
New York City was born in foreign waters because the aquatic environments of New York
controlled their growth and development once the oysters had been planted here (Jacobsen,
2008).
As the population of both New York and the United States increased during the
second half of the 1800’s, so did the demand for oysters. Besides an increase in population,
the surge in oyster demand can also be attributed to the development of major railroads
from 1840 to 1860, with the Transcontinental Railroad being developed in 1869 (Kochiss
1974). This development made oysters available to cities other than those along the Atlantic
Coast. Fueled by an increase in profits due to the demand by western cities, New York
oystermen began to greatly increase their efforts in seeding and planting beds (Kochiss
1974). The development of the ice industry throughout the second half of the 1800’s also led
to increased oyster demand. Ice prevented spoilage over long distances. Ice also allowed
oysters to be enjoyed at more times throughout the year, as opposed to “months that only
end in R.” (Ingersoll, 2010)
Throughout this time, oyster popularity boomed in New York City. Oysters were a
universal food and enjoyed by both the rich and the poor. Oysters would be sold by street
peddlers as well as severed throughout restaurants (Grimes 2009). Oyster plates, with
specific sites for holding oyster shells, were sold throughout the city. Oyster houses
throughout the city offered the Canal Street Plan, which consisted on unlimited raw oysters
on the half-shell for six cents (Grimes 2009). Cookbooks in New York and the Eastern
Coast often contained recipes involving oysters. Most recipes during the mid-1800’s often
called for using massive amounts of oysters. Eliza Leslie’s Directions for Cookery in 1870, for
example, started its recipe for pickled oysters with “Take a hundred and fifty fine large

112
  

oysters…” (MacKenzie 1996 p.14) By 1874, New York City contained over 850 oyster
saloons, cellars, houses, and lunchrooms. Ingersoll describes that in New York City, oysters
were pickled, baked, roasted, stewed, fried, and scalloped (Ingersoll, 2010). They were eaten
during breakfast, lunch, supper, and dinner, and were made into puddings, soups, patties,
and desserts (Jacobsen, 2008). In 1906, an estimated annual per capita consumption was 660
in New York, 60 in London, and 26 in Paris. London served as New York’s primary foreign
market for oyster exports during the late 1800’s. (Kurlansky 2006)
By the end of the 19th century, the oyster industry seemed as if it would continue its
growth well into the 1900’s. Oyster beds in New York, however, began to close during this
time due to increased effluent, or water pollution. By 1884, Jamaica Bay’s famous Rockaway
beds were closed due to the massive amounts of raw sewage and waste dumped there by
nearby Long Island towns. Such contaminations prevented proper growth of planted
oysters. Coming into the 1900’s, the oyster industry faced a drastically reduced demand due
to sanitation issues. The United States as a whole began to develop a great concern for good
sanitation towards the food industry; some referred to this as “pure-food hysteria.”
(MacKenzie 1996) Throughout the 1800’s, oyster packing had been carried out under widely
ranging sanitation conditions. New Yorkers knew very little about sanitation, and no one
suspected that oysters could pick up diseases due to unsanitary practices (Jacobsen, 2008).
During the 1880’s, several outbreaks of Salmonella typhosa, also known as typhoid, occurred in
New York City. Outbreaks of other gastrointestinal diseases also occurred. Several scientists
linked these diseases to the consumption of oysters. At the time, however, most New
Yorkers were skeptical due to the lack of knowledge towards disease. The role of bacteria in
diseases at the time was not fully understood. Medical schools in New York did not adopt
the “germ theory” of diseases until the late 1880’s and 1890’s. (MacKenzie 1996)
Knowledge towards bacteria became widespread during the 1890’s. Outbreaks of
gastrointestinal disorders continued in New York and other areas, and newspapers would
often contain articles linking these outbreaks to oyster consumption. Most people began to
realize that oysters could easily pick up the typhoid organism from beds polluted with
domestic sewage (Jacobsen, 2008). At this time, a “typhoid scare” began to sweep across
New York. Soon after, New Yorkers linked every case of typhoid to oyster consumption if
the patient had admitted eating them. (MacKenzie, 1996)
Pollution was primarily responsible for both decreased demand and reduced
production during the turn of the 19th century. In 1880, oysters from York Bay, known as
Yorks, were no longer available because the bay was so polluted with sewage and discharges
from factories that oysters could no longer safely grow there (MacKenzie, 1996). The Passaic
River, once known as the best fishing river in New Jersey, was polluted to the point where it
emitted fumes that would blister the paint off of nearby houses. Sewage was dumped into all
of New York’s surrounding waters throughout the 19th century (Blackford, 1988). By 1900,
sewage often washed up on beaches and caused the waters to change colors. By 1914, the
city began closing most of its public beaches in all five boroughs. Newton Creek, which is
along the border between Queens and Brooklyn, was reported to give off a smell so foul that
nearby residents had to close their windows in the summer. In 1872, John D. Rockefeller
chose the creek to be an oil-refining site. By 1900, enough petroleum had been dumped that
the creek was effectively cleared of any aquatic life. Food Inspection Decision No. 110,
passed in 1909, prohibited the growing of oysters in polluted waters (Blackford, 1988).
“Polluted” in this sense referred to sewage and other impurities openly seen throughout a
given body of water. This decision closed many oyster beds throughout New York and New
Jersey, especially those related by the East River (Blackford, 1988).

113
  

Oysters from Staten Island’s beds were deemed unsanitary. By 1915, the city closed
down majority of the oyster beds of Jamaica Bay due to contamination from sewage. In
1924, an outbreak of typhoid occurred in Chicago. The disease was linked to oysters
harvested from Raritan Bay, NY. The story was highly publicized and oyster demand fell an
estimated 50%-80% throughout the entire country (MacKenzie, 1996). Although water
pollution did not dramatically increase during this time, the methods of detection had greatly
increased. Technological improvements in water purity tests led to findings that claimed all
of New York’s waters were heavily polluted. In 1927, the last of the Raritan Bay beds were
closed, officially marking the end of oystering in New York City. The oyster industry began
to produce fewer profits and was soon abandoned by many for other lucrative growing
industries such as beef (MacKenzie, 1996). Afterward, several oystermen would often collect
spats in New York beds and ship them to other waters, such as those in California, to be
planted. This practice was soon extinguished, however, because New York’s waters were so
polluted, that even the spats carried a foul taste with them when they grew into oysters in
foreign waters (Blackford, 1988). During this time, both oyster demand and production
continued to drastically decline.
Other local harvesters would often illegally catch oysters and either sell them or
consume them. This practice was not widespread, however, due to the obvious health risks.
Oysters shipped from other areas, such as Chesapeake Bay and California, were still available
in New York (MacKenzie, 1996). Oyster consumption, however, was nowhere near what it
had been during the 19th century. Oyster bars still remained somewhat popular in the early
1900’s. The Oyster Bar in Grand Central Terminal debuted in 1913 (Blackford, 1988). The
oysters used by the bar, however, were not from New York City. In 1934, the city, losing a
Supreme Court case, agreed to stop dumping its garbage into the sea because too much had
been washing up on beaches. Reform to improve the city’s waters continued throughout the
20th century. (Ingersoll 2010)

Oyster Technology
Skyrocketing oyster demand led to significant improvement in oyster-harvesting
technology. One of the oldest known instruments for oyster harvesting in North America
are tongs, with their use dating as far back as the early 1700’s. (Ingersoll, 2010) Used for
collecting oysters in shallow waters, tongs consist of two long rakes attached at some point
along their handles. An oyster harvester would dip the tongs into shallow waters until the
rakes touched the floor. In a scissor-like motion, the two rakes would be drawn together and
everything in-between them, including oysters, would be collected. (MacKenzie, 1996)
Although this instrument of oyster harvesting was eventually replaced by more sophisticated
ones, tongs were still employed by several local oyster harvesters in New York area up until
the early 1920’s. The oysters collected by these harvesters were mostly consumed by either
themselves or their families and not used for commercial purposes. (Ingersoll, 2010)
The oyster dredge was one of the most significant improvements in technology
during the 19th century to meet up with oyster demand. The first use of dredges in New
York was recorded in 1820. A dredge consisted of a heavy steel bar attached to a chain
mesh. The mesh would act as a netting basket, and in a scooping motion, a fisherman would
drag the dredge along a bed and oysters would be collected onto the mesh (Carriker 2004).
From 1860 to 1940, the strong use of dredges led to several improvements in their design.
The production of smaller and lighter dredges was most significant improvement. The use of
heavy dredges could be destructive to certain bottoms, making them too soft and unfit for

114
  

planting oysters. Heavy dredges also had a greater risk of breaking the shell edges of oysters,
making them lose their liquor and drying up when packaged (Kurlansky 2006).
Tongs and dredges were consistently used in New York for oyster harvesting, and
are still used widely today. The most profound changes in harvesting technology in New
York during the late 19th and early 20th centuries were towards the naval vessels from which
these instruments were used. The dugout canoe was the first known boat from which
American fisherman used tongs for oyster collection (Brennessel 2008). Although the use of
dugout canoes greatly diminished over time, local harvesters in New York still occasionally
used them up until the mid 19th century. Sharpies are narrow, long, flat-bottomed sailboats
that were first observed in New York during the 1860’s (Ingersoll, 2010). Sloops, single-
massed sailing vessels using fore and aft rigs, and schooners, multiple-massed sailing vessels
also having fore and aft sails, were widely used in New York from 1850 to the early 1900’s.
The size of both sloops and schooners greatly increased during the late 19th century in order
to increase their efficiency and holding capacity for oysters (Kurlansky 2006). Although
tongs were used on all of these ships, sloops and schooners were very popular amongst
dredgers. During the 1880’s Chesapeake Bay harvesters developed the skipjack specifically
for oyster dredging. Resembling a sloop, a skipjack had an extremely long broom and a
sharply raked mast. Skipjacks offered harvesters greater maneuverability and an increased
capacity for oysters. They soon spread to New York and became the most popular oyster
dredging ship in the greater NY area during the 1880’s and 1890’s (Brennessel 2008).
Although dredging was first done under sail, its efficiency was greatly increased by
the introduction of the steam engine. The first steam dredger was created in 1804 (Ingersoll,
2010). As steam dredgers were adapted to oyster harvesting, they became dangerously
efficient. Several months of dredging could easily clear out a large portion of the oysters in a
given body of water. The French referred to the oyster dredge as the “oyster guillotine.”
(Carriker 2004) New York and New Jersey both viewed oyster dredging, now fueled by
steam power, with great suspicion. In 1820, the oyster dredge was banned from New Jersey,
but planted beds were exempted from the ban in 1846. Only sail-powered dredging was
allowed in Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay until the 1960’s (Ingersoll, 2010). In Long
Island’s Great South Bay, a law banning dredging was passed in 1870, but it was later
repealed in 1893. Dredging was favored in the East River because it broke up oyster-shell
mounds and clusters and cleaned out the area, making it easier to plant clean shells
(Brennessel 2008).
Technological improvements towards oyster aquaculture during the 19th century were
also necessary to meet up with growing oyster demand. According to Kurlansky, the oyster
beds of Staten Island began showing signs of exhaustion as early as 1810. By the 1820’s,
most New York beds had been overharvested and could no longer keep up with the growing
demand for oysters (Kurlansky 2006). Because of this, harvesters began to apply a wide
spectrum of techniques to maximize oyster production. Most of these aquaculture
techniques were greatly developed during the second half of the 19th century. (Ingersoll,
2010)
Oyster harvesters of the 1800’s knew that not all waters were optimal for oyster
growth and development. For example, Long Island’s Great South Bay usually contained an
abundant number of small oysters on its east bay and a small number of large, plump oysters
on its west bay (Carriker 2004). The low salinity of the east bay prevented oysters from
growing into a large size, but oyster drills on the west bay killed many of the immature
oysters. Harvesters also noticed that oysters would often attach themselves to debris,
especially if the debris is smooth. New York harvesters began to throw bundles of smooth

115
  

sticks and broken pottery into the east bay and wait for oysters to attach to them. Once the
oysters were mature enough to survive in the west bay, these harvesters collected the
bundles and transported them, producing numerous plump, full-grown oysters (Carriker
2004).
This was the first time oyster planting, also known as seeding, was performed in
New York (Brennessel 2008). Eventually this method was perfected and widely used all
throughout New York’s oyster beds. For cultivation to have the large-scale efficiency needed
to satisfy growing demand, the oysters needed to be collected and moved at a far earlier
stage in their development: when they were tiny swimming creatures. Many harvesters began
to collect these “spats” and move them to more favorable waters. New York oystermen
referred to these creatures as spats because the process of oyster spawning was known as
spitting, and that these small animals had been “spat.” (Kurlansky 2006) When cultivating
spats, oystermen often collected them in mesh cages until they developed thick, hard shells,
until they were eventually planted in beds to grown and fatten. (MacKenzie, 1996)
During the 1800’s, New York City oystermen began to replant their beds with young
oysters from Arthur Kill and the Raritan River. By 1865, planting oysters from Chesapeake
Bay was common (Carriker 2004). Before this time, New York law prohibited private
ownership of oyster beds; any fisherman was welcome to harvest in any NY bed. When
fisherman began planting oyster beds, however, complications resulted from other fisherman
collecting oysters from planted beds. During the 1860’s and 1870’s, New York and New
Jersey passed several laws that allowed the states to lease underwater property to oystermen
for the sake of planting. (Kurlansky 2006)

Fish Production
Fish production over this period underwent a series of vast changes as a result of not
only the growing demands from city natives but also to satiate the appetites of fish hungry
immigrants. According to a New York Times article, in 1884 approximately 60,000,000 pounds
of fish were brought to the Fulton Market with over sixty fishing vessels actively bringing
their catches to the Fulton slip alone (Anonymous 1884). In fact, the Fulton Fish Market
accounted for ninety percent of all wholesale fish sales in the entire city. Despite being
partially burned down several times, the market endured the entire period, from 1860 to
1940, and beyond, at its original location by the Brooklyn Bridge above Fulton Street
(Anonymous 1879). Dealers during this period had customers as far away as Nevada, and as
far south as Baltimore.
The article also depicts the wide variety of ships docked at the market, each with
different purpose. It describes many of the small fishing sloops, used primarily in local tidal
and coastal waterways, as “almost as broad as she is long, and equally round at both bow and
stern.” (Anonymous 1884) In terms of more specialized vessels, the article notes the
presence of small “punts” with large numbers of live eels writhing about the deck. Punts are
small flat-bottomed boats with square bows that are propelled in rivers and streams by
pushing a pole against the riverbed. The article describes the surface of the water as being
covered with eighty fish cars, twelve-foot latticework squares submerged in the water, each
holding about two hundred fish, used to keep the fish alive until they are ready to be brought
into the open air of the dock and then to market (Anonymous 1884). The reporter asks for
the location of the catch, to which the fisherman replies that the fish were all were caught
within 100 miles of Sandy Hook, a barrier split off of New Jersey that guards the entrance to
lower New York Bay, which is known for its rich fishing grounds.

116
  

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

117
  

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

118
  

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

Meat Production
Meat production also drastically changed during this period in response to the
population increase. The meat packing industry involves the slaughtering, processing, and
distribution of animals including cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry, primarily for human
consumption. Meat production in the 1860s to 1940s took place primarily with the use of
slaughterhouses and stockyards (Stewart, 1938). A slaughterhouse is a facility where livestock
are processed for consumption as food products. Animal byproducts are also used to make
other goods such as leather or paste (Stewart, 1938). A stockyard is a large enclosed area
composed of stables or pens in which livestock are kept until they slaughtered or shipped
elsewhere (Jennings, 1864).
The procedure by which livestock is processed has remained, for the most part,
consistent throughout industrialization (Stewart, 1938). For example, pork production starts
with the pigs being bathed after they are driven into the plant. They are then shackled to a
revolving wheel where a dispatcher severs the swine’s’ main artery with a blade. From that
point the carcasses are passed through a scalding vat and then a scraping machine. Any hair
that remains after this process is singed off. The bodies are then washed again and placed on
moving trolleys, after which they undergo numerous extensive inspections. The hogs are
then transferred to a drying room, followed by a cooler. Here they hang for a about two days
at a temperature of about thirty eight degrees (Davis, 2010).
Once the carcass is rid of heat it becomes firm enough to be carved, so it is sent to
another department to be sliced into various cuts (Stewart, 1938). As each worker removes a
different section, each cut is transferred to a packing station in another part of the plant.
However, prior to that, each cut is trimmed, graded, and cured. When they are cured they sit
in a vat of formula (Davis, 2010). Then they are removed, washed again, and examined
another time by a company inspector. The meat is then moved to a smoke room where it is
smoked over fires according to its size. Finally they are transferred to a wrapping room
where they are inspected a final time.

119
  

The process by which pork produces products varies from plant to plant, however,
the overall process is generally the same. In addition, the same process has been used
throughout the period of industrialization, however, many of the factory components were
replaced with mechanized components (Stewart, 1938). The production of beef products
also follows the same process of cleaning, inspecting, trimming, and curing. (Buckman,
1865)
Much of the new developments in meat processing and packaging originated in
Chicago, the United States’ main source of processed meat, before they made their way to
New York City. From 1864 to 1900, the meatpackers of Chicago transformed the industry
through new uses of technology. One such development by Philip Armour, a Chicago-based
company, was the ice room, which made it possible to store meat year-round. Another was
the steam hoist, which made lifting and moving carcasses along the assembly line easier
(Buckman, 1865). Other developments included the preservation of meat in cans, and
chemical treatments that allowed meat packers to produce glue, fertilizer, glycerin, and
gelatin from previously unused parts of the animal.
New York City’s meat production took place primarily in the Meatpacking District.
The Meatpacking District is an area of Manhattan that runs from Gansevoort Street to West
14th street, between the Hudson River and Hudson Street (Stewart, 1938). At the start of the
20th century, around 250 slaughterhouses and packing plants stood in an area known as the
Gansevoort Market, which was an open air farmer’s where meat and other produce was sold
(Buckman, 1865).
Many of the apartment houses had several floors removed in order to be converted
into two-story warehouses. The roofs were then painted black to block the sun’s heat from
the perishables stored below. In 1847, railroad tracks ran down the west side of Manhattan.
However, after several accidents between the railroad cars and other traffic, it was decided
that a new railroad system would be built as part of a reconstruction effort in the area
(Stewart, 1938).
This new line, call the High Line, was an elevated track that stretched 13 miles and
officially opened in 1934. It ran from 34th Street to Spring Street and went through blocks
rather than over the avenues. In addition, it connected directly to factories so that large
shipments of meat and other produce could be shipped and unloaded easily without
disturbing traffic (Buckman, 1865).

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

120
  

and by 1840, western wheat flour was being used everywhere in New England, by farmers
and city residents as well. The cultivation of wheat and rye was reduced due to the Western
Canal. The wheat yield from the interior of New York during the 1800-1840 time period was
about 20 to 25 bushels. In his article called “NYC Food Detective: What Wheat Where?” Ed
Yowell writes, “the effect of the canal was immediate and dramatic and settlers poured west.
In 1829, there were 3,640 bushels of wheat transported down the Canal from Buffalo. By
1837, this figure had increased to 500,000 bushels; four years later it reached one million.”
In New England, corn cultivation could not meet the demand of consumption;
therefore, corn was imported from the South. As production of wheat moved more towards
the west, one crop became the Agriculture Core’s main produce: Corn, or, maize. This crop
thrived in the regions long hot days and humid nights. “Corn from western New York and
from the Ohio Valley did not figure in eastern markets in its original form, having too little
value to stand transportation costs” (Bidwell and Falconer, 1973). The main area of
production of barley was the Herkimer County in New York; around 450, 000 bushels of
barley was marketed at Albany in 1833 (Bidwell and Falconer, 1973). In eastern
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maine, potatoes were raised in high quantities for the
market. Maine’s potatoes were already known for its good quality in the 1840s and they were
sold in Southern markets.
Food processing was usually done on the farm or at home, but commercial food
processing grew at a fast pace. The process of milling grain was done in two types of mills:
the country mill and the commercial mill, according to Hindle and Lubar (Hindle and Lubar,
1986). The farmer operated country mills seasonally and a part-time miller ground the grain
using a portion of the meal as the payment. On the other hand, commercial mills would buy
the grain from the farmer and sell the meal for export.
Specialized areas were developed for market gardening and fruit growing between
1820 and 1840 in eastern Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Long Island, New York and, in New
Jersey. The farmers supplied fruits and vegetables to the local markets. Apples remained the
most abundant and important orchard fruit except in New Jersey, where peaches were raised
on a considerable scale.
The decrease in wheat acreage in New England between 1840 and 1860 was mainly
due to reasons such as: competition of the West, soil exhaustion, and the repeated attacks of
the wheat midge, rust, and Hessian fly. The increase in wheat production from the West was
due to the newly cultivated prairie farms. “ It would seem that wheat soils of western New
York had become generally depleted through continued cropping with the use of lime and
gypsum as had been the case in the Mohawk Valley some 20 years before. Soil depletion
resulted in frequent winterkilling with crop failures, the impoverished condition of the soil
making the wheat plant very susceptible to the attacks of the midge, and thus reducing the
already small yield” (Bidwell and Falconer 1973). There was an increase in corn production
in the East North Central region, especially in Illinois. In New York and Pennsylvania, little
corn was sold but the main objective was to raise enough for consumption on the farm. But
in areas where wheat is not cultivated, oats is a prominent crop and its yield on a rich land
can be from 60 to 100 bushels. Maine and New York had the greatest increase in oat
production from the East and Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Missouri from the West during
this time period. The states contributing the most to the barley production were California,
Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin. There were also important increases in New York, Maine, and
Pennsylvania since the wheat production reduced in the Eastern states. In 1839, the New
England States, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey were the leading potato growing
states in the country, that is, they produced over 70 percent of the total potato crop of the

121
  

United States (Bidwell and Falconer 1973). The culture of growing other root crops such as
turnips, sugar beets, and rutabagas increased after 1840 in New England and New York.
Carrots, turnips, sugar beets, and rutabagas were considered good to be used as feed for
cattle and horses. These crops, that is, carrots, turnips, sugar beets, and rutabagas were
produced as field crops, but the large amount of labor required for their cultivation soon led
to the discontinuation of their production in the eastern farms. By the later part of the 19th
century, the American palate for vegetables was expanding. New kinds of vegetables were
grown by market farmers and in greenhouses, and exotic vegetables from California and the
South were now shipped across the country using the railway system. Market gardeners were
on the rise in New Jersey, Connecticut, and upstate New York, who supplied the New York
City markets. Previously, New York City was supplied by vegetables from the New York
counties, Long Island, Westchester, and New Jersey, but as the city grew, these suburbs
could not produced enough to meet the increasing demands. Tomatoes, potatoes, peas,
cabbage, onions, strawberries, and cherries were brought from Charleston, Norfolk,
Savannah, and the Bermudas (Williams, 2006). Some of the vegetables eaten by New
Yorkers were artichokes, asparagus, beans (both dried and green), lima beans, beets,
broccoli, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, corn, cucumbers, eggplant, lettuce, mushrooms,
onions, parsnips, peas, green peppers, potatoes, tomatoes, spinach, sweet potatoes, winter
squash, and turnips (Williams, 2006). Asparagus was considered a luxury good because of its
availability only during a certain season.
The Hudson and Mohawk Valleys were known for their apples, pears, and peach
orchards, even during 1840 to 1860. By 1850, it seemed that every eastern farmer had an
apple orchard and the growing cities demands for these apples were high. Delaware and
Maryland were famous for their peach orchards and the water transportation system helped
in their quick transportation to the markets of Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New York. The
number of baskets of peaches sold in New York in 1844 was at 12,000 daily during the
peach season (Bidwell and Falconer, 1973).
Canning foods became significant in the 1820s, that is moving from jars to tin cans.
Since the increasing population of America began to start living in the cities, especially near
the eastern coast, farmlands began moving more towards the west. The food distribution
network was now under an industrial capitalist economy. As cities began to grow in
population, so did the demand for food and amount of food being reached to markets in
cities. By 1860, more than 5 million cans filled with food reached cities. As industrial
revolution began to grow, fruits such as oranges were imported from Central and South
America, and there was an increasing competition between the apple growers in New York
and western apple growers. There was an introduction of refrigeration after canning was
invented. Tom Shachtman writes in his article “The Conquest of Cold,” “commenting in
1869 on the first refrigerated railroad-car shipment from Chicago to New York, Scientific
American predicted, ‘we shall expect to see grapes raised in California and brought over the
Pacific Railroad for sale in New York this season.’”

Beverage Production
A Brief History of Coca-Cola
In addition to the food industry, the beverage industry saw dramatic changes to keep
up with rising demand due to New York’s population increase from 1860 to 1940. Coca-cola
had a pivotal role in the beverage industry. Today, it is an immensely popular soft drink
served across the globe in over 200 countries (The Coca-Cola Company, 2008). A soft drink

122
  

is a non-alcoholic beverage that is typically composed of water and a flavoring agent (which
comes in an incredible variety). It is often carbonated, though this is not compulsory.
Carbonation is the process of dissolving carbon dioxide gas in water; the resulting
liquid retains its gas due to high pressure. When the pressure is lowered (i.e. when you open
the bottle), the gas can escape (resulting in the pop and fizz sounds you hear). Occasionally
this leads to the disastrous and humiliating (yet often times amusing) event in which the
beverage spurts all over the thirsty, unsuspecting soda patron.
“Soft” drinks are named in opposition to “hard” drinks, which have high alcohol
contents. Though some soft drinks may contain alcohol, it is found only in negligible
amounts.
However, the Coca-Cola we know and love today was not always a soft drink. In
fact, it was not always “Coca-Cola”. Atlanta pharmacist John Pemberton had originally
invented French Wine Coca, which – as the name implies – used wine as one of the key
components of its substance. Pemberton marketed his beverage as a panacea for headaches
and most other common ailments, including mental and physical exhaustion, gastric
irritability, constipation and even impotence (Pendergrast, 32). The coca leaf used in French
Wine Coca was also intended to cure morphine addiction in a manner similar to today’s
nicotine patch. Morphine addiction was increasingly common after the Civil War –
Pemberton himself was inflicted (Pendergrast, 43).
However, French Wine Coca could not last in the market when Atlanta, Georgia
passed prohibition law in 1885. One year later, John Pemberton finished his formula for
Coca-Cola, and sold it at a nearby pharmacy. From then on, it has grown in popularity
eventually becoming what it is today.

An Overview of Alcohol and the Prohibition Years

Although food and beverage demand increased from 1860 to 1940, Prohibition had a
significant impact on both alcohol production and consumption in New York. Alcohol has a
much longer history than Coca-Cola, spanning millennia instead of mere decades. It has been
a part of almost every world culture. Alcohol has been used from festive celebrations to
rituals serving the gods. Even today, alcohol is used in religious ceremonies. Alcohol and
culture are closely tied.
In chemistry, there are many different kinds of alcohol, but all are organic
compounds with a hydroxyl functional group. The details are not necessary; all you must
know is that the alcohol found in beverages is called ethanol, which is what is measured
when the “alcohol level” of a beverage is determined and reported.
Alcohol level is measured in amount by volume (a percentage). Beers typically range
from 5-12% by volume; wines usually range from 9-16%; and distilled liquors are generally
much stronger, ranging anywhere from 20% all the way up to 95% by volume.
Alcoholic proof is just another way of determining the strength of an alcoholic
beverage. In the United States, alcoholic proof is defined as twice the percentage alcohol by
volume. For example, a wine that is 15% alcohol by volume is deemed “30 proof”.
America’s period of Prohibition lasted from the ratification of the Volstead Act in
1919 until its repeal in 1933 due to the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment. The
Volstead Act was named after Andrew Volstead, Chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee, which oversaw passage of the law. The Act legally defined the “intoxicating
liquors” to be outlawed, and the law was enforced.
Despite the new law, many American’s chose to continue in their drinking habits; by
1925 there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 “speakeasies” in New York City alone. A

123
  

speakeasy is an establishment such as a bar or tavern that illegally sells alcoholic beverages
(Von Drehle, 56).
Here, an interesting question comes to mind: If the production of alcohol was an
illegal activity, exactly who was producing the alcohol sold in the speakeasies? How was the
alcohol made? What changes underwent the process of alcohol production during the Prohibition?
Bootleggers – “bootlegging” refers to the illegal transportation of alcoholic beverages
– were responsible for supplying the speakeasies of New York with alcoholic beverages such
as gin, whiskey, and particularly moonshine. Moonshine (also called, “white lightning” and
“mountain dew”) refers to any distilled spirit made without a license. “Moonshine” gets its
name from the popular myth that it was first produced by the light of the moon by
Appalachian distillers. Because it was made without a license during the times of
Prohibition, the distillation of moonshine was a serious criminal activity. In short, if New
Yorkers (and other Americans, for that matter) could no longer legally obtain their alcohol,
they simply produced it themselves.
Increasing population also often leads to increased demand for beverages. The
Coca-Cola Company’s website proved invaluable to the research efforts of this paper.
Timelines and photographs made it easy to distinguish important information and factual
material. Information concerning the history of how Coca-Cola first developed from its
beginnings as French Wine Coca came from excerpts of the book “For God, Country, and
Coca-Cola: The Unauthorized History of the Great American Soft Drink and the Company
that Makes It”
Many sources concerning alcohol and Prohibition were consulted and referenced in
the writing of this section. It is interesting to note that each author had his or her own
interpretation of the time period; some authors seemed to side with Prohibition law (Clark,
1976)(Furna, 1965). Still others had a more light-hearted interpretation, and instead sided
with bootleggers and rumrunners (Powers, 1999).
Many prohibitionists, those who urged for the passing of prohibition legislation,
were evangelical, and pointed to alcohol as a sinful vice that was corrupting the country.
However, that may not have all been true. Though bars of the time were regularly filled with
patrons, Powers reports that, according to many firsthand accounts, “only occasionally did
outright intoxication occur in workers’ barrooms” (12). In “Faces Along the Bar”, Powers
shows us that before Prohibition, bars acted in much the same way that churches did:
In one respect at least, prohibitionists were correct: most saloons did cater to
a regular crowd. Just as churches had their congregations, so most saloons
had loyal constituencies of perhaps fifty to sixty “regulars” who kept them in
business. (11)

Other sources were extremely useful as well, such as Assistant Professor of

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

124
  

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

125
  

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

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Oyster Production

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

126
  

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

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

127
  

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

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

128
  

Figure#5:  Annual  Oyster  

Weight  of  Annual  Catch  (lb.)  

Catch  in  New  York  State  
30,000,000  
25,000,000  
20,000,000  
15,000,000  
10,000,000  
5,000,000  
0  
1880   1890   1901   1911   1921   1930   1940  
Year  

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

Figure#6:  Yearly  Comparison  

of  Average  Value  of  Oyster  
Oyster  Meat  Value  per  

Meat  by  Pound  

Pound  (cents)  

30  
20  
10  
0  
1880   1890   1901   1911   1921   1930   1940  
Year  

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

129
  

Figure#7:  Yearly  Comparison  of  

Total  Area  of  New  York  State  Waters  
Under  Lease  for  ShellNish  Culture  
40,000  
30,000  
Acres  

20,000  
10,000  
0  
1900   1905   1910   1915   1920   1925   1930   1935  
Year  

Figure 8.7 This graph displays the total area in acres of New York State waters that was leased
by the state to various companies for the purpose of culturing shellfish. This area is
displayed as a function of the year. The Hudson River Valley Commission reported this data
in The Hudson Fish and Wildlife: A Report on Fish and Wildlife Resources in the Hudson River Valley,
1996, p.324. This data was originally obtained from the annually published Fishery Statistics of
the United States, published by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.

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

130
  

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

Meat Production
The meat industry has been one of the most important food producing entities in
America. The mass consumption of meat products across the country has led to the rapid
development of meat production in every major city, including New York City. One notable
period of development occurred between 1860 and 1940. During this time the methods of
the industry greatly expanded due to urbanization leading to faster processing at higher
quantities.
The rise of the meat industry in America was in part spurred by the creation of
railroads throughout the United States. The transportation of livestock had to be widely
developed, as meat production depended on transportation companies to distribute stock to
other locations. Various railroad companies performed the majority of this service, as they
were apt for relocating large quantities very quickly.
The meat industry in New York City and throughout America developed rapidly in
response to a growth in population and a skyrocketing demand. As is the case in any
industry, a change in demand called for a change in production. To meet these growing
needs, new technology and methodology had to be developed. As a result, during America’s
period of industrialization, the meat industry underwent great change to adapt to great
change.

Grain Production

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

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

131
  

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

Beverage Production
Coca-Cola Trends of Development and Expansion
• 1886 – Coca-Cola is first introduced, sold for five cents a glass.
• 1890-1900 – Syrup sales increases from 9,000 gallons to 370,877 gallons.
• 1920 – Coca-Cola is enjoyed in 10 countries worldwide.
• 1909 – About 400 Coca-Cola bottling plants were operating around the
country.
• 1940 – Coca-Cola is enjoyed in over 50 countries worldwide.
• 1920 – More than 1,000 bottling plants were operating in the U.S.A.
• 1928 – Sales in bottled Coca-Cola exceed fountain sales (first time ever).
– Coca-Cola introduced at the Olympic games in Amsterdam.

132
  

Number  Of  Countries  Where  Coca-­Cola  Is  Sold  

250  

200  

150  

100  

50  

0  
1880   1900   1920   1940   1960   1980   2000   2020  

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

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

133
  

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

Imports/Exports Production

Products of Vegetables Other Total

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

At the beginning of the 1860’s, the Erie Canal brought into New York a greater
amount of vegetables and food products in general. The railroad brought in significantly
more tons of products of animals. As time went on, this trend stayed constant. Shipments by
railroad and steamship began to decline in the 1930’s. At the same time, shipments via trucks
began to increase. (George 1935)
Various types of food including meats, vegetables, fruits, sugar, alcoholic beverages,
dairy products, live animals and grains were transported to New York via the Erie Canal and
New York Central Railroads from western states and parts of Canada. According to James
Barton, flour, wheat, and corn were the most imported items with bushels numbering in the
millions over a one-year period. Oats, barley, rye, and other types of grains were also
important imports. The various meats transported included bacon, beef, beef tongues, ham,
mutton, tripe, fish, and slaughtered hogs. The various vegetables shipped included potatoes,
peas, and beans. Few fruits were shipped, but the types included various dried fruits and

134
  

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

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

135
  

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

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

136
  

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

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

137
  

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

Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains

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

Beverage Production
Coca-Cola
The most convincing argument that Coca-Cola had expanded enormously over this
time period is simply in the fact that from 1886 to 1840 (just over half a century), Coca-Cola
spread from its humble beginnings in Atlanta, Georgia to a total of 53 countries around the
globe.
Prior to its growth in global presence, Coca-Cola had successfully spread to all parts
of the United States, resulting in thousands of bottling plants all over the country. Bottling
was key to Coca-Cola’s success: Without the ability to bottle and ship the product, Coca-
Cola’s horizon’s would have been quite limited. Instead we see that it is sold in over 200
countries today; the classic, contoured Coca-Cola bottle is an instantly recognized symbol no
matter where you are on the planet.
Alcohol
From the Figure 8.9, we may infer that the decline in volume of alcohol consumed
from 1910 to 1921 is due to the fact that the separate States had been enacting their own
prohibition laws before it became national policy in 1919. Therefore, leading up to total
Prohibition, there was a gradual decline in alcohol consumption. However, as Prohibition
set in, people began to realize ways to get around the law, and consumption again rose to
levels before the Volstead Act.

138
  

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

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

CONCLUSION
Over the period 1860-1940 New York’s population increased over nine fold. While
the City itself was utterly transformed physically, the means of food production evolved even
more so in order to meet the massive increase in demand. All food groups as well as the
practices of importation and exportation changed in order to meet the needs of a growing
New York.

139
  

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

140
  

growing New York. It was many of the advances made during this period that revolutionized
the methods of urban food production for decades to come.

REFERENCES

Agricultural History. Fargo, Agricultural Historical Society.

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

New York Times Apr 7, 1860.

Anonymous. 1869. Documents of the Assembly of the State of New

York. ed. N. Y. S. Assembly. Albany.

Anonymous. 1879. Fire in Fulton Market. New York Times.

Anonymous. 1884. Fish In Fulton Market. New York Times.

Anonymous.1887. Fish Plenty For Good Friday. New York Times.

Anonymous. 1897. A Huge Horse Mackerel. New York Times.

Anonymous. 1907. How New York City Gets It's Fish Supply. New
York Times.

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

Times.

Anonymous. 1924. Imperiled Fish Supplies. New York Times.

Anonymous. 1935. New York's Menu Undergoes Change. New York

Times.

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

Friday Business. The Cinncinati Enquirer.

Anonymous. 2008. Fish Tale Has DNA Hook: Students Find Bad
Labels. New York Times.

Applegate, Howard L. Coca-Cola: A History in Photographs 1930

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

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

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

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

October 21, 2010

141
  

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

Power Presses.

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

Arcade Books, 1996. Print.

Bidwell, Percy Wells, and John I. Falconer. History of Agriculture in

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life Story. New York: Columbia University Press.

Brennessel, B. 2008. Good Tidings: The History and Ecology of

Shellfish Farming in the Northeast. Boston: UPNE.

Buckman, J. 1865. Science and Practice in Farm Prdocution. Picadilly.

Burrows, E. G. & M. Wallace. 1999. Gotham : a history of New York

City to 1898. New York: Oxford University Press.

Carriker, M. R. 2004. Taming of the Oyster A History of Evolving

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

142
  

Crawshaw, F. 1922. Farm Mechanics. Peoria, The Manual Arts Press.

Davenport, A. 1922. The American live stock market: how it

functions. Chicago, Drovers Journal Print.

"Drink Coca-Cola 5 Cents." Ed. cents, Drink Coca-Cola 51890(s).

Vol. 438 x 599 pixels. Print.

Foner, N. 2000. From Ellis Island to JFK : New York's two great
waves of immigration. New Haven New York: Yale
University Press ; Russell Sage Foundation.

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

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

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

New York: North Point Press.

Harper, Charles L., and Bryan F. LeBeau. Food, Society, and

Environment. Prentice Hall 2002. Print.

Hindle, Brooke, and Steven Lubar. Engines of Change: The

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

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

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

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

Books LLC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

143
  

Kahn, Gordon. The Speakeasies of 1932: Over 400 Drawings,

Paintings and Photos. First Edition ed. New York: Glenn
Young Books/Applause, 2003. Print.

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

Capo Press, 1993. Print.

Kochiss, J. M. 1974. Oystering from New York to Boston.

Middletown: Wesleyan Publishing.

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

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

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

world. New York: Walker and Co.

Kurlansky, M. 2006. The Big Oyster: History on the Half Shell. New
York: Ballantine Books.

Lee, D. O. C. & J. F. Wickins. 1992. Crustacean Farming. Hoboken,

NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Lee, Norman E. Harvests and Harvesting through the Ages.

Cambridge University Press 1960. Print.

Lerner, Michael A. Dry Manhattan: Prohibition in New York City.

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

Levy, J. 2003. The Erie Canal: A Primary Source History of the Canal
that Changed America. New York: Rosen Publishing Group
Inc.

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

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

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

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

M'Combie, W. 1869. Cattle and cattle-breeders. London.

MacKenzie, C. L. (1996) History of Oystering in the United States

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

144
  

March, E. J. 1970. Sailing trawlers: the story of deep-sea fishing with

long line and trawl. Newton Abbot,: David & Charles.

McDonnell, Timothy. "Economic Geography." Oct 20, 2010.

McNeese, T. 2009. The Erie Canal: Linking the Great Lakes.

Infobase Publisher.

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

American History). Greenwood, 2005. Print.

Olver, Lynne. "Colonial & Early American Fare." (2000). Oct 10,
2010

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

Chicago :: Ivan R. Dee Publisher, August 1999. Print.

Pendergrast, Mark. For God, Country, and Coca-Cola: The Definitive

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

Powers, Madelon. Faces Along the Bar: Lore and Order in the
Workingman's Saloon, 1870-1920 (Historical Studies of
Urban America). Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press,
June 1999. Print.

The Prohibition Era. A&E Television. January 15, 1998.

Reisem, R. O. & A. Olenick. 2000. Erie Canal Legacy: Architectural

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

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

of Agricultural Economics 7(2).

Roberts, C. 2007. The Unnatural History of the Sea. Washington,

D.C.: Island Press.

Rumbarger, John J. Profits, Power, and Prohibition: Alcohol Reform

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

Sadowski, F. E. 2010. The Erie Canal.

Saltveit, Mikal E. "Agriculture since the Industrial Revolution." Oct

10, 2010

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

145
  

Sinclair, Upton 1906. The Jungle, Doubleday, Jabber & Company.

Smil, V. 2002. "Eating Meat: Evolution, Patterns, and

Consequences." Population and Development Review
28.

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

Paul: MBI Publishing Company.

Southworth, G. V. D. 1907. Builders of Our Country. D. Appleton.

Stewart, J. J. 1938. Foods: production, marketing, consumption. New

York, Prentice- Hall.

Stickney, R. R. 1995. Aquaculture of the United States: A Historical

Survey. Maiden, MA: Wiley.

Sumner, Judith. American Household Botany: A History of Useful

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

"Themes for Coca-Cola Advertising (1886-1999) " 1886-1999. Print.

US United States Information Agency. An Outline of American

History (1994). Ed. Cincotta, Howard. 1994. Oct 10, 2010

Vanderblue, H. B. 1920. Railroad Valuation by the Interstate

Commerce Commission. Harvard University Press.

Williams, A. 1984. Shrimps, Lobsters, and Crabs of the Atlantic

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

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

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

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

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

146
  

-9-
FROM NEW METROPOLIS TO INDUSTRIAL CITY
Urban food markets in New York City and how they changed during the industrial era
by Ivana Roman, Molly Steinblatt, Olivia Torres, Mason Taub, and Jasmin Zaman

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

LITERATURE REVIEW

Beverages

Beer
Beer was a common beverage among the early settlers in America. They only used
few vats for mashing, cooling, and fermenting (Brock 1995). However, the latter half of the
nineteenth century saw technological advances help to promote a more efficient processing
and production of this beverage.

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

147
  

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

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

Box 9.1
The grain exports from New York, for the year ending 1st September, have been as
follows:
Flour …… 616,166 barrels
Wheat …… 4,572,228 bushels
Corn …... 1,724,955 bushels

Source: (Data from census years)

For a farmer growing grain in the early 20th century there were several complexities
presented. One is that grain must be harvested within six months of planting, and the
harvest period usually last anywhere from 2 to 3 months. Ultimately this means that the
bulk of grain destined to be sold to manufactures must remain in storage for quite a while
before it reaches users. Farmers had a difficult time with this aspect of grain production
because it must be kept in fireproof, insured warehouses or it becomes a liability (Benjamin
Horace Hibbard 1921).
In 1915, the farms on Long Island fed only a small portion of New York City’s
population. Marcus M. Marks argues that intensive farming on Long Island could have
provided for New York City and neighboring towns. However, at the time, Marks argues
that it would be impossible because the expense of the farmer would outweigh any profit
they would gain.
The open markets encouraged farmers to produce a greater surplus of crops, which
led to fresh and reasonably priced produce for consumers (New York Board of Estimate and
Apportionment 1915).
A particular trend in farms on the outskirts of New York City, in Kings County,
Brooklyn, was observed during the Industrial Revolution. Between the years of 1880 to
1890, there was a decrease from 409 farms to only 307, which the New York State Bureau of
Statistics of Labor inferred as, “’many’ farms that ‘were formally occupied and cultivated …
are now lying idle in the hands of real-estate speculators’” (Marc Linder 1999).
At the turn of the century, although there was a slight rise in farmland usage in Kings
County in the last decade, there was a sharp 70% decrease by 1910. By 1930, there were only
11 farms servicing New York in the Brooklyn area, a record low. Although the Great

148
  

Depression and World War I forced the number of farms to rise to 65 in 1950, the acres of
farm in Kings County never fully recovered the land lost.
Due to this urbanization and population of the New York and Brooklyn area, there
was an increased demand for hay, vegetables, milk, and other perishable goods. The
remaining farms in Brooklyn became dedicated to this and, “As a result, grain production
declined ‘greatly’…” (Linder 25). Since it was not profitable to transport perishable goods
over long distances, New York began to focus its attentions to cultivating those
commodities and began to rely more on grain imports from other sources.
This commercializing of agriculture did not take place over night; in fact it took
almost half a century for the new wave of commercial farming to over power the traditional
farms. Due to the developments of large cities, it became profitable to transport grain and
meat long distances, because these commodities were not easily accessible to populations in
cities (Benjamin Horace Hibbard 1921).

Meat
The major packing firms of Armour, Morris, Swift, and Hammond, known as the
Chicago packers, supplied 85% of the nation’s beef by 1887 (Perry 1989), with another
considerable percentage supplied by packers like Cudahy and Schwarzschild & Sulzberger
(Whitten and Whitten 2006). The packing companies competed with each other for supply
on both local and national levels, each changing their prices, quality, technologies, and
shipment techniques to come out on top. The competitors continued to fight for the
position as most successful company until they either dissolved or merged.
With the introduction of new technologies, the big packers gained the ability to
slaughter, as well as pack, their meat. In fact, by 1916, Swift and Armour alone accounted for
half of the cattle, calves, sheep, and hogs slaughtered (Perry 1989). From 1880 through 1910,
“slaughtering and meat packing was either the first or second most valuable United States
industry” (Himmelberg 1994, 206). “Small, local slaughterhouses, which previously had
characterized the industry, were displaced rapidly in most markets because they could not
compete with the new low-cost substitute (from the major packing companies).

Seafood and Shellfish

The Fulton Fish Market is considered a large, centralized fish market. This means
that the consumers, the fishermen themselves, and the dealers (or middlemen between those
who actually caught the fish and those who wish to purchase it) all congregate in a single
place to complete the trading of the product.
A point of contention between the managers of the Fulton Fish Market and the
press has traditionally been the market structure. This refers specifically to the physical
construction of the market, i.e. the organization and maintenance of the individual stalls of
the market in which both peddlers and permanently established dealers of the market sell
their goods to the public. This includes the protection of the goods in their containers from
outside contamination, as well as refrigeration (which incidentally was not utilized in New
York markets until 1835) (New York Times 1876).
Such areas are the origin of a market’s resources. The origin, source, or original
location of the resources refers to the natural site from where a market’s raw materials are
physically extracted. For the fishermen of New York City, these areas are the various
waterways in and surrounding the five boroughs of the city. Some historically utilized sites
of New York City include: the shellfish beds of Jamaica Bay (the body of water that lies
between southern Queens, southeastern Brooklyn, and Rockaway Beach), the Hudson River,

149
  

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

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

Source: (Kurlansky, 2006)

Fruit and Vegetables

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

RESULTS, FINDINGS, OR CASE STUDY

150
  

Beverages

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

Figure 9.1 Technologies of the Early American Railroad

151
  

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

Table 9.1 Operating Breweries by [Selected] State[s] in Selected Years 1876-1940

State 1876 1880 1890 1895 1900 1910 1914 1919 1935 1940
NY 393 334 290 274 270 194 165 153 69 61

152
  

Grain Market

Table 9.2 Total Grains Produced in New York

Year Buckwheat Barley (in Wheat (in Total Difference Percent
(in Bushels) Bushels) Bushels) from Difference
previous from previous
census year
1860 4,180,008 5,126,307 0 9,306,315
1880 4,401,200 7,792,062 0 12,199,262 +2,892,947 + 31.09%
1900 3,000,000 3,800,000 10,500,000 17,300,000 +5,100,738 +41.18%
1920 3,901,481 2,273,911 9,136,368 15,311,760 -1,988,240 -11.49%
1940 4,549,088 5,361,743 9,910,831 -5,400,929 -54.50%
Sources: (Data from census years)

Meat
Refrigerator Cars
Prior to the widespread use of refrigerated railcars, meat was shipped primarily as
livestock. Animal carcasses, known as dressed beef, needed preservation and cooling, and
therefore could not be shipped in a non-refrigerated car without rotting. However, the idea
of saving space, time, and money by shipping dressed beef instead of live cattle was too
enticing to give up on. The start of shipping dressed beef began in 1869, when meatpacker
George H. Hammond used the protection of winter cold to ship meat (Whitten and Whitten
2006).
Hammond built a monopoly on dressed beef New England, and his success
attracted competitors in the 1870s. Packers like Nelson Morris and Timothy Eastman
attempted to commercially ship dressed beef, but it was not until Gustavus Swift innovated
the use of refrigerated cars that dressed beef became a major commodity. Swift began
shipping using winter temperatures, like his predecessors, but became dissatisfied with the
seasonal limitations. He began renting refrigerated railroad cars, primarily used for produce,
to ship his meat. Swift hired engineer Andrew Chase, and together, they proposed a design
for a refrigerated car to railroad companies in 1878. The railroad executives were not
interested, as they trusted and were committed to livestock shipment, not the new and
unreliable industry of dressed beef. Swift had his cars manufactured instead by Michigan Car
Company of Detroit. After proceeding to solely ship dressed beef, Swift began to do
extremely well. The cost advantage of shipping dressed meat as opposed to livestock drove
his competitors from the business, or forced them to use his technique (Whitten and
Whitten 2006).
“In October 1882, Harper's Weekly confidently announced that the ‘era of cheap
beef has begun for New York’ with the opening of Swift's first refrigerated meat wholesale
shop. Lower prices sped up consumer acceptance of chilled beef ” (Horowitz 2004, 1076).
In addition to decreasing the cost of beef, refrigerated cars made the retrieval of meat much
easier for retailers. Hedden states in his book that “the refrigerator car ha[d] made possible
perambulating branch houses. . . . Two or three times a week a peddler car [wa]s loaded with
beef, pork, and lamb as ordered. The retail dealers in each town m[et] the car and t[ook]
delivery of their purchases on the spot.” (1929, 45-46).
Furthermore, refrigeration allowed for “centralized, large-scale slaughtering of
cattle in Chicago or other leading western packing centers and the shipment of carcasses to

153
  

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

Seafood and Shellfish

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

Fruit and Vegetables

Table 9.3 A brief characterization of the start and finish of the industrial era
mid-1800’s mid-1900’s
Motor Trains
Delivery trucks Steamboat, barges
Methods House-to- Trucks
house
delivery

Scattered Concentrated on lower west side of Manhattan

Market locations
“Public Highly centralized
Market structures markets” Consumer-to-seller
Consumer-
to-grower

Little to Little to none

Processing of fruits none
and vegetables

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

1994)

154
  

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

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

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

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

1885 Railroads owned 990 refrigerator cars

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

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

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

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

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

1928 Erie station reconstructed

Sources: (Hedden 1929, Sherman 1930, Millstone 2003, Ehrenreich)

Box 9.2
A summarization of delivery methods
the mid-1800’s, pre-refrigerator car

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

Box 9.3

VERSUS

the 1900’s, post-refrigerator car

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

155
  

Table 9.5 Delivery methods versus distance

Distance Most advantageous delivery method for perishable foodstuff
between
source and
destination
0 – 100 Motor truck
miles
100 + miles Freight, ship, plane

Source: (Hedden 1929)

Box 9.4

Grapes Circa 1930: A Case Study

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

Sources: (Adelman 2010, Anonymous 1906, Anonymous 2004, Bachmann 2000, Childe
1901, Cowan 1976, Davidson 1999, Ehrenreich , Friedland , Friedland 1994)

Table 9.6 Delivery methods versus distance

Distance Most advantageous delivery
between method for perishable foodstuff
source and
destination
0 – 100 Motor truck
miles
100 + miles Freight, ship, plane
Source: (Hedden 1929)

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

156
  

(1929) suggested in 1927 that motor trucks are only advantageous economically and in terms
of practicality when perishables travel less than one hundred miles. At distances beyond one
hundred miles, refrigerated freight travel becomes the more advantageous method because
otherwise perishable goods could not survive the journey. At the time of the 1927 guidelines,
the technology for refrigeration was not yet introduced to ships and planes feasibly
(Hendrickson , Krasner-Khait , Millstone 2003).
The markets towards the end of the industrial era were markedly different.
Towards the end of the industrial era, freight transportation became the main mode of
delivery. Empirical data supports the claim that freight transportation became the main
method of transporting fruits and vegetables to New York City. The total amount of freight
car loads containing fruit and vegetables steadily increased after 1888 (Hedden 1929). The
average recorded distance fruits and vegetables traveled were 1500 miles by 1927 (Hedden
1929). Because it is well documented that only refrigerator car loads can handle perishables
for 1500 miles or more without spoilage, it is certain that most fruit and vegetable deliveries
occurred via freight (Sherman 1930, US Department of Agriculture 1994).
Fluctuation in production was a common trend from 1860 to 1940. The data
collected by the Census of Agriculture can be showed in terms of the percent difference
from the previous census. There was steady increase from 1880 to 1900, which was in fact
observed in the farms of Kings County. The slight decrease in 1920, and then subsequent
dramatic decrease in 1940 was also seen in Kings County Farms.
However, only focusing on the percent difference graph could lead one to believe that the
production of grain in 1940 was much less than in 1860. This would be very misleading,
since upon inspection of Table 9.7, one can see that ironically, the production in 1860 and
1940 are very similar.

Table 9.7 Total Production of Wheat, Barley, and Buckwheat form 1860 to 1940
18,000,000  

16,000,000  
Produced  (in  bushels)  

14,000,000  

12,000,000  

10,000,000  

8,000,000  

6,000,000  
1860   1880   1900   1920   1940  
Years  

Source: (Austin 1922, Kennedy 1864)

157
  

Another reason for this observed fluctuation could be attributed to the growth of
factories. While the growth of industry initially increased production of grain in New York
City, it eventually contributed pushing farms out as well. Commercialized farming was
popular till the turn of the century when factory jobs in Manhattan forced people into
neighboring towns. This suburbanization of Brooklyn and Long Island could have led to the
fluctuation of grain production.
Similarly, the city required an enormous amount of meat, and a great variety of
meat, to fulfill the needs of its large, heterogeneous population. A new policy changing the
rate at which Chicago packers shipped their meat, the price of meat, or the convenience of
acquiring the meat affected the New York City markets especially because of the unyielding
demand of New Yorkers for meat products. Refrigeration cars benefited many New Yorkers
by lowering the cost and increasing the availability of beef, but it also harmed thousands of
New Yorkers who lost their jobs in local slaughterhouses and butcher shops due to the
growing control of the Chicago packers.
The decrease of number in beer breweries is often credited to the rise of the national
brewery association, in turn putting the local ones out of business. It’s not to say that these
establishments no longer exist, just that they are more accessible through mass production.
Due to Prohibition, the legislation banning a sale of liquor New York saw a decrease in the
number of breweries open. Although bootlegging, and illegal manufacturing of alcohol still
took place we can deduce that this type of data was most likely not recorded. In addition,
the advantage of the motor truck transportation over the railroad freight saved money in
handling and was convenient for the farmer. It provided a single direct movement from field
to commission merchant’s store door. However, it had lesser dependability of schedule
because of delays.
While news journalists certainly had legitimate cause for complaint regarding New
York’s polluted waters in the 1920s, the craze of progressivism, which arose at nearly the
same time the Fulton Fish Market opened, is worth looking at as a potential bias. The
muckrakers—a term originating with President Theodore Roosevelt’s challenge to “the men
with the muckrakes”—were a crowd of journalists bent on purifying American society
through consciousness-raising articles. The muckrakers spanned from liberal to
conservative; from trust-busting in big business to abolishing prostitution and alcohol.

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

158
  

REFERENCES

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

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

Commission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications.

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

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

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

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

Hendrickson, R. Coast to Coast.

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

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

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

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

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

159
  

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

Washington.

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

London: D. Appletom and Company.

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Department of Agriculture, N. P. A. 1994. Impact on Market Participants. In Food and

Agricultural Markets: The Quiet Revolution, ed. L. S. Daft, L., 26-49. Natl Planning
Assn.

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

160
  

-10-
REGULATING WHAT WE EAT
The development of agricultural and food safety policies and regulatory systems in the United
States, 1900-2010
by Kimberly Milner, Swathi Mummini, Olga Myszko, and Alexandra Napoli

INTRODUCTION
The current United Sates’ food regulatory system is a complex network that depends
upon multiple components that include the federal, state, and local governments, as well as
the public, both as producers and consumers of food. These components must be
incorporated into the even more complex network of food supply, which includes all aspects
from production to consumption. The federal government’s role in food regulation lies in
the domains of supervision, research, surveillance, enforcement, and education of the
agricultural and processing sectors of food production and consumption. World War II and
the Great Depression greatly affected agricultural policy, and drove the necessity for change
and reform. Poverty, new technologies, and new research methods, as well as the ultimate
desire for efficiency, income, and nutrition helped shape new laws and programs in the
United States throughout the years. The existing food system has evolved piecemeal over a
century in response to changes in the food supply and changes in the scientific and social
environments in which the system operates. Since the passing of the first food and
agricultural laws, legislations have evolved from concerns of food fraud, to food safety, to,
most recently, the relationship between health and food. Agricultural policy is continuously
adjusted to merge with the economical and social state of the United States. This chapter will
examine the policies enacted from postwar to present day, analyzing the shifts made in
agricultural legislation.

BACKGROUND/LITERATURE REVIEW
Over the last century, there have been dramatic changes in food technologies to meet
shifting supply demands and to improve the quality, safety, and availability of the food
supply. Research in agriculture; food composition and nutrition; food science and
technology; and food production, processing, and preservation all played a role in changing
food sources from local and rural systems to much larger systems that provide foods to
national and international markets.
Developments in chemistry, microbiology, plant and animal breeding, food science
and technology, refrigeration, distribution, and in the marketing of foods changed the face of
the food supply. These activities led to the current systems used to supply foods to urban
and rural populations in many countries. Systems vary based on geography, production and
processing resources, levels of development, environment, and food habits and culture
(Lupien 2005).
The development and rapid growth of food processing industries for fruits, vegetables,
and animal products in Europe, North America, and other regions of the world, caused
concern about the quality and safety of foods among consumers and legislators. Around

161
  

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

162
  

whether the Constitution gave Congress the authority to legislate matters of health and
safety. Prior to national regulation, federal authority was limited mostly to imported foods
and drugs (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 1998). However, the
beginnings of a US national food regulatory system can be traced back to 1862, when
President Abraham Lincoln founded USDA (Roberts 2001). In 1880, President Rutherford
B. Hayes subsequently established USDA’s Bureau of Chemistry, the predecessor to FDA
(Hygiene in Food Processing 2003). The origins of the current food-safety system are in the
1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was enacted at a time when Americans had a
much simpler diet and processed foods were rare. Congress has amended the law numerous
times since to account for changes in American diets, including the growing popularity of
seafood and other products imported from other countries, where diverse controls apply. As
a result, 15 federal agencies now administer at least 30 food-safety laws (Food Safety. 2008).
Regulatory agencies are authorized to define standards; to maintain research programs; to
monitor risks in the supply; and to provide information and education (Institute of Medicine
and National Research Council 1998).

FINDINGS
The Development of National Agricultural Policy
Policy Prior to the New Deal
Roosevelt’s New Deal agricultural policy might have been radical in its applications,
but not in its genesis. During the 1920’s, agricultural legislation was presented by agrarian
spokesmen spurred by the early depression and its chronic failure to achieve full recovery
thereafter. Prominent legislation was the McNary-Haugen bill of 1924, which raised farm
prices by having the government buy surpluses and sell them abroad at world market prices.
Additionally, domestic prices were protected by a tariff. The difference in the higher
domestic prices and the lower international prices would be covered by an “equalization fee”
charged to farmers (Winders 2009). Though McNary-Haugen was reintroduced into
Congress multiple times, gaining support as the Great Depression worsened, it never
became law, with President Calvin Coolidge vetoing it twice. What the bill more importantly
introduced was an agrarian agitation for direct government relief.
The McNary-Haughen bill introduced the government’s capacity to affect farm
politics and economics directly. President Herbert Hoover favored efforts to help farmers
through voluntary and cooperative agreement: agricultural cooperatives that would relieve
farmer’s economic burdens through branches created, not directed, by the government
(Hamilton 1991). Hoover signed into law the Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) of 1929
that centered on providing financial and managerial support for agricultural cooperatives
(Hamilton 1991). Notably the AMA created the Federal Farm Board that had the authority
to buy surplus crops (Campbell 1962).

Policy under the New Deal, 1932-1939

One of the main policies of the New Deal was the Agricultural Adjustment Act of
1933.The Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA)2 and the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) were enacted under the Department of Agriculture as a result of the
1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act. It tried to alleviate the effects of the depression—the
                                                                                                               
2
Enacted by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, not to be confused with the Agricultural Adjustment
Act of 1938 (also known as the AAA)

163
  

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

164
  

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

Policy during World War II

165
  

Throughout WWII, the parity ratio was well over 100, indicating farm prosperity. In
fact, instead of surpluses, shortages now existed, and as prices rose, price controls were put
in place by the government. To compensate for a loss in income due to price controls,
farmers were paid in direct US subsidies. In addition, limits on production were turned over,
as production was encouraged by a lift on all acreage allotments and market quotas by 1943
(besides on certain tobaccos). In another tactic to raise production, the government also
raised price supports to ensure farmers that once they expanded production; they would be
guaranteed protection from the government despite the possibility of a surplus economy.
However, this rising productivity during the war was very soon met with growing surpluses
despite the decreasing number of farms, due to technological advances in both the chemical
and mechanical fields. Nevertheless, demand remained high for a number of years after the
war, allowing farm income to also stay heightened (Bowers, Rasmussen, and Baker 1984).
The Resettlement Administration (RA) worked to relocate struggling families to
communities run and funded by the federal government. The goal of the Administration was
to solve the problem of poverty and landless farmers. A major bill established by the RA was
known as the Bankhead Bill of 1935. Its purpose was to enable the government to evaluate
and purchase land based on its longevity and sustainability. Then, the government would be
able to resell the land fairly to tenants and sharecroppers who were landless. The bill was
passed by Senate in 1935, but rejected by the House of Representatives. However, as a direct
result of this bill, Congress passed the Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937. This act
established a credit program that would help farmers purchase land. The Resettlement
Administration later became the Farm Security Administration in January 1937. (Gabbert)
Congress then passed the Research and Marketing Act of 1946, which added duties
to the Department of Agriculture, including distribution, transportation, and marketing. The
act also established research in the area of human nutrition. It gave a value to each food item
and was a general first step in making reforms based on health and nutritional values as we
do today. The first major research bill was signed by the Senate on March 8, 1946. It was
known as the Flannagan-Hope bill, named after John Flannagan and Hope, members of the
House Agriculture Committee.

Post-World War II Policy

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

166
  

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

The Development of National Food Safety Policy

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

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

167
  

The first national food safety law, the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906, added
regulatory functions to the Bureau of Chemistry. It prohibited interstate commerce in
misbranded and adulterated foods, drinks, and drugs (Federal Food and Drugs Act 1906).
There were numerous regulations, amendments, and US Supreme Court rulings on
adulteration, misbranding, false and misleading claims, and food additives.
In 1933 FDA recommended a complete revision of the 1906 Act. After 5 years, the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C) of 1938 was passed, essentially replacing the
1906 Act. The origins of the current food-safety system are in the FD&C Act, which
established FDA as the controlling federal authority for food safety (Hygiene in Food
Processing 2003; Roberts 2001). The act corrected manipulations in food packaging and
quality, and it mandated legally enforceable food standards. Tolerances for certain poisonous
substances in food products, including pesticide residues, were set. The law formally
authorized factory inspections, and allowed FDA to issue injunctions in order to enforce
standards (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938).
The Act re-defined “food,” “adulteration,” and “misbranding,” and defined “food
additives” and “added substances.” Food was defined as “(1) articles used for food or drink
for man or other animals, (2) chewing gum, and (3) articles used for components of any such
article” (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938).
The Act set forth multiple, independent definitions of adulteration, meaning that a
product needed to violate only one of the definitions in order to be considered adulterated.
The primary definition for adulterated foods is as follows:

“[A product] bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious

substance which may render it injurious to health; but in case
the substance is not an added substance such food shall not
be considered adulterated under this clause if the quantity of
such substance in such food does not ordinarily render it
injurious to health” (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938).

Adulteration was also extended to the conditions of the raw materials, production and
processing facilities and procedures, packaging materials. Any insanitary conditions along the
products creation could violate these definitions, branding the food as adulterated and in
violation of the Act, even if the product was proven to be safe for consumers.
Labeling was defined as, “all labels and other written, printed, or graphic matters (1)
upon any article or any of its containers or wrappers, or (2) accompanying such article”
(Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938). Misbranding was defined as, “[a product’s]
labeling is false or misleading in any particular” (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938).
These definitions include any books, pamphlets, or other literary media (not including
advertisements) that was explicitly sold with the product and made claims about its qualities.
Misbranding is independent of adulteration, and FDA could take action against any product
in violation of one or both of these categories.
Food additives were defined as, “any substance the intended use of which results or
may reasonably be expected to result, directly or indirectly, in its becoming a component or
otherwise affecting the characteristics of any food” (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
1938). The Act sets forth exemptions for substances which are treated under different
regulations, including pesticide chemicals and their residue, color additives, substances
previously approved under other statutes, new animal drugs, and dietary supplements (as
defined later in the Act). The statute directs that food additives are to be presumed unsafe

168
  

(and prohibited) until they have been proven to be safe(Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
1938).
Some of the exceptions to the food additives definition are termed “added
substances,” and while not explicitly defined in the Act, are referred to in several sections.
Such substances are prohibited, “except where such substance is required in the production
thereof or cannot be avoided by good manufacturing practice” (Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act 1938). Because added substances often cannot be avoided in food, such as the
presence of man-made pollutants in fish, the FDA is required to “promulgate regulations
limiting the quantity therein or thereon to such extent as [is] necessary for the protection of
public health” (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938). The tolerances set by FDA
addressed these added substances.
There have been many amendments to the FD&C Act since its passage. The
1948 Miller Amendment affirmed that the FD&C Act applied to goods moving in interstate
commerce (Roberts 2001). The 1953 Factory Inspection Amendment clarified the Act,
giving FDA the authority to inspect a processing plant without a warrant and without the
permission of the owner. FDA was also required to give manufacturers written reports of
conditions observed during inspections and analyses of factory samples (Hygiene in Food
Processing 2003). Following Congressional hearings in the early 1950’s, a series of laws
addressing pesticide residues and food and color additives gave FDA tighter control over
chemicals entering the food supply and required manufacturers to establish their safety
(Swann). The 1954 Pesticide Residue Amendment detailed the procedures for setting safety
limits for pesticide residues on raw agricultural commodities. Under the 1958 Food
Additives Amendment manufacturers of new food additives were required to establish the
safety of the additives. FDA was also given premarket review and approval authority over
chemical additives to food. The Delaney clause prohibited the approval of any food additive
shown to induce cancer in humans or animals. The 1960 Color Additive Amendment
required manufacturers to establish the safety of color additives in foods (Roberts 2001). In
1996, Congress replaced the Delaney clause with a single standard for both fresh and
processed foods, allowing pesticides that pose only a negligible risk (Meadows 2006). After
the events of September 11, 2001 Congress passed the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, establishing new requirements for
registration of possession, use, and transfer of “Select Agents and Toxins” that could pose a
threat to human, animal, and plant safety and health (Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 2002).
After a 1968 departmental reorganization, FDA became responsible for assuring safe
milk supplies (through cooperation with state and local milk control authorities); safe
shellfish supplies and processing; sanitation in food service facilities (e.g. restaurants); safe
food, water, and sanitation in interstate travel facilities (trains, planes, buses, ships, interstate
highways); and providing poison control centers with information on treatment (Janssen
1981).
The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (1990) required all packaged foods to
bear nutrition labeling and all health claims for foods to be consistent with terms defined by
HHS. Packaged foods now required per-serving nutrition labeling, and an easily understood
list of the most important nutrients. Specific conditions must be met to use terms such as
“low fat.” The law preempted states’ requirements for food standards (Bill Summary &
Status: Nutritional Labeling and Education Act of 1990 1990). The Food Allergy Labeling
and Consumer Protection Act in 2004 further required the labeling of all food that contains

169
  

any proteins derived from peanuts, soybeans, cow’s milk, eggs, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree
nuts, and wheat (Swann).

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

When passed, the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) of 1906 ensured that meat
and meat products produced and sold within the US were not adulterated and properly
labeled and packaged. The FMIA established mandatory on-site inspections by government
inspectors of livestock before and after slaughter, and set explicit sanitary standards for
slaughterhouses. Animal carcasses and processed products could not be shipped from the
processing plant until they had been inspected by a USDA inspector. It also allowed USDA
to issue grants of inspection and monitor slaughter and processing operations, enabling the
Department to enforce its requirements (Federal Meat Inspection Act 1906).
With the passage of the Agricultural Marketing Act in 1946, the scope of USDA’s
authority was expanded to inspect, certify, and identify the class, quality and condition of
agricultural products. Grading and quality identification activities were separated from
inspection activities and assigned to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in 1981
(Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 1998).
In 1957, Congress passed the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), which
imposed requirements on poultry product handling and processing that mirrored
requirements of the FMIA. It required any poultry products that moved in interstate
commerce to be continuously inspected—before and after slaughter, and before
processing—that plant facilities be sanitary, and that product labels be accurate and truthful
(Poultry Products Inspection Act 1957).
States remained responsible for inspection of meat and poultry sold in the state where
they were produced, but USDA monitored the process. The 1967 Wholesome Meat Act and
the 1968 Wholesome Poultry Products Act set a minimum sanitation requirement by which
State inspection programs must be “at least equal in rigor to” their federal counterparts. If
the state chose to end its inspection program or could not maintain the standard, the FSIS
must assume responsibility for inspection (Hygiene in Food Processing 2003). Additionally,
these acts established concurrent jurisdiction over adulterated meat products between USDA
and FDA (Food Safety and Inspection Service).
The 1970 Egg Products Inspection Act gave USDA jurisdiction over egg safety,
requiring continuous inspection of the processing of frozen, liquid, and dried egg products.
Egg hatcheries and packers were also put under discontinuous inspections (Egg Products
Inspection Act 1970). In 1995, FSIS received the sole responsibility for egg inspection within
the USDA, but FDA maintained regulatory authority over intact-shell eggs (Institute of
Medicine and National Research Council 1998; Hygiene in Food Processing 2003).
During the 1960s, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), US
Army Natick Laboratories, and the Pillsbury Company began to develop foods for the space
program. They introduced the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) System in
1971, which focused on preventing hazards that could cause food-borne illness by applying
controls at each step of the process from raw material to the finished product (Roberts
2001). Following the recommendation of a National Academy of Sciences committee, FDA
passed the Seafood HACCP Regulations in 1995, requiring all seafood processors to
implement HACCP systems (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 1998). In
1996 USDA published the Pathogen Reduction: HACCP System rule, requiring HACCP
Systems and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures in FSIS inspected establishments. All
establishments were required to develop a HACCP plan to ensure the safety of their product

170
  

(The Final Rule on Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
(HACCP) Systems 1996; Food Safety and Inspection Service). Implementation of HACCP
systems was the responsibility of food producers, processors, and distributors. The role of
government was to ensure that HACCP programs were properly implemented by evaluation
of HACCP plans and inspection of records of monitoring of critical control points (Institute
of Medicine and National Research Council 1998).

Other Agencies
Agencies other than the FDA and USDA that had roles in food safety and regulation
included EPA, NMFS in the Department of Commerce, and CDC. Other government
agencies also had smaller regulatory responsibilities.
EPA regulates two aspects indirectly linked to food safety: regulating pesticide use
and ensuring clean air and water, all of which may threaten the safety of the food supply.
PFederal pesticide regulation originated in the 1910 Federal Insecticide Act, which was
passed to ensure the quality of pesticides bought by consumers and was enforced by USDA.
In 1947, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act extended the 1910 Act to
regulate pesticide usage in food production. The FD&C Act established FDA tolerances for
pesticide residues in food. When EPA was established in 1970, it took over FDA’s
responsibility for setting pesticide tolerances (Stephen J. Toth 1996). The Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 amended the FD&C Act, strengthening regulation of
pesticides by FDA and EPA. It required that EPA consider a new, stronger safety standard,
which included considering exposure to the pesticide from all non-occupational sources
(food, drinking water, residential use) (Roberts 2001). EPA was also responsible for the safe
use of food detergents and sanitizers to protect the public from exposure through food
(Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 1998).
Federal regulation of the nation’s drinking water began in 1914 when the Public
Health Service (PHS) imposed bacteriological standards for drinking water. These standards
were revised in 1925, 1946, and 1962, and eventually adopted by all 50 states. The 1974 Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) established national, enforceable health standards for
contaminants in drinking water. Prior to the SDWA, EPA water regulations focused on
regulating pollution in waterways. In 1986 SDWA was amended by the Surface Water
Treatment Rule, which required public water systems to filter and disinfect all surface water
supplies. The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 extended protection of drinking water from
source to tap, and required notifying the public about contaminants in tap water (Roberts
2001; Office of Water 2000). FDA regulates bottled water under separate regulations
(Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 1998).
Mandatory regulation of seafood processing was under FDA, but excluded fishing
vessels, common carriers, and retail establishments. Under the 1946 Agricultural Marketing
Act, NMFS conducted a voluntary seafood and seafood product inspection and grading
program for the industry, including establishments not inspected by FDA. NMFS also
conducted research on seafood safety (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).
CDC, in conjunction with states and local health departments, undertook surveillance
and investigations of illnesses associated with food consumption in support of USDA and
FDA regulations. CDC conducted field investigations of food-borne diseases only at the
request of state health departments. FDA and FSIS were called into investigations when the
safety of a food in their jurisdiction was questioned (Medicine and Council 1998).
Several other federal agencies had smaller regulatory responsibilities. For example, the
Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms was responsible

171
  

for overseeing the production, distribution, and labeling of alcoholic beverages, except for
wines containing less than seven percent alcohol, which were the responsibility of the FDA.
The department’s Custom Service assisted other agencies in ensuring the safety and quality
of imported foods through services such as collecting samples (Roberts 2001).

DISCUSSION
Agricultural and food regulatory legislation were not passed in a vacuum. Rather,
statutes were heavily influenced by the state of the nation’s social, political, and economic
circumstances at the time of their consideration and passage. While agricultural policy was
largely influenced by the current market and economic practices, food safety policy was
subjective to various social, economic, and technological developments.

Influences on National Agricultural Policy

The Great Depression and Economic Climate
The agricultural crisis had already come to a head when President Franklin D.
Roosevelt entered office. Farm commodity prices, wrecked by the Great Depression, were
severely depressed, and dismally far from their immediate post-WWI prosperity. During
1914-1919, market prices for cotton, wheat and corn had increased significantly over a short
period of time. Consequently, gross farm income more than doubled in the 1910s. Those
price heights cracked in a short, but severe depression from 1920-1921, rebounding
somewhat in years after, but never to the levels of 1919. In this pre-Depression light of
gradually declining income, coupled with Republican presidencies, no debated agricultural
legislation advocated extensive government intervention. It wasn’t until a free fall collapse in
agricultural prices, accompanied with sharp a decline in overall farm income that farmers and
their advocates riled for extensive government assistance (Winders 2009).

Reduction of Agricultural Surplus

During the New Deal, the federal government believed that the agricultural surpluses
which lowered commodity prices were so great that they would remain even after relief
efforts. The government’s primary strategy for correcting food production problems became
control programs that brought supply closer to demand, rather than relief programs to help
alleviate hunger. Thus the principle of controlling surplus amidst hunger and want became
something of national policy. Growers organized cooperatives and created marketing
agreements to reduce production and dispose of surpluses by using them as by-products or
sending them to the dump. Most other perishable food agreements depended on regulation
of shipments to market as a means of enhancing prices (Winders 2009).
Aside from public outrage at food reduction amidst hunger, a very serious criticism
of the plan realized that the benefits had not been evenly distributed. The system of benefits
applied only to producers, and not to the tenants that worked the fields (Farley 1936). The
AAA was hesitant to pursue actions that would rile Southern planters who wanted to
maintain racial plantation system that disadvantaged blacks (Conrad 1965).
The Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 had a very limited impact. The
Resettlement Administration had had a vision that was very different from the actual effects
of the Bankhead Jones Act; the act fell short of their wishes because of its limitations. Before
a farm could be financed, it had to be approved by a committee of local farmers and deemed
livable and useable by local standards. “Credit preference went to an upper stratum of
tenants who owned implements and who could make down payments. Although not

172
  

satisfied with such limited legislation, RA leaders considered it the best that could be
obtained at the time.” (Novel Guide 2004).
Controversies also surrounded many policies. The Flannagan-Hope bill created two
separate sides. The House and the House Agriculture Committee was pushing for a separate
marketing administration, one that would handle the other aspects of research and work.
However, the Department of Agriculture believed the two should be combined into one
production unit. The Flannagan-Hope bill called for a general organization of the market
system, and Congress ultimately did not require a new agriculture market administration.

Free Market versus Managed Agricultural Economy

For almost two decades after World War II, a consensus could not be reached
regarding the free market versus managed agricultural economy debate. There was a general
consensus that the goal of agricultural policy was to maintain both a successful and
productive farm sector. However debate continuously surrounded the method of reaching
this goal. The level of government assistance required in obtaining such objectives, or
whether a complete free market system was the solution, was the question that arose when
making farm policy. Supporters of free market policy argued that supply would eventually
meet demand, as surpluses that drove down prices would cause the end to inefficient
farming. Those that advocated government controlled production claimed that, in order to
keep incomes high enough to sustain small farmers, federal price supports were necessary.
They also contended that control of production was needed to prevent unmanageable
surpluses (Blanpied 1984). The legislation passed prior to the 1970’s produced a continuous
shifting between the two ideologies in the hopes of finding a successful policy to counteract
surpluses and low commodity prices.
The Agricultural Act of 1948 was the first compromise. During the first year, price
supports remained high and fixed, but would become lower and more flexible in the
following years. As farm prices fell under the 1948 Act, the Agricultural Act of 1949 was
enacted to revert to high and fixed support systems. The free market debate renewed after
the Korean War, when farm income was dropping, exports were low, and production
controls could not keep up with demand. The Agricultural Act of 1954 was enacted, and
proved successful in increasing export of commodities while once again moving into a
system of flexible price supports in the hopes of reducing surpluses (Cochrane and Ryan
1976). However, reduced price support was not enough to avoid surpluses, and the
government passed the Agricultural Act of 1956, turning to large acreage reduction
programs to solve the problem. This also proved to be unsuccessful as it did not reduce
output, and came at a high cost to the federal government.
The price support flexibility options built into Food and Agricultural Act of 1962
were soon overturned. Attempts of mandatory controls were also dropped, which is seen in
the Food and Agricultural Act of 1965. This policy provided a compromise between the two
sides of this debate as it relied on a combination of income support payments and reduced
levels of price support (Dimitri, Effland, and Conklin 2005). The Agricultural Act of 1970
was an extension of the 1965 Act, continuing emphasis on supply check and direct payments
to farmers.
The 1973 Act replaced support prices with lower target prices, which would only be
reimbursed if market prices were to fall greatly. Farmers responded by growing a record
amount of crops. Unlike prior policies, which tried to curtail production, this policy
attempted to increase it to keep up with demand with the US in the world market. The 1977
Act relapsed to more stringent government assistance, but target prices but remained intact.

173
  

The 1985 Food Security Act also lowered government farm supports, in recognition of a
greater movement toward the free market policy concerning agriculture. The 1996 Act
exhibited a greater change, giving farmers the freedom to make decisions about their own
planting based on the market. However, the government was not be completely absent from
the system, providing farmers with a fixed amount of annual payments based on their history
of production. Both the Farm Bills of 2002 and 2008 continued the pattern of planting
flexibility, but with a return to commodity programs.

Influences on National Food Safety Policy

Public Pressure for Regulation and Reform
Exposures of the flaws of the regulatory system, whether it was through illnesses or
public media, often increased public awareness of the state of the food supply. This
increased awareness in turn led to increases in public interest and activism in forming new
food safety statutes.
In the latter part of the 19th century to the early 20th century, many Americans were
exposed to adulterated foods, dangerous medications, and poisonous substances on a regular
basis. Examples are numerous, and while many of the adulterants were harmless, some were
poisonous, causing illness or death in those who consumed them. One of the most
notorious examples was the use of poisonous lead, copper, or mercury salts to create brightly
colored candies that were appealing to children (Janssen 1981). There have since been
numerous cases of food-borne disease outbreaks, and many have been used as an
opportunity to address weaknesses in the regulatory system.
Muckraking journalists played an extensive role in exposing conditions in food
industries and the dangers of food products. One of the most famous examples is the 1905
publication of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, which exposed insanitary conditions in the
Chicago Meat Packing industry. The book ignited such public outrage that President
Theodore Roosevelt commissioned the Neill-Reynolds report. In response to both The Jungle
and the Neill-Reynolds report, Congress passed the Federal Meat Inspection Act in June
1906 (Carpenter and Sin 2007; Pickavance 2003). In 1933 100,000,000 Guinea Pigs: Dangers in
Everyday Foods, Drugs and Cosmetics, another book detailing the lack of regulation of quality in
food and drug industries, was published, again causing a public outcry over the condition of
the food supply and helping to ensure the passage of the 1938 FD&C Act (Roberts 2001).
FDA also engaged in a form of muckraking when it lobbied for the 1938 FD&C Act. FDA
conducted indirect publicity campaigns to various media, showcasing the hazards of
adulterated food and medicines by distributing pamphlets and making radio talks (Carpenter
and Sin 2007). FDA also organized an exhibit, known as “The American Chamber of
Horrors,” which displayed various food, drug, and cosmetic items that exemplified that
adulteration that was legal and common in the nation marketplace under the 1906 Act
(Swann). Other media, including newspapers, radio, and television, also affected public
awareness and response to food safety regulation. While federal agencies monitored the food
supply, it was through these outlets that the public learned about various food issues.

Industrial and Technological Advancements

Industry leaders in food production, processing, and distribution often had much at
stake when food regulatory legislation was being considered. Failures of food safety could be
costly: sellers of food that was labeled as “unsafe” faced public relations risks that could ruin
their business. Consumers were also ready to shun entire categories of food when just one
product was deemed dangerous (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council

174
  

1998). Advancements in food technology allowed not only more accurate inspections of
foods, but also for more undetectable methods of adulteration. Laws therefore were partially
passed as reactions to these advancements—new safety technologies were incorporated,
while new production technologies were addressed, to protect both producer and consumer
from adulterated items.
During the later part of the nineteenth century, advances in analytical chemistry
provided food producers with more efficient ways to adulterate food, thanks to improved
scientific knowledge about food composition. However, these improvements in analytical
chemistry also made it possible to reveal food adulteration that would have been
undetectable (Jackson 2009). During this time, bacteriology proved that microbes caused
diseases, and concerns about microorganisms and their affect on food safety increased
(Meadows 2006).
After the publication of Sinclair’s The Jungle, meat packers were facing ruin, with meat
sales declining by half prior to the 1906 FMIA (Roberts 2001). Sellers of legitimate goods
could not maintain their consumers’ trust after their trade had been undermined by the
publicized fraudulent practices of their competitors. In order to re-establish consumers’ trust
in their product, producers believed they needed to follow established regulatory standards
(Wood 1985). Conversely, sellers of adulterated goods were often against new regulatory
legislation because they feared it would shut down their businesses (High and Coppin 1988).
The 1940s and 1950s saw great developments in the proliferation of food chemicals
and new food processes and advances in the field of toxicology. During this time, the
presence of undesirable byproducts of industrialization in food became a public and
regulatory concern. It became apparent that the traditional short-term toxicity tests for
assessing the dangers of food chemicals did not accurately assess the long-term dangers of
ingredients and contaminants (Jackson 2009). Changes in the FD&C Act that occurred
during this time included the Miller Pesticide Amendment, the Food Additives Amendment,
and the Color Additive Amendment.

CONCLUSION
Over the past century, the federal function in food regulation has developed in
response to changing social and economic environments and industrial practices. However,
many components of the federal agricultural and food regulatory systems have been
relatively unchanged over the last few decades, and concerns that major changes may be
required have recently emerged. Some argue that the systems need only be modified and
augmented with new technologies and approaches. Others believe that the only method for
improving the systems can be through fundamental changes in the programs. While the
remedy is not readily determined, what is clear it that the systems must change if they are to
maintain effective vigilance over the food supply. The present systems are not products of
planning, but rather, products of reaction, and are often not equipped to anticipate changes.

REFERENCES

Agricultural Act of 1948. 80-897. July 3, 1948.

Agricultural Act of 1949. 81-439. October 31, 1949.

175
  

Agricultural Act of 1954. 83-690. August 28, 1954.

Agricultural Act of 1956. 84-540. May 28, 1956.

Agricultural Act of 1970. 91-524. November 30, 1970.

Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973. 93-86. August 10, 1973.

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937. Novel Guide.

http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/egd_01/egd_01_00057.html

Bellis, M. 2010. A History of American Agriculture 1776-1990. In Inventors, ed. About.com.

Bill Summary & Status: Nutritional Labeling and Education Act of 1990. 1990. ed. C. R.
Service.

Blanpied, N. A. ed. 1984. Farm Policy: the politics of Soil, Surpluses, and Subsidies. United States of
America: Congressional Quarterly Inc.

Bowers, D. E. (1982) The Research and Marketing Act of 1946 And It's Effects on
Agricultural Marketing Research. Agricultural History, 263.

Bowers, D. E., W. D. Rasmussen, and G. L. Baker. 1984. History of Agricultural Price-

Support and Adjustment Programs, 1933-84. In Agriculture Information Bulletin

Browne, W. P. 2003. Agricultural Policy. In Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public

Policy, ed. J. Rabin. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.

Campbell, C. M. 1962. The Farm Bureau and the New Deal; a study of making of national farm policy,
1933-40. Urbana,: University of Illinois Press.

Carpenter, D., and G. Sin. 2007. Policy Tragedy and the Emergence of Regulation: The
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Studies in American Political Development 21
(1):149-180.

Cochrane, W. W., and M. E. Ryan. 1976. American farm policy, 1948-1973. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.

Codex Alimentarius Commission. 2010. Codex Alimentarius. World Health Organization

Cohen, S., L. Stanton & D. Morgan. 2006. Farm Subsidies Over Time. Washington Post.

Food and Agriculture Organization 2010 [cited October 23 2010]. Available from
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp#.

176
  

Conrad, D. E. 1965. The Forgotten Farmers: The Story of Sharecroppers in the New Deal. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.

Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses. 2010. The International Food Safety Authorities
Network (INFOSAN). World Health Organization, Januray 14, 2010 [cited October
23 2010]. Available from
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/fs_management/infosan/en/.

Dimitri, C., A. Effland, and N. Conklin. 2005. The 20th Century Transformation of U.S.
Agriculture and Farm Policy

Economic Research Service. 2010. 2008 Farm Bill Overview. United States Department of
Agriculture 2008 [cited November 20, 2010 2010].

Egg Products Inspection Act. 91-597. December 29, 1970.

Farley, M. S. 1936. Agricultural Adjustment Under the New Deal. American Council Institute of
Pacific Relations 454.

Federal Food and Drugs Act. 59-384. June 30, 1906.

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. June 25, 1938.

Federal Meat Inspection Act. 90-201. June 30, 1906.

The Final Rule on Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
(HACCP) Systems. 1996. ed. F. S. a. I. Service.

Food and Agricultural Act of 1965. 89-321. November 3, 1965.

Food and Agriculture Act of 1962. 87-703. September 27, 1962.

Food and Agriculture Act of 1977. 95-113. September 29, 1977.

Food Safety and Inspection Service. 2010. Celebrating 100 Years of FMIA. United States
Department of Agriculture, May 5, 2006 [cited October 12 2010]. Available from
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/About_FSIS/100_Years_Timeline/index.asp.

Food Safety. 2008. Congressional Digest 87 (4):1.

Food Security Act of 1985. 99-198. December 23, 1985.

Food Stamp Act of 1964. 88-525. August 31, 1964.

abbert, J. Resettlement Administration. Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History & Culture.

Ganzel, B. Wessels Living History Farm. In Farming in the 1940's.

177
  

Griswold, D., S. Slivinski & C. Preble (2005) Ripe for Reform: Six Good Reasons to Reduce
U.S. Farm Subsidies and Trade Barriers. Cato Institute, Trade Policy Analysis no. 30.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5999
Hamilton, D. E. 1991. From new day to New Deal : American farm policy from Hoover to Roosevelt,
1928-1933. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

High, J., and C. A. Coppin. 1988. Wiley and the Whiskey Industry: Strategic Behavior in the
Passage of the Pure Food Act. Business History Review 62 (2):24.

History. 2010. International Food & Agricultural Trade Policy Council 2007 [cited November
20 2010]. Available from http://www.agritrade.org/about/history.html.

Hygiene in Food Processing. 2003. eds. H. L. M. Lelieveld, M. A. Mostert, J. Holah and B.

White. Abington, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited.

Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council. 1998. Ensuring Food Safety: From
Production to Consumption. Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press.

Jackson, L. S. 2009. Chemical Food Safety Issues in the United States: Past, Present, and
Future. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 57 (18):10.

Janssen, W. F. 2010. The Story of the Laws Behind the Labels. Food and Drug Administration
1981 [cited October 13 2010]. Available from
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/Overviews/ucm056044.htm
.

Lupien, J. R. 2005. Food Quality and Safety: Traceability and Labeling. Critical Reviews in Food
Science and Nutrition 45 (2):119-123.

Meadows, M. 2006. A Century of Ensuring Safe Foods and Cosmetics. FDA Consumer
magazine, January-February 2006.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010. NOAA Seafood Inspection Program.
United States Department of Commerce [cited October 15 2010]. Available from
http://www.seafood.nmfs.noaa.gov/.

Manning, J. 2006. The Midwest Farm Crisis of the 1980's. In The Eighties Club: The Politics and
Pop Culture of the 1980's.

National Organization for Raw Materials What Parity Really Means. American Agriculture
Movement. http://www.aaminc.org/newsletter/v8i2/v8i2p7.htm

NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets. NYS Council on Food Policy Issues Report
to Governor.
Office of Water. 2000. The History of Drinking Water Treatment: United States
Environmental Protection Agency.

Perkins, V. L. 1969. Crisis in agriculture; the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and the New
Deal, 1933. Berkeley,: University of California Press.

178
  

Pickavance, J. 2003. Gastronomic Realism: Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, the Fight for Pure
Food, and the Magic of Mastication. Food & Foodways: History & Culture of Human
Nourishment 11 (2/3):26.

Poppendieck, J. 1986. Breadlines knee deep in wheat : food assistance in the Great Depression. New
Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Poultry Products Inspection Act. 90-492. August 28, 1957.

Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. 107-188. 107th
Congress, June 12, 2002.

Roberts, C. 2001. Food Safety Information Handbook: Greenwood Press.

Schertz, F. J. N. a. L. P. 1996. Provisions of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and

Reform Act of 1996.

Stephen J. Toth, J. 1996. Federal Pesticide Laws and Regulations: North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service.

Swann, D. J. P. 2010. About FDA: History. FDA History Office, July 29, 2010 [cited October
10 2010]. Available from
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/default.htm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Demographics. In Agriculture 101.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2000. A Description of the U.S. Food Safety System.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Who We Are. 2010. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 2005-2006
[cited November 20 2010]. Available from http://www.cgiar.org/who/index.html.

Winders, W. 2009. The politics of food supply : U.S. agricultural policy in the world economy. New
Haven [Conn.]: Yale University Press.

Wood, D. J. 1985. The Strategic Use of Public Policy: Business Support for the 1906 Food
and Drug Act. Business History Review 59 (3):30.

Young, E. 2008. The 2002 Farm Bill: Provisions and Economic Implications.

179
  

-11-
BOATS, TRAINS AND TRUCKS
The development and integration of food transport technologies in the Global Era
by Sophia Ponce and Dan Pratt

INTRODUCTION
Every day, food is shipped into New York City by multiple forms of transportation:
on ships, trains, and trucks. Our import and export trading system relies on our complex—
yet largely hidden—freight transport system. Freight movement refers to the carrying of
goods from one location to another. The movement of freight can entail a local trip to a
supermarket to a cross-country shipment of twenty-five hundred bags of carrots. Over the
course of the Global Era—which began in the 1940s and continues to the present—the
means used to transport food both nationally and internationally have shifted as new
technologies have been adopted in favor of others and integrated with existing ones; though
trucks dominate the current landscape of food transport, they have been integrated with
other
Compared to the means used in the early twentieth century, today’s “trade moves
much more quietly—and much more efficiently—through the region’s ports…through half
a dozen rail freight yards, and through a handful of wholesale markets” (Ascher 2007). In
the past, busy docks, dangerous and loud railroads, and other foreign freights—all plainly
visible—were the norm; the division between production and consumption was not nearly as
pronounced.
For many years before World War II, and to a lesser extent, during the post-war
period, railways dominated motor trucks. As the elaborate interstate highway system was
continually improved directly following the war, however, the advantages of using trucks
became increasingly clear. The shift toward their usage suggested more direct, flexible routes
connecting production to consumption; such shipping methods could be used either as a
standalone or in coordination with the increasingly antiquated freight trains as they ended
their routes at their respective terminals.
With regard to food transport and distribution—particularly within urban areas—
trucks are rarely seen as a relatively recent innovation; their significance is often taken for
granted. However, the dominance of truck freight in the market for food transport is rather
newfound; the technologies and infrastructural components that continue to support its use
underwent considerable development during the late 1940s—a period of prosperity in the
wake of World War II. Such developments allowed for increased time- and cost-efficiency
of motor transport, and essentially, better-travelled perishables, the broadening of
infrastructural roads within the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense
Highways largely encouraged the development and subsequent popularity of such
technologies (Sullivan 2005). Furthermore, the creation—and later—the rebuilding of New
York City’s West Side Highway, Interstate Route 478 was a crucial development in the
scheme of providing for the nation’s most densely populated urban center (NYSDOT 1977).
This paper seeks to identify the reasons for and the advantages of the emergence and
continuing development of shipment methods in the Global era—particularly with regard to

180
  

serving New York City and the surrounding metro area, both of which have seen, and
continue to see steady population increase. More specifically, it examines the infrastructural
systems that support said developments, as well as its integration with other forms of food
transport with which it is supplemented.
The paper is structured such that a ‘Literature Review’—an elaboration on the
aforementioned questions and material relevant to answering them—describes the historical
contexts under which marine and rail freight declined while, trucks emerged as a leading
means of food transport, the innovations and advantages that allowed for this emergence,
and the further development and continued refinement of key infrastructural components—
(i.e., Interstate highways and associated thoroughfares). The ‘Findings’ section provides data
that supports the claims alluded to in the ‘Literature Review’, and examines the shift toward
increased outsourcing (i.e., the globalization, and more notably here, the nationalization) of
the U. S. —and more specifically, local—food market. These results are to be conferred and
analyzed in the ‘Discussion’ section that it directly follows.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Prior to the post-war truck freight boom, the nation relied heavily on its advanced
railway system, which formed a rough network across the nation’s major cities to allow for
transcontinental shipping, as well as marine freight, bourne by slow barges that ended their
journey in New Jersey. While freight rail transport was—and remains—among the most
efficient methods of shipping foodstuffs with regard to the ton-miles moved per unit of
energy consumed, fixed rails—which result in limited, inflexible routes—and large payloads
meant high transshipment costs. Likewise, the destinations of freight ships were inflexible,
and required a large port to accommodate them.
Railroads have been an influential piece of transporting freight for decades.
Railroads have been around New York since the ninetieth century and have remained a
consistent source of moving freight in a faster and cheaper way. A freight railroad is a group
of specialized cars that transport goods and materials from one location to another using
tracks dedicated exclusively to trains.
The West Side line was a prominent rail freight line for decades. In 1847 on
Manhattan’s West side, a street-level railroad was commissioned by the City of New York.
Since the creation of the railroad, Tenth Avenue was nicknamed Death Avenue due to
constant accidents between commuters and the rail. The accidents forced men on horses to
lead this rail along the street. Due to the many accidents, the West Side Improvement was
created; a project that will raise the railroads thirty feet upwards and cost over two billion
dollars with today’s inflation prices. The rail opened in 1934 and was thirteen miles long.
“It connects directly to factories and warehouses, allowing trains to roll right inside
buildings. Milk, meat, produce, and raw and manufactured goods come and go without
causing street-level traffic” (Friends of the Highline 2000-2010). The High Line was the
only freight railroad that directly entered Manhattan. For thirty years, the freight rail was a
major source for Manhattan’s food imports and exports. In the 1960s, major highway
improvements were one of the major causes for the High Line and other freight rails to
decline. By 1980, the last import of frozen turkeys entered Manhattan, the last run for the
line.
The trains that enter New York hold a variety of commodities coming from multiple
manufacturers; each car of a freight train can be used to transport different materials and
food items. Different types of rail cars connect to each other and move on the same train;

181
  

the convenience of this is that trains only have to make one trip and can transport a varied
amount of materials. On a railroad, the transportation of an item from source to destination
is called a line-haul. There are different specialty rail cars made to hold specific commodities
and complete these line-hauls. A boxcar is a fully enclosed car that can be used to transport
dry foods such as canned food. One of the most important cars used to transport food are
refrigerator cars or “reefer” cars. These cars move a majority of food that is received from
across country. Before the invention of gas-powered coolers, reefers would be packed with
ice.
Railroads use classification yards to streamline freight and keep everything organized.
There are two different types of yards: flat and hump. A classification yard collects rail cars
and sorts them so that as much freight as possible can be shipped at one time. In the book
“The Works,” author Kate Ascher depicts the journey of a carrot from California into New
York. First, carrots are packaged into over 2,500 50-pound bags; these bags of carrots are
then moved into a reefer car. The carrots then begin an 8-day trek to the Bronx, New York.
The carrots then move to a classification yard in Fresno, California. In this yard reefer trains
heading to Georgia are added amongst the New York bound trains. The mixing of different
train cars would not have been so easily organized if not for classification yards.
In the beginning of the 1900s, “the New York region served as both a great shipping
center and great railway terminus without any direct connections between trunk lines and
steamships, the crucial element in the economical movement of freight” (Revell 1963). An
active port is a fully operating dock that loads and unloads boats, ships and vessels. By the
1940’s Manhattan had about 750 active ports. The ports were located along the West Side,
Brooklyn, Hoboken and Jersey City. Decades later, almost all the active ports disappeared
from the Manhattan waterfront.
A majority of railroads ended in New Jersey—therefore, New York had to set up
docks with barges to retrieve commodities. “Because of the lack of waterfront space, the
railroads used the long (often 750 feet), narrow Manhattan piers as storage areas, and
shippers themselves contributed to congestion on the docks by moving freight during the
early morning and late-afternoon rush hours” (Revell 1963 61). It was made evident that
there needed to be change in the way New York handled moving freight or else the future
effectiveness of our City as a shipping powerhouse would be in question.
The invention of the container in the 1950s made trading on water much more
efficient. A container is “a portable compartment in which freight is placed (as on a train or
ship) for convenience of movement” (Merriam-Webster 2010). Container storage and use
demanded open space; due to this marine trading moved to the waters of New Jersey. The
noise of overcrowded docks in New York City was now nonexistent; the container terminals
at Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal in New Jersey eclipsed that of New York ports.
Highway and road improvements caused a rise in trucking; also ending the need for New
York City and Brooklyn to ferry freight across from New Jersey.
Today, marine freight headed to New York had been on the rise. “New York
Harbor remains among the city’s greatest assets. It covers 650 miles of shoreline, reaching
from the banks of Sandy Hook in New Jersey around Staten Island and northward along the
contours of Newark Bay and the Hudson and East Rivers” (Ashcer 2007 69). Within the
Harbors limits, Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal receives most the most traffic.
Like train cars, there is a large variety vessels that help transport freight efficiently.
There are refrigerated ships called “reefers” that primarily transport perishable goods such as
meats and fruits. There are the aforementioned container ships that can carry as much as
5,000 containers on one shipment. Bulker vessels, transport bulk items such as coffee and

182
  

bananas. Tugboats and dredgers handle maintenance and navigation of larger ships. All of
these vessels help create efficiency.
By their most basic definition, trucks are commercial motor vehicles—or CMVs—
used primarily to haul large quantity of freight, and are characterized in their structure by a
blunt, sometimes flat-fronted chassis making up a tractor unit and a swiveling hitch to which
a trailer bearing freight can be fastened (2009). The advantages of truck freight (and thus, the
rise in its use) stems from its flexibility, and specificity in terms of recipients (Painter 2002).
Unlike their earlier predecessors, trains, trucks cannot haul numerous trailers-worth of
freight, as they traditionally can only accommodate a single (or double, in the case of a
tandem setup) trailer for hauling. Provided that their access is not government-restricted,
trucks have access to major highways and city streets alike, and thus have the ability to
deliver goods (in this case, foods) directly to distributors or in less frequently, to consumers.
As aforementioned, trains are bound to the limited expanse of their tracks (their means of
moving) and terminals (their ends) where delivery occurs. Today, a dozen such terminals,
located in the four outer boroughs—Brooklyn, The Bronx, Queens and Staten Island—as
well as in parts of New Jersey, indirectly traffic food products and other goods to “the 22
counties of the New York Metropolitan Region” (Chinitz 1960), (Ascher 2007). As a result,
freight trains often require transshipment—where cargo is passed on to another form of
transport. Thus, they cannot deliver goods to distributers (or customers) directly.
While trucks are often utilized for such transshipment, they can alternatively simplify
the process by making direct deliveries. More often than not, direct delivery by truck is
used:
Rail cargo today makes up only about 5.6 percent of the freight moving through the region,
down from a high of roughly 40 percent in the early 1940s. The drop in rail traffic is in part
a reflection of the region’s appetite for imports, but also a function of increased competition
from long-distance trucking industries (Ascher 2007, 58).
Though rail freight was largely phased out beginning in 1945—the start of the post-
war era—the technological advancements made during its peak of use greatly contributed to
the technologies required for later successes. For instance, transcontinental railway
proprietors sought to overcome the challenges associated with shipping foodstuffs over long
distances. Among the biggest and most basic of these challenges was limited shelf life:
“product perishability can be viewed more broadly as shelf life…fresh fruits and vegetables,
for example, must be shipped relatively quickly since all time delays subtract from this basic
shelf life” (Roberts 1975, 160). As aforementioned, these issues were alleviated by reefer
containers.
Such technologies were easily adapted to trucks, particularly as intermodal
containers—standardized, reusable metal storage units, either 20 or 40 feet in length—
became increasingly favored in order to make transshipment more efficient on the
increasingly rare occasions that it occurred. On the road, refrigerated containers are not self-
powered, but are supported by generators that are powered by diesel and are attached
directly to the container (Heap 2003). The addition of refrigerated containers also
streamlined the process of transshipment, as the cargo did not require unloading and
subsequent reloading onto a truck for the final leg of its journey. Containers could be
moved as units themselves, and taken from a freight car and place seamlessly onto the trailer
of a truck. In this way, refrigerated containers were to be loaded and delivered as-is;
reorganization of items would otherwise drag the process down. As a whole, refrigerated
containers single-handily changed the market for perishable food items—most notably
meats, fish and fresh produce—as it allowed for increasingly effective outsourcing of food

183
  

consistently, and in the case of fruits and vegetables, the elimination of seasonally dependent
offerings (Ascher 2007).
While the opportunity to refrigerate motor truck freight further fueled the demand
for truck-based food transport, the innovation also updated the process of integrating the
use of trucks and trains. Specialized crossover cars, known as ‘RoadRailers,’ could be
hitched to truck tractors and hauled by trains, alike. This technology was created in 1952,
and continues to see widespread popularity in the limited integration of the two means of
transport. Trailers designed specifically for trucks could also be placed on flatcars, in a
maneuver (aptly named) Trailer-on-flatcar (TOFC), and more commonly called
“piggybacking” (2007). The primary concept is to have a truck pick up and drop off the
merchandise and have the railroad complete the line-haul. “The advantage which the system
has over ordinary trucking is clear: line-haul costs are lowered by the substitution of a small
train crew for a large number of truck drivers” (Chinitz 1960). Although the cost of moving
the trailer onto a train is more costly, the line-haul expenses are so severely lowered that it
makes up for any additional costs. Piggybacking lowers the cost of packaging, avoids delays,
and lowers shipping costs. Similar to this is “fishy back” operation in which trailers are
carried along vessels. The fishy back method also, eliminates a lot of costs. The only negative
side is the fact that the initial investment in a piggyback or fishy back operation is very large.
Terminal facilities must be fully equipped to transfer loads from trucks into trains.
Therefore, the piggyback and fishy-back operation will be run in places that move large
quantities of freight daily. COFC stands for containers on flat cars and follows the same
principles as TOFC except instead of truck trailers being carried, containers are carried.
Most fundamentally, the United States was prepared for the ongoing growth of truck
freight and its supporting technologies with the emergence of a more advanced, practical
Interstate Highway System after World War II. In the midst of burgeoning economic
prosperity, the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways was
spurred by the Federal Highway Act of 1956, and is comprised of “sixty-two superhighways
that cover 42,795 miles. They link together the nation’s coasts and borders, cities, and
downs. These superhighways include 54,633 bridges and 104 tunnels” (Sullivan 2005, 48).
The Interstate Highway System, which has so far moved 42 billion cubic feet of earth and
cost well over $100 billion (and counting), was not primarily brought about with motor truck
freight in mind. Rather, the network of roads came about when automobiles “began to be
produced in large quantities. Car prices dropped as a result. Motorists of the time called for
more and better roads. To satisfy the demand, private organizations, such as the American
Automotive Association, were formed” (47). Though by 1925, significant progress had been
made on then-independently owned sectors of the system—for example, the New England
and Dixie Highway Systems—the limited-lane roadways and non-standard directional signs
were not conducive to the use of large CMVs across long distances. According to Leinback:

Although the Interstate Highway System (IHS) accounts for only 1% of all highway
mileage, it carries 25% of the total vehicle miles of travel…Enabling legislation for
the largest public works project in history, [which] came in the form of the Federal
Highway Act of 1956, and provided not only the authorization to construct but also
appropriated the necessary funds for implementation.” This preliminary system,
however, did set the foundations for a standardized, and more complex
infrastructure…The IHS was financed by a highway trust fund supported by the
abundant revenue from federal gasoline taxes. Those finds were available only for

184
  

highways, and the federal government paid 90% of the cost of the new highways.
(2004, 37-38)

Though the Interstate Highway System was conceived to support American’s newfound
admiration with the car, it was (perhaps inadvertently) responsible for the gradual movement
toward a system of food transport that, today, relies to an overwhelming degree on the
network of roads. As Leinback writes, “The impact of the [Interstate Highway System] on
the intercity transportation of goods…has been nothing short of phenomenal…and may
even be the single most important influence on the U.S. metropolis in the last 50 years. The
IHS transformed cities in ways its planners never anticipated.” (2004, 37)
Though it is not part of the Eisenhower system, one would be hard-pressed not to
mention New York State Route 9A—or as it is better known, the West Side Highway, which
served as an arterial road along the West side. The location of the road itself is optimized
for the support of truck freight, as it serves as a nearly direct way for foodstuffs to enter the
city after presumably making their way across the Hudson. The initial incarnation of the
road skirted along Manhattan’s Meatpacking District—a name that, at the time, made
reference to the neighborhood’s leading industry. As it is written by the New York State
Department of Transportation:

The line of demarcation between the Hudson shoreline and the interior of Manhattan
is the elevated structure of the West Side Highway. When the highway, formally
known as the Miller Highway between the Battery and West 72nd Street was built in
the 1930s, it was…suited to its purpose and location…carefully fitted between the
warehouses and manufacturing buildings on the east, and the headhouses and piers on
the west (NYSDOT 1977).

In spite of its proximity to what was essentially the Manhattan-based center of the food
production and processing industry, the West Side Highway was often neglected, and thus,
fell out of disrepair quickly—rendering the road unable of handling any cargo at all: “Forty
years later,” it became evident—particularly to the state government—that “Trucks,
primarily those making the thousands of daily pick-ups and deliveries necessary for
the…functioning of Manhattan, were prohibited due to inadequate size, shape and strength
of the ramps and…structures” ((NYSDOT 1977).
Ultimately, the West Side Highway (and the Henry Hudson Parkway, directly to the
north of it) has benefitted from the renovations, which were completed in August of 2001.
With the introduction of new, well-integrated elevated roads, and the introduction of safe
truck use, the New York State Department of Transportation has effectively created a
corridor down the Western edge of Manhattan that extends toward the north, up the
Hudson River. A lack of railway freight terminals within Manhattan itself, and the limited
access that the highway provided while under construction resulted in a large need for such a
thoroughfare, and heavy use of it after it opened.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

The results of the research suggest that the role of trucks in transporting food—both
directly and indirectly—have unquestionably increased, and are expected to continue
increasing with the passage of time. The maps that follow, provided by the Federal Highway

185
  

Administration, show the major freight corridors nationwide, as well as the dominance of
highways within this system —many of these roads are part of the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway System, though a number of them are National Highway roads.
Today, in comparison to the beginning of the Global Era, a minority of merchandise
is transported to New York from rail. Only 5.6% of moving freight comes from railroads in
comparison to 40% in the 1940’s. However, each train used today replaces roughly 280
trains that make the same trip. (Asher 2005).
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, from 2005-2007, the average
amount of maritime cargo a year moved via the Port of New York/New Jersey was roughly
91.9 million tons (Figure two). The distribution of general cargo operations in the port of
New York is described by the horizontal bar graph in figure one. In 1959, Manhattan and
Brooklyn controlled almost 80% of port activities. In 1987, the port activities relocated to
New Jersey was in charge of almost all of cargo operations. In 2000, Staten Island regains
some control over New Jersey, roughly 20% (Hofstra People 2010).
Figure three shows a bar graph showing the distribution of water, rail, and truck
freight in the year 2006. Trucking freight is the majority with 78.6% in areas of NY/East of
Hudson. Rail transport is a minority with 1.7% in areas of New York (McGregor 2006).

MAPS AND FIGURES

(United States Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration

2008)

186
  

(United States Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration: 2008)

(United States Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration 2008)

The table below shows both the actual and projected increase of truck freight shipments in
terms of tonnage and monetary value.

187
  

Table 2.1 U.S. Freight Shipments by Tons and Value

Tons (millions) Value (billions)
Mode 1998 2010 2020 1998 2010 2020
Highway 10,439 14,930 18,130 6,656 12,746 2,246
(Domestic)

Highway 419 733 1,069 772 1,724 3,131

(International)

(Leinback 2004)

Total USA domestic frieght traffic, by mode, 2002-35

2002 Traffic 2035 traffic

volume 2002 traffic volume 2035 traffic
Mode of Transport (short kilotons) (percent) (short kilotons) (percent)
Air & Truck 1,024 0.03 4,377 0.06
Other Intermodal 15,558 0.43 48,968 0.65
Pipeline & Unknown 565,941 15.52 1,057,937 14.07
Rail 246,360 6.76 435,881 5.80
Truck 2,738,142 75.10 5,793,878 77.06
Truck & Rail 7,206 0.20 18,630 0.25
Water 71,968 1.97 158,532 2.11

Total 3,646,201 100.00 7,518,202 100.00

Figure 11.1

188
  

Figure 11.2

Figure 11.3

189
  

DISCUSSION
Advances have been made in the movement of freight to eliminate the cost of
transporting goods and increasing efficiency. The developments promote longer trips and
try to avoid shorter hauls.
The demise of the High Line, the main freight train of Manhattan, sets the picture
for the place rail freight takes today. Freight rail is still active but does not move even
remotely the amount of tons it used too. In large part this is due to increased competition
with trucking after the reconstruction on major roads and highways. In the 1940’s rails
moved 40% of all freight and now the number has dwindled to a minimal sum. Increases in
other modes of transportation have pushed aside railroads. “Railroads’ advantage over
trucking turns on their ability to move many diverse shipments over a relatively long distance
on one train. But making up a train is a cumbersome process, as no two cars may have the
same origin and destination” (Ascher 2007 62). After the decline of the high line, there has
been no freight railroad that directly moved into New York City. The closest train to New
York was in New Jersey. The need to ship goods across water seemed to be a weighty and
economically exhausting process, especially when trucks are not restricted to a track or
specific route. After the invention of the container a lot was made easier for moving freight.
Still, the space and money needed for the equipment to move containers from trucks to rails
are costly, especially when not a lot of tonnage is heading through a specific rail.
Marine freight has fluctuated in terms of tonnage over the past seventy years. Also,
in terms of location, marine freight has had a great change. The invention of the container
had the largest impact on marine freight. In 1959, about eighty percent of port activities
came from New York City. The invention of the container in the 1950’s demanded more
space than New York City ports had to offer, leaving trade to move to New Jersey. In 1987,
New Jersey controlled almost all-marine trade with New York City maintaining a minimal
sum of almost ten percent. The movement of goods is a direct result of the invention of the
container. Today, marine freight is less than trucking but still greater than rail freight.
As shown by the data in the ‘Findings’ section and the advantages described in the
‘Literature Review’, a great number of innovations—most notably for perishable food items
being container refrigeration, and most fundamentally, the rise of the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway System among other arterial roads. It is important to note, however, that the latter
of these benefited motor truck freight as a whole. From the background information and
the findings given, it is clear that highways and roads seem to form the easiest and most
schematically efficient (i.e. direct) means of food transport, and that the emergence and
continued growth of the use of these innovations and technologies are by logical application.
Inevitably, there are a number of drawbacks to using trucks as a primary means of
transport—the most controversial of which concern environmental pollution. More
specifically there is mounting concern regarding emissions from such trucks, which
contribute to air pollution. Perhaps less tangible and more fleeting, noise pollution, street
traffic and pedestrian safety associated with deliveries, as well as the use of city streets as a
means of arriving at their destinations is also a cause of controversy in urban centers.
Furthermore, because of its sheer size, the standard-sized tractor-trailer truck is the cause of
much discomfort on highway roads; truck-truck and truck-car collisions often yield
exceptionally devastating results (Scheinberg and United States. General Accounting Office.
1999).
In general, the ever-expanding and developing truck industry represents the
continued urbanization (and resulting population growth) seen in urban centers, in turn the
creation of a greater demand for food. Along with this come food products from

190
  

increasingly great distances, as refrigeration in transit allows for their preservation. However,
quite recently, a trend called ‘locavorism’ has emerged (Time 2006). The movement, which
has formed as a backlash against the environmental risks associated with increased
outsourcing, emphasizes a diet restricted to food sourced locally—within 100 miles. Though
the increasing number of self-proclaimed locavores is negligible, it is useful to note that such
a movement exists, and that if it expands, it could impact the industry (i.e., reduce the
amount of freight shipped over long distances).

CONCLUSION
Food enters the city of New York on a daily basis via train, water and trucks. Over
the years, trains have shifted from being the most heavily used mode of transport, to an
almost non-existent piece of integrated food distribution. Marine freight has never been the
leading means of moving freight, but holds its own and still moves about 90 million tons of
freight a year -- much of which is internationally transported. Technologies such as the
container have pushed marine freight to New Jersey. The container also helped to establish
efficiency in the way cargo is moved from truck to ship or rail. Today, trucks are the leading
movement of freight by an overwhelming majority. The evolutions in the past seventy years
have helped organize New York City’s freight movement system.
The United States has effectively improved on its methods of distributing food to
urban areas, in particular New York—the nation’s most densely populated. Of course, the
methods and means by which this food is transported is far from flawless and, will certainly
be further refined as new technologies emerge and the system is perfected. Environmental
controversies and traffic drawbacks aside, though, the sheer speed and efficiency we have
accomplished thus far is enough to warrant taking a step back and appreciating a stocked
fridge, fresh, year-round vegetables, and the potential for even further improvement in the
years to come.

REFERENCES

(2008). Major Freight Corridors, United State Department of Transportation: Federal

Highway Administration.

(2008). National Network for Conventional Combination Trucks, United States Department
of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration.

(2009). Truck. Merriam Webster Dictionary, The Encyclopedia Britannica Company.

"New York Central's 1934 West Side Improvement." from

http://www.railroad.net/articles/railfanning/westside/index.php.

Ascher, K. (2007). The Works: Anatomy of a City. New York, NY, Penguin Group.
Association of American Railroads (2010). "Freight Rail Works | Association of American
Railroads." from http://www.freightrailworks.org/.

Chinitz, B. (1960). Freight and the Metropolis: The Impact of America's Transport
Revolutions on the New York Region. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

191
  

Friends of the Highline (2000-2010). "High Line History." Retrieved 10/22, 2010, from
http://www.thehighline.org/about/high-line-history.

Heap, R. (2003). Refrigerated transport: progress achieved and challenges to be met.

Informatory Notes on Refrigerating Technologies. Paris, France, International
Institute of Refrigeration: Intergovernmental organization for the development of
refrigeration.

Hofstra People (2010). "Distribution of General Cargo Operations, Port of New York, 1959,
1987 and 2000." from
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch4en/appl4en/trafficshiftportofnynj.html

Leavy, M. (2006). The New York Central System. Charleston, Arcadia Pub.

Leinback, T. R. (2004). City Interactions: The Dynamics of Passenger and Freight Flows.
The Geography of Urban Transportation. G. G. Susan Hanson. New York, NY, The
Guilford Press: 30-58.

McGregor, M. (2006). The Cross Harbor Rail Freight Tunnel. National Urban Freight
Conference. New York.

New York Central System Historical Society, I. (2010). "New York Central System Historical
Society, Inc.". from http://www.nycshs.org/.

NYSDOT, F. H. A. a. (1977). West Side Highway-Interstate Route 478, Administrative

Action Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Statement,.

Painter, M. (2002). "Trucking to Port." Review of Agricultural Economics 24(2): 540-545.

Rawlinson, L. (2007). "From goods trains to green grass: The New York High Line ". from
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/15/highline.biog/.

Revell, K. D. (1963). Building Gotham. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Roberts, P. O. (1975). "Food Transport in the 1980s." Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London. Series B, Biological Sciences 191(1102): 155-168.

Scheinberg, P. F. and United States. General Accounting Office. (1999). Truck safety :
Motor Carriers Office's activities to reduce fatalities are likely to have little short-
term effect : statement of Phyllis F. Scheinberg, Associate Director, Transportation
Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division, before the
Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives. Washington, D.C. (P.O. Box 37050,
Washington, D.C. 20013), The Office.

Sullivan, G., - (2005). Built to last : building America's amazing bridges, dams, tunnels, and
skyscrapers / George Sullivan.

192
  

Time, I. (2006). Local-Food Movement: The Lure of the 100-Mile Diet. New York, NY,
Time, Inc.

William Whitman, W. J., John Tomczyk (2005). Refrigeration & air conditioning technology.
Clifton Park, Thomson Delmar Learning.

193
  

-12-

AISLES OF DELIGHT: THE BIRTH OF THE SUPERMARKET

MENTALITY
Food Production and Supply in New York City in the Global Era, 1940-2010

by Katrina McCandless, Isaac McGinn, Jessie Ngok, Danny Ovryn, and Annette Paciorek

INTRODUCTION
This chapter will examine the development of food markets in New York City
between 1940 and 2010 - an era many call the Modern era or the era of Globalization. In all
food groups, the products themselves have gone through a massive transformation. Today
most foods are mass-produced, over-packaged, and shipped all over the nation and the
globe. To accommodate exploding global markets but also to fuel the explosion, we created
the supermarket: wherein consumers could seemingly find food from all parts of the world,
in many forms, lots of textures, colors and flavors (more imitations and substitutes, gradually
less and less of the real thing), all-forms-of-edible. No longer was it necessary to find a
butcher’s shop and fish store and a produce market separately. In the modern supermarket,
all culinary needs could be met in some shape or form. All the food groups were gathered
together in a highly processed form and mass packaged in the name of convenience.
The technological boom of the mid-20th century catalyzed advances across human
existence. In the 1950s, we saw the birth of the refrigerator, a development that was
necessary for the future of the supermarket, and a wide range of manufacturing
developments whose goal was to fully stock these new comforts. Globalization had begun
and was taking hold in this time period, in an era when capitalism was making an extra effort
to exert its influence in the face of communism. New technologies and a hunger for profits,
however, far outpaced our awareness of their effects on ecosystems and, indirectly, on
ourselves and the food we eat.
The supermarket and the supermarket mentality put a great distance between
consumers and the food they eat - both literally and figuratively. In an era when different
items on your grocery list come from different aisles and not different markets, we are
increasingly separated from the source of our food. Fewer and fewer people know where our
food originates and how it gets to our plate. How does it get to our plate? In the modern era,
it becomes harder to be concerned in large part because it is harder to find out. Technology
has been making our lives way easier - this is its purpose. The ability to package and preserve
foods has, naturally, contributed to a declining presence of fresh foods. Shelf life takes
precedence over natural ingredients. Substitutes start popping up wherever it may increase
revenue. As the veil between the consumer and the producer gets thicker (as our foods get
more frozen, more microwaveable and less perishable) we grow less aware of what we
consume. The foods we eat and the chemicals they now contain not only make the food
itself more synthetic but also have the potential to harm us and the environment.
In this chapter we will discuss where some of our foods come from. We will examine
beverages (particularly milk and water), farming practices, the seafood industry (focusing in
particular on the advent and explosion of trawling and the concomitant collapse of the cod

194
  

fish among many others), and overall patterns in imports and exports that have developed
since the 1940s.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Between the 1940s and the present, many new technologies have developed in an
effort to maximize beverage production, agricultural production, and the seafood industry.
The increased use of super efficient technologies has had many effects on the food we eat
and the planet we live on. In addition, these developments brought with them new ideas and
concepts that had never been seen before.
Pesticides are some of the most significant developments in farming. Pesticides are
usually artificial substances that are used to control/kill pests, weeds, or plant diseases
(World Health Organization 1990). The widespread use of pesticides began around the 1900
when scientists began experimenting with chemicals in an attempt to eliminate unwanted
weeds and insects. Around the 1940s, a chemical known as DDT was widely introduced in
the United States and around the world as an insecticide ⎯ a pesticide aimed to kill insects
rather than weeds. Between 1970 and 1980, many more new pesticides were created and
they were also spread globally (World Health Organization 1990). Around 1988, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) started to pass stricter laws to regulate the
production and distribution of pesticides to ensure the safety of the public and environment
(2010c). Today, pesticides continue to be widely used in agriculture and in the production of
fruits and vegetables.
Discussions about agriculture and farming practices tend to circle back to one
concept: sustainability. Sustainable food systems have been talked about since the 1980s
(Feenstra 1997). A sustainable food system refers to local food systems or farms that are
close to the city or community they cater to. Recently, many large cities, like New York City,
have been pushing to develop a sustainable food system because scientists argue it
contributes to a healthy and stable community (Feenstra 1997, GrowNYC 2009).
The seafood industry since the middle of the 20th century witnessed an enormous
expansion. As scientists began scrutinizing fishing practices and the environment in which
they took place, we built a terminology around these newborn aspects of the industry. A
fishery is an area from which fish are drawn and includes the relationships between the fish
themselves, the aquatic environment and the fisherman doing the catching. Fish caught in
the wild (capture fisheries) and farmed fish (aquaculture) fall under the broader heading of
Fisheries. Aquaculture is the raising of aquatic organism (seafood, shellfish, aquatic plants) in
a contained environment over which humans exercise control to “enhance production” (i.e.
by feeding, stocking, protecting, etc). The catch is the total number (often by weight) of fish
captured in a given operation and includes landings and by-catch. Landings are the amount
of target species fish caught by weight (this figure, unlike catch, does not include any fish or
other matter that is discarded in the process of fishing). By-catch is the non-targeted part of
a catch that is accidentally caught, often killed in the process, and thrown back into the
ocean. Fish stocks are the populations of various fish within a fishery from which fish are
harvested. Trawling is the use of massive, synthetic-fiber nets towed through the water by
one or more vessels to catch fish. A factory trawler is “a large stern trawler equipped with
plant for gutting, filleting, freezing and storing fish and for processing fish oil and fish meal.”
Exploitive practices of coastal oceans led to the development of new definitions as
governments tried to regulate previously open areas. An Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ

195
  

is “a zone under national jurisdiction (up to 200 nautical miles wide), adjacent to a coastal
state, declared in line with the provisions of 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law of
the Sea, within which the coastal state has the right to explore and exploit, and the
responsibility to conserve and manage, the living and non-living resources.”
Only recently did scientists begin to carefully assess fish populations. These
categories represent the main trends we have observed in terms of the health of various fish
stocks. A depleted fish stock is one which has been fished beyond capacity to a point where
reproduction levels are reaching record-breaking lows, and which cannot recover without
significant human help. Recovery of depleted stocks is threatened and is very unlikely if the
treatment of said stocks is not quickly reversed. A fully exploited stock is fished to capacity.
Overexploited stocks are fished above sustainable rates but have the potential to recover if
left alone.

RESULTS/DATA
Beverages
Water
Water is the most important liquid on the globe. Human beings cannot survive
without drinking water, and therefore a clean, abundant water source is essential for the
health and growth of any city. Since the mid-nineteenth century, New York City has been
widely regarded for its delicious natural fresh water supply. Ezemen, in his book about New
York City’s environment, wrote: “[New York City’s] water system has historically been
ranked among the nation’s best” (Ezemen 1990, 131) which is especially impressive, because
“the provision of water for New York City is one of the most elaborate feats of civil
engineering in the history of North American urbanization” (Gandy 2002, 19). We draw
water from three main reservoirs located in upstate New York. The water passes through a
series of enormous pipes on its way to the city.
The seventy-year period from 1940 to 2010 shows tremendous upheavals in the
process of manufacturing beverages to be imbibed by New Yorkers, although some drinks
had been produced and consumed in essentially the same manner through the decades. Since
1940, New York City’s water supply system has constantly been facing new challenges and as
such it is continually being improved. In the early 1980’s, New Yorkers started buying water
neatly packaged in a plastic or glass bottles; a phenomenon that would have seemed wholly
alien to a New Yorker from the 1940’s (Harris 1967, Boyle 2008, 32).
“Today, New York is one of only five major cities in the United States without a
filtration plant processing its drinking water supply.”(City of New York 2006, 67) A filtration
plant is unnecessary due to the inherent cleanliness of the water that comes from New York
City’s three watersheds. A watershed is an area of land where all of the water that is
contained in it or drains off of it flows to the same place. Although New York City’s water is
not filtered, the water that comes out of the tap in Manhattan is not wholly the same water
that washed down the Catskill Mountains or was diverted from the Delaware River. The City
still needs to transform the water from the watersheds into a potable form, purging the
harmful organisms and particulate matter.
After heavy rainstorms, sediment from the bottom of a reservoir will get mixed with
water in greater volume than normal. For example, “in the weeks following a significant
storm event on April 2nd and 3rd, 2005, water quality in the City’s reservoirs experienced high
turbidity levels, especially in the Catskill System.”(New York City Department of
Environmental Protection 2005) “Turbidity is the measure of the relative clarity of a liquid

196
  

… it is caused by suspended matter or impurities that interfere with the clarity of the water.
These impurities may include clay, silt, finely divided inorganic and organic matter, soluble
colored organic compounds, and plankton and other microscopic organisms.”(Agency 1999,
7.1) High turbidity levels indicate that the water requires further treatment before it can
reach the tap.

Figure 12.10 New York City’s water supply system (City of New York 2006)

197
  

To combat high turbidity, the EPA adds alum to the water in the Delaware and
Catskill watersheds. “[Alum] causes the suspended particles in the water to bind together; the
heavier bound particles then fall through the water column and settle on the bottom of the
reservoir.”(New York City Department of Environmental Protection 2005) There has been
concern that aluminum intake from dissolved alum in water could be implicated in causing
Alzheimer’s disease. However, in late 1998, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organization conducted extensive research in this matter and “found
convincing evidence that the use of alum to treat drinking water is safe.”(Hunter Water
2008) Even so, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) wants to preserve the
purity of the water supply as much as possible.
In addition to alum, chlorine and fluoride are also added to the water: chlorine for
added disinfection purposes and fluoride to protect against tooth decay. (New York City
Department of Environmental Protection 2009, 6) Chlorine is necessary to remove harmful
bacteria, such as Giardia lamblia, which can cause intestinal problems in humans. Chlorine is
maintained at a constant concentration in the water system in order to steadily stave off
bacterial growth. During 2009, “chlorine residuals were maintained at concentrations at or
above 0.20 mg L-1 at all Catskill/Delaware entry points during the year. The lowest chlorine
residual measured at an entry point was 0.29 mg L-1.”(New York City Department of
Environmental Protection 2010, 15) “Fluoride [has been] added since 1966, at a
concentration of one part per million, in accordance with the New York City Health
Code.”(New York City Department of Environmental Protection 2009, 9) “Phosphoric acid
is added to create a protective film on pipes that reduces the release of metals such as lead
from household plumbing. Sodium hydroxide is added to Catskill/Delaware water to raise
the pH and reduce corrosivity” (New York City Department of Environmental Protection
2009). The pH is directly related to the water’s acidity. Acidic, corrosive water can react with
the household plumbing and metal fixtures resulting in the deterioration of the pipes and
increased metal content of the water.
Although most pathogens and bacteria are killed by the chlorination, “one pathogen,
known as Cryptosporidium, has always been able to evade this treatment. This microscopic
parasite is encased by a shell that enables it to survive outside of a body and resist chlorine-
based disinfectants. When it is ingested by humans or animals, it can lodge in an intestine
and cause cryptosporidiosis, a diarrheal disease”(City of New York 2006, 66). The City plans
to deal with cryptosporidium and similar pathogens by opening “the world’s largest ultraviolet
disinfection facility in 2012. The plant will use ultraviolet light to destroy the pathogens’
abilities to reproduce. Because this is a physical process rather than a chemical one, there are
no harmful impacts on humans or aquatic life”(City of New York 2006, 66). This ultraviolet
disinfection facility, located in Westchester County, will also allow less chlorine to be
maintained in the system. Once operational, it will be able to treat two billion gallons of
water per day.
However, despite all of the precautions taken by the DEP, the cleanliness of the
three upstate watersheds is currently in jeopardy. “Today, New York City’s watersheds are
under attack. The main opponent is inappropriate development. Until the last few decades,
the three upstate watersheds were, for the most part, rural and sparsely developed. No
longer. The nature of the City’s watersheds, especially the Croton, is irrevocably changing as
suburban [homes, shopping malls and even] office buildings fan out into upstate counties
through the region. The population of Westchester, Putnam, Ulster and Sullivan counties,
home to most of the city’s water reserves -- increased by 20 percent from 1960-1980. The
highly regarded Regional Plan Association estimates that this number will [increase] another

198
  

15 percent by 2015” (Izemen 1990, 155). This population growth has resulted in a rise in
“fertilizer, sewage, and road salt, all of which run into the reservoirs” (City of New York
2006, 66). Although the increase in population is most extreme in the Croton watershed, the
same phenomenon is also occurring in the Catskill and Delaware watersheds.
In additon to the change in New York City’s natural water supply, in the early 1990’s,
another form of water became extremely popular: the packaged bottle of water . This change
was aided by a technological advancement: polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic. “PET
was cheaper, lighter, stronger, brighter, and clearer than the original polyvinyl chloride
bottles; it was durable and, theoretically, recyclable.” Fuelled by this new bottle, sales of
bottled water in the United States grew from virtually nonexistent in 1940 to $115 million in
1990 to $4 billion in 1997. Advertising gave bottled water a healthy connotation, and
consumers believed that bottled water would boost their health. The advertising worked, and
people routinely pay hundreds of times more for water in a PET bottle than they would
from the tap. This phenomenon even exists in New York City, where the tap water is highly
regarded.

Milk
Another beverage that changed drastically in manufacture and consumption since
the 1940’s in New York City is milk. Milk went from being delivered personally at the home
to being stocked in a refrigerator in a supermarket. The improvement of technologies such
as refrigeration allowed milk to travel greater distances as time went on. New York City also
grew in population, making land-intensive efforts like milk production less profitable. As a
result, milk production and delivery systems moved further and further away from
metropolitan New York City and into the surrounding suburbs.
As recently as 100 years ago, there was a dairy pasture on 42nd Street and Broadway.
(HAER) Distribution centers moved from midtown Manhattan to upstate New York and
New Jersey. “Before 1940, distributors' plants for pasteurizing and bottling milk were
located in the [area where milk was sold], and inter-market sales were much less significant
than they are today.” (Harris 1967, 845) The general trend showed milk production moving
away from the City.
In the mid nineteenth century, dairy cows were still grazing in New York City. However, in
1840, there were already over 300,000 people living on the lower third of Manhattan, and
therefore there was a heavy demand for milk and for the cows which produced the milk.
City milk producers often found it difficult to pay to feed their cattle and as a result, resorted
to feeding their dairy cattle rye and corn mash. This appeared produce lesser quality milk
and contribute to soaring child mortality rates. There was a growing movement of scientists
and businessmen who insisted that fresh, pure milk from country-bred dairy cattle would
eliminate much of the sickness in New York. One man in particular, Robert M. Hartley,
started his own campaign to bring fresh milk into the city and outlaw the sale of milk from
distillery fed cows. This marked the start of moving dairy production of out of New York
City.
Since 1849, when Thompson Decker persuaded the first train to carry milk, trains
had been barging down the West side of Manhattan, bringing fresh milk from farms, which
at that time were only tens of miles away. In 1933, there were twelve pasteurization plants in
Manhattan, two in the Bronx, and fifteen in Brooklyn. A typical milk delivery schedule
involved milk arriving by train at 130th Street at 11:00 p.m., at the pasteurizing plant at
12:00 a.m., and ready for local distribution by 2:00 a.m. From the plants, the milk was taken

199
  

by wagon or truck to branch distributing stations or delivered directly to consumers along

established retail routes. (Habstritt 2005)
In 1937, Sheffield Dairy started building the world’s largest milk distribution center,
taking up the whole city block between 56th and 57th streets and Tenth and Eleventh
Avenues, totaling more than 400,000 square feet. (Cooper 1937) Trains from upstate would
bring milk directly into the three-story basement of this midtown manufacturing plant,
where it would be pasteurized, bottled, and put onto horse carts to be delivered to
businesses and residents throughout the city. However, the world’s largest milk depot would
not remain in the West Side for long. In 1952, Sheffield’s parent company, National Dairy
Products, sold the giant processing plant, citing the “greater efficiency and better
coordination of milk plant facilities in the dispersal to outlying areas”(Anonymous 1952).
Another National Dairy Products retail plant on 125th Street in Manhattan was sold to
Columbia University for use as its new Engineering Center. (HAER 1986)
In 2010, no dairy cows are producing milk in New York City. Elmhurst Dairy still
maintains a fifteen-acre dairy processing plant in Jamaica, Queens, but all of the raw milk is
brought in via trucks from upstate. Elmhurst pasteurizes and bottles it in their Queens plant,
making them the only dairy plant still in New York City. (Dairy 2010) All of the other dairy
companies vending milk in New York City have both the production and processing
procedures take place outside of New York City.
Technological improvements also changed the way milk was packaged and
distributed. The advent of refrigerated trucks and train cars allowed fresh milk to be
delivered much further away from where it was produced. Milk also changed from being
packaged in glass quart bottles to being held in two-quart, paper containers. Glass quart
bottles are cumbersome, breakable and require expensive collecting and washing. In
contrast, the paper containers can be thrown out, will not break, and can store twice the
volume as their older glass counterparts. (HAER 1986)
Of the milk that finally reached the consumer in homes in New York City, 28
percent was via home delivery and 72 percent was through stores in 1948 (Bergfeld 1949).
“Store sales [in the late 1960’s] generally predominate over home-delivery sales, whereas 25
years ago the home-delivery system using glass quarts still seemed unassailable. Paper
containers now play a vital role in store sales and are important in sales to homes and
institutions”(Harris 1967, 846). “Home delivery itself began to fade from American life – the
victim of supermarkets” (Martin 1987).

Fruits & Vegetables

The purpose of this research is to determine details about fruit and vegetable
production in New York City and the effect of technology involved. New York State’s fruit
and vegetable production decrease from the 1940s to 2007. The production of the fruits and
vegetables that were consumed in New York City was pushed further and further away from
New York City. Additionally, an increased usage of technology would be found from the
beginning of the global era to the present.
The USDA Agriculture Censuses of 1950, 1992, 1997, 2002, and 2007 show the
types of vegetables and fruits produced in New York State and the acreage devoted to their
production. At the state level, New York State harvested 276,911 acres of vegetables total in
1944. From that period to present day, census trends show that the area of land dedicated to
growing vegetables in New York State has decreased steady to 160,596 acres in 2007.
Additionally, New York State’s production of fruits has also decreased steadily from 280,309
acres harvested in 1945 to 103,936 acres harvested in 2007.

200
  

Between 1940 and 1950, New York State produced asparagus, soy beans, green
beens (snap, string, or wax), green lima beans, beets, sweet corn, cucumbers, lettuce and
romaine, dry onions, green peas, sweet peppers and pimientos, spinach, sqaush, tomatoes
and other vegetables (Census of Agriculture 1950). Green beans, cabbage, sweet corn, dry
onion, green peas, and tomatoes were the most commonly produced vegetables in New
York.
Between the 1940s and 1950s, New York State produced strawberries, blackberries,
dewberries, raspberries, apples, peaches, pears, cherries (sweet/sour), plums, prunes, grapes,
cantalopes and muskmelons (Census of Agriculture 1950). Of all fruits produced, apples,
peaches, pears, cherries, and grapes are the main fruits produced in New York State. From
the USDA Agriculture Census 1950, it is shown that New York City did produce some fruits
and vegetables. However, New York City as a whole only produced around 1,596 acres of
vegetables and almost no fruits at all. On the other hand, Western New York, Central New
York, Long Island and some counties in northern New York were the main producers of
vegetables and fruits, see Figure 12.11.

Figure 12.11 Counties in New York State

In 1987, new types of fruits and vegetables were produced in New York State. For
example, snap beans, broccoli, brussel sprouts, collards, chicory, eggplant, endive, escarole,
garlic, kale, parsley, hot peppers, pumpkin, radish, rhubarb, turnip, honeydew mellons,
apricot, nectarines, blueberries, and currants were introduced after 1987 (Census of
Agriculture 1992, Census of Agriculture 1997, Census of Agriculture 2002, Census of
Agriculture 2007). Out of all the vegetables produced in New York State between 1987 and
2007, snap beans, cabbage, dry onion, sweet corn, potatoes, and green peas are the most
abundant, see Figure 12.13. Additionally, between 1987 and 2007, the main fruits produced
in New York were apples and grapes. Results are shown in Figure 12.13.
The USDA Agricultural Census of 1992, 1997, 2002, and 2007 also illustrated that
New York City did not produce any fruits or vegetables. The censuses also indicate that
areas in Western and Northern New York have continued to generate vegetables fairly
steadily. Although there is still some vegetable production on Long Island, they are
producing much less than before. Also, areas that once produced large amount of fruits have

201
  

started to decrease their harvest numbers. Instead, counties like Wayne and Chautauqua have
become the main fruit producing areas.
To determine the change in pesticide usage, the USDA Agricultural Census of 1992,
1997, 2002, and 2007 were used. In 1987, around 2,341,334 acres of land were treated with
pesticides while in 2007, 2,255,637 acres of land were treated

Vegetable Production 1987 to 2007

Acres Harvested
Vegetable 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007
Snap Beans 31,963 23,933 29,580 28,471 31,204
Cabbage 15,004 13,842 14,403 15,269 13,618
Sweet Corn 52,187 50,440 70,139 44,363 40,183
Dry Onions 11,635 12,066 13,734 11,516 18,911
Potatoes ---- 28,861 25,930 22,094 18,137
Green Peas 9,586 9,956 19,507 15,741
** Census of Agriculture 1992, 1997,2002, 2007

Fruit Production 1987 to 2007

Acres Harvested
Fruit 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007
Apples 73,195 67,313 60,250 36,716 49,966
Grapes 36,916 34,250 33,047 53,233 42,544
** Census of Agriculture 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007

Figure 12.13 Production of Fruit and Vegetables between 1987 and 2007

Results showed that New York is producing a larger variety of fruits and vegetables
since the 1940s. This could be explained by introduction of a new technology during this
period: pesticides. In 1951 to 1960, about 63% of fruits and nuts and 52% of vegetable were
lost due to insects, weeds, diseases and nematodes (Ridgway et al. 1978). Since then, the U.S.
and New York have been using pesticides very consistently, as shown in our data. With the
help of pesticides, farmers are able to grow different fruits and vegetables that were not
suitable for New York before the use of pesticides.
Additionally, between 1940 and 1950, New York State had mainly been producing
vegetables like cabbages, green peas, sweet corn, dry onions, tomatoes and green beans.
However, since 1987, New York production of green beans and tomatoes decreased
significantly compared to previous decades. New York has also significantly decreased
production of peaches, pears, and cherries. In 2010, the majority of New York’s fruit
production is devoted to apples and grapes. Results also showed that fruits and vegetable
production has been decreasing steadily through the years. This could be explained by
observing where fruits and vegetables are produced in New York.
These results show us that fruit and vegetable productions have moved from New
York City and toward Western and Northern New York. Since the 1940s, New York City
has not been producing enough fruits and vegetables to fulfill its own demand. This can be
linked to the rising premium placed on residential land; the City could not afford to devote
land worth far more residentially developed to comparatively low value agricultural

202
  

production. Despite the decrease in available land, demand for fruits and vegetables has
increased, so the only option was to move production to the outskirts of the city. As a
result, by the late 1940s, Long Island, Western New York, and some areas in the North
became the centers for fruit and vegetable production. Expansion continued until most of
New York’s fruit and vegetable production took place in a few of the most westerly New
York counties like Wayne, Monroe, and Niagara.
Most scientists agree that having a sustainable food system in a city can make a city
healthier in the long run (Feenstra 1997). New York City has been trying to promote
farmers markets (areas where local farmers can sell their produce) and local farming (2010b).
Many communities have also tried to plant and promote local gardens. Community gardens
not only encourage sustainable food systems for the city, but they help create strong bonds
within communities (Schmelzkopf 1995).

Seafood and Shellfish

There is a general consensus among scientific sources that the seafood industry has
done damage to the oceans and to the relationships between the many fish we find on
menus and in supermarkets. There is debate as the extent of the destruction and whether it is
irreparable or something we can fix. The exact numbers are unimportant - no matter what
the percentage of decline is, there is still empirical evidence of a decline in fish population
sizes. For the time period between 1940 and 2010, it is hard to pinpoint where “fish” come
from. Different species can be found all over the world.
The trend of developments of modern fishing is that we no longer only eat what
swims down the eastern seaboard. New advances in technology and developments in the
extent of the global market have changed the way we consume fish in two notable ways.
First, humans no longer have to wait for fish to come to them - we are now able to chase
dense concentrations of fish wherever they may be. In Rupert Murray’s film about the
ramifications of industrial fishing, The End of the Line, he notes that fish no longer stand a
chance of survival once fishermen target them. They cannot escape: sonar, GPS, satellite
imaging, spotter planes and massive fishing fleets are all used to pinpoint the exact location
of large (and more importantly, valuable) fish aggregations (Murray 2009, 5). These
technologies and others such as types of nets and ships are described in John Valdemarsen’s
Technological Trends in Capture Fisheries, written in 2001.
Up until the 1940s, the process of catching cod - a popular fish in North American
seafood markets upon which New England built its fishing industry - was the same as it had
been for over 200 years: a large skiff (a flat bottomed, open decked boat, in this case about
20 feet long) was manned by two men, who would hand-line (much like the common sport
fishing technique of a rod and hooked line, except the line usually has multiple hooks and no
rod is generally used) cod until at capacity, then return to shore or to a tender (a large hulled
boats used by fisheries to transport fish from actively fishing vessels to a fish processing
center) to offload. In the late 19th century, the development of powerful new steam engines
was the first step towards the creation of trawlers (vessels that drag nets through the water)
large enough to drag enormous nets at greater depths than ever possible before.

203
  

Figure 12.13 Factory Trawler and Trawling Net.

A factory trawler is “a large stern trawler equipped with plant for gutting, filleting, freezing
and storing fish and for processing fish oil and fish meal.” It uses massive, synthetic fiber
nets towed through the water by one or more vessels to catch fish. (FAO 2010, 22)

William Warner’s book, Distant Water: The Fate of the North Atlantic Fisherman, written
in 1982, discusses the specific changes in fishing vessels as he observed them - specifically
the advent of the factory trawlers - that also have enabled humans to catch whatever fish
they see fit. The second major change in consumption and production of seafood: the fish
we catch are quickly processed and made ready for shipping to the highest bidders. William
Warner writes:

Common to all factory trawlers are four essential elements that set them apart from
the generation of fishing vessels that preceded them. These are a stern ramp or
slipway...a sheltered belowdecks factory section with assembly-line machines to gut
and fillet fish...an ammonia or freon refrigerating plant for the quick freezing and
frozen storage of fish...and equipment to make fishmeal. (Warner 1983, 3)

Essentially, these trawlers became the ultimate fishing machines, constructed to streamline
the entire process, from hunting, to catching, to filleting, to preserving fish, into a single
vessel. Trawling nets, as described in Murray’s film, are taller than the Statue of Liberty, are
able to contain thirteen 747 airplanes, and are kept open by heavy gears that roll along the
ocean floor plowing through everything in their paths (Murray, 2009, 5). A stern ramp
allowed nets literally bulging with many tons of fish could be pulled in easily from the back
of the boat and no longer had to be maneuvered riskily over the ship’s sides (Warner also
notes the importance of the invention of synthetic netting: prior to this tens of thousands of
fish had been hard to contain without the net bursting). The rest of the equipment (filleting
factory and freon refrigerator) meant that ships could make longer journeys and store larger
stocks. Whereas they once had to return to port before their stores of fish spoiled (and could

204
  

only go so far because of this), now they were able to journey almost indefinitely - until their
freezers were filled. Filleting also meant greater storage capabilities (no fish sliding in and out
of shelving in rough waters, not that these steel giants were very susceptible to rough waters)
and an instant readiness for markets around the globe. (Warner 1983, 3)
Invented by a Scottish man, the designs for trawl nets were seized upon by countries
all around the world. Interestingly, the countries that adapted the designs and amassed a fleet
the most rapidly were East Germany, West Germany, and the Soviet Union. The rate of
massive vessel construction increased rapidly. One New York Times headline from the 1970s
reads: “Superefficient Foreign Fleets Deplete Stocks Of Fish Off U.S. Shores” with the
subtitle: “Coast Guard cutters plunge through lonesome seas to patrol the 12-mile perimeter
forbidden to foreign fishing.” These foreign fleets were chasing the fish stocks that were the
life-blood of the American East Coast and rapidly hoarding them. Warner continues:

The year 1974 marked the turning point. In that year alone 1,076 Western European
and Communist-bloc fishing vessels swarmed across the Atlantic to fish North
American waters. Their catch of 2,176,000 tons was ten times the New England and
triple the Canadian Atlantic catch....Huge as the total catch might seem, the catch per
vessel was down and the fish were running generally smaller than before, even
though the foreign vessels fished longer hours with improved methods over a larger
range for a greater part of the year (Warner 1983, 58).

This excerpt sums up the trend of the fishing boom of the mid-20th century. With new,
super-efficient technology, industrialized nations scrambled to catch as many fish as
possible. As this was happening, targeting technology was also advancing, which made
vessels much more accurate. John Valdemarsen details this process in Technological Advances in
Capture Fisheries. Sonar technology (developed for military purposes during World War II)
found its way from submarines onto most ships and was soon accompanied by all sorts of
computer-imaging and satellite sensing. Global Positioning Systems became standard on
every vessel not only as a navigation device, but as a means for pinpointing the precise
location of dense swarms of fish, by species and size. And if that was not enough, spotter
planes were also used. (Valdemarsen 2001, 18)

205
  

Figure 12.14 Factory Trawling vessels built between 1942 and 1996.
This graph illustrates the number of factory trawlers built between 1942 and 1996. Peaking
around 1975, the number of vessels dropped temporarily during the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea and the late-1970s period of law-making regarding fishing
regulations. (Valdemarsen 2001, 18)

The technological development that caused the most indiscriminate damage to the
physical environment and fish populations was known as “bottom-dragging.” Previously,
fishermen had meticulously avoided dragging nets along the bottom of the ocean because of
the damage it would cause to the net itself. A new technique of attaching chains (“ticklers”)
or rubber rollers (“bottom-hoppers”) to the lower edge of the net provided a buffer that
would prevent any escape of fish while wreaking wide swaths of destruction along the
delicate ocean floor.
This increased access to larger stocks of more valuable fish was occurring alongside
developments in and around New York City itself. New York, always one of America’s main
port cities, experienced an enormous shift in water quality during the twentieth century.
During the years after World War II, the estuary in which New York City sits was literally
thick with pollution termed sludge, which accumulated extremely quickly (Mitchell 1951, 8).
All sorts of waste had been and was continuing to be dumped into the rivers. The water
became devoid of oxygen while at the same time it was becoming saturated with literal
garbage as well as chemicals from factories all along its banks.

The industrial waste consisted of heavy metals, including seven thousand pounds of
zinc, copper, lead, chromium, and nickel...an oil by-product [called] polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons...pesticides from agriculture...and between the 1940s and the
1970s, General Electric dumped hundreds of thousands of pounds of
polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, into the Hudson. (Kurlansky 2006, 272-273)

The potential for life in New York’s rivers had effectively been sapped. Mitchell noted in
1951 that the populations of fish in these areas were sparse and unhealthy (Mitchell 1951, 8).
Kurlansky discusses the poisoning of entire populations of fish as chemicals like PCBs and
DDT worked their way up the food chain. Some diseases include “fin erosion disease,”

206
  

“liver cancer,” and a mysterious blindness in Harlem catfish. This trend of increasing
pollution in New York waterways continued throughout the 1970s. (Kurlansky 1997, 7)
The 1970s saw a rise in concern for the environment all around America. Addressing
the concern about pollution, Congress passed the 1972 Clean Water Act, “which gave a
deadline of 1985 for all bodies of water in the United States to be swimmable and fishable”
(Kurlansky 1997, 7). Kurlansky then notes that although all water in New York Harbor is
technically “swimmable and most are fishable...the fish that are caught are not edible.” Fish
in New York waters became increasingly inedible as the 20th century progressed, although
our consumption of seafood did not decrease. In fact, it increased dramatically.
In the middle of the 1970s, the United States government and the United Nations
attempted to regulate the particulars of who could fish where and how, through the
implementation of various laws and international agreements. One such law was the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, passed in 1976 (later amended in 1996)
which addressed for the first time the government’s role in overseeing fishing practices in
United States waters (Magnuson 1976 & 1996, 6). At the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea, it was internationally agreed that Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) - areas in
which only one nation has the right to extract resources - would extend 200 nautical miles
off the country’s coasts (FAO 2010, 22). David Anderson, in Modern Law of the Sea, asserts
that it was the desire not for seafood but for oil, natural gas, and later, manganese nodules
that influenced the changes in laws regarding national jurisdiction and the distance covered
by this jurisdiction, as we were gradually depleting those materials that were closest to the
coast (Warner 1983, 3).
The fishing industry in the United States did not start gaining traction until around
the 1970s and early 1980s. “In 1962, the owner of a McDonald’s franchise in Cincinnati
invented the Filet-O-Fish sandwich for Catholics who did not eat meat on Friday. Demand
surged again.” Per capita seafood consumption rose from 10.9 pounds in 1966 to 14.5
pounds in 1985. Price fluctuations in the fish industry are harder to pin down: with farmed
food we have a large measure of control but with wild fish, the last food that humans
actively hunt, the catches vary. The fish industry by 1987, however, had become more
lucrative than the chicken business, taking in about 16 billion dollars in annual revenue as
compared to 14 billion dollars for the chicken industry. Surveys taken in 1987 indicate that
about two-thirds of fish consumed in the United States is in restaurants - indicative of the
late-to-bloom interest in fish in this country, although this was already changing by the time
the article was written. (Kleinfield 1987, 20)

207
  

Figure 12.15 Global trends in the state of world marine stocks since 1974.
This figure illustrates the way in which fish populations have been affected by the fishing
over time (between 1974 and 2006). The number of fully-exploited stocks (stocks that cannot
be fished beyond the current rate without impinging chances of population recovery) has
decreased slightly only to increase again. The number of overexploited and depleted stocks
(both beyond recovery, if the current trend and fishing rates continue) has increased
dramatically. Moderately exploited and under-exploited stocks (under threat but not
irreparably damaged) has steadily decreased (FAO 2009, 13).

“After tuna, shrimp is the most widely purchased seafood, in pounds sold, followed
by codfish, clams, and salmon” (Kleinfield 1987, 20). Demand for these fish will later be
damaging: the shrimp industry is responsible for more by-catch than any other fishing
industry (the spacing in the nets are, obviously, the smallest) (Murray 2009, 5) and codfish
are to this very day being trawled way beyond sustainable limits as it is politically unfeasible
to impose fishing bans when so many jobs rest on the pursuit of this fish (Kurlansky 1997, 7;
Smith 2002, 19; Warner 1983, 3).
Canned fish (i.e. generic tuna) has consistently sold well in the United States partly
because it requires little preparation. As people learned of potential health benefits (fewer
calories, less fat) of seafood, the demand for it jumped, which signaled the shift from
restaurant fish consumption to supermarket fish consumption. “The rapid rise in demand
for seafood has drained American waters and taxed the nation’s fishing fleets. Hence, 64%
of all the fish sold in the United States is imported...[making] this nation the world’s No. 2
importer of fish, after Japan” (Kleinfield 1987, 20). Fish imports have only gone up since
1987: today, the United States imports between 80 and 90 percent of the fish it eats (Barboza
2007, 21).

208
  

The image part with relationship ID rId97 was not found in the file.

The image part with relationship ID rId98 was not found in the file.

Figure 12.16 North American exports and imports of seafood between 1976 and 2006.
This graph plots the amount of seafood imported and exported by Canada and the United
States between 1976 and 2006. Imports have dramatically increased for both. Exports have
also increased but not as quickly resulting in a deficit. {FAO 2009 #13}

Around the middle of the 1970s, aquaculture began to figure more prominently into
the fish industry. The State of World Fisheries 2009 notes a promising rise in aquaculture but
The End of the Line points out its inherent failings: aquaculture uses wild fish to feed farmed
fish and thus kills more than it produces. “On average, 5 kilos of anchovy make 1 kilo of
salmon.” 40% of the world catch goes to feed farmed fish (Murray, 2009, 5).
Today, three signature species of fish - the Atlantic halibut (Warner 1983, 3), the
codfish (Kurlansky 1997, 7; Smith 2002, 19), and the bluefin tuna (Montaigne 2007, 16) -
have been depleted almost to extinction. Daniel Pauly, the scientist credited in The End of
Line with discovering that China has been fabricating its catch statistics for at least a decade
thereby enormously altering the world-wide trend (with China included, global marine catch
is increasing rapidly; excluding China, the global marine catch reached its peak in 1998 and
has leveled off and begun a slight decline since), writes in Fishing Down Food Webs (also in
1998) that humans began with the largest predator fish but, having depleted most of these,
turned to increasingly smaller species of fish (Pauly 1998, 11). This trend is also discussed in
The End of the Line: we have seen exploding populations of certain species and upon further
investigation have discovered that we have killed off most of the species that typically eat
them (Murray 2009, 5).

209
  

Figure 12.17 Availability of seafood types in the Northern Atlantic Ocean between 1970 and
2006.
These two graphs plot the prevalence of different types of seafood in the Atlantic Ocean
between 1970 and 2006. Population declines have been most marked in the Northwest
Atlantic. Populations in both the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic have declined over time.
(FAO 2009, 13)

By specifically examining cod, once the lifeblood of the North Eastern American
fishing industry, it is easy to see the greater trends at work. Cod, which sticks to the colder
areas found along the outer Northern edges of the Atlantic ocean, reaches maturity at 2-4
years of age and can live as long as 20 years. Unlike salmon, cod can survive to spawn many
times in their lifetime, with females averaging production of 1 million eggs per, leading many
to believe that supplies of the fish were virtually unlimited. The cooked flesh of cod is white
and flaky with a rather bland taste. In the past cod enjoyed popularity as a plentiful fish with
a remarkably low fat content (making it last longer after preservation than other food forms);
it was an ideal source of food for the long voyages of seafarers (Kurlansky 1997, 2).
Although significantly less plentiful today, cod’s low fat content make it an obvious choice
for “deep-fat frying,” an ever popular method of cooking that results in the fish equivalent
of a Twinkie®.

210
  

Figure 12.18 Cod Capture in the US from 1950 through 2008.

The above graph shows the amount of Atlantic Cod in tonnes captured by the
United States between 1950 and 2008.

The above graph shows the amount of Atlantic Cod captured by the United States
(in tonnes) between 1950 and 2008. The graph shows an overall decline in capture 1950-57,
followed by a gradual overall increase until 1976. During the years 1976-83, there was
observed a period of huge capture growth, followed by a return to pre-boom capture
amounts between 1986 and 1993. Subsequent years show catches averaging about half of
the yield of 50 years before. There are three important broad characteristics of this graph to
note. The first is the small, but significant overall increase from 1950-76. The second is the
peak: the explosion in fish yield between 1976-83. The third is the sad and sudden decline of
yield from 1992 to the present, with the low in 2005 almost precisely one-tenth of the yield
of the high in 1980.
The first gradual increase is a result of the increased effectiveness of the fishing and
production methods developed, along with the creation of a moderate coastal boundary
reserved for U.S. fishermen (discussed at length in the “Literature Review”). Bottom
dragging was the near-universal approach to capture, and entire schools could be spotted
and exterminated using SONAR. Filleting machines and freezing technology had long been
established, and Americans had become accustomed to fish as an affordable and available
component of their diet.
The second trend, the explosion between 1976-83, can be attributed to the sudden
loss of foreign fisherman due to the 200-mile border established. As stated in 1978 by a
member of an old American fishing family, “There are plenty of fish out there now that the
foreigners are away” (Kurlansky 2008, 1). Perpetually increasing catch (due in large part to
ever advancing technology) gave rise to a perceived increase of available fish which in turn
led to an increase in fishermen who in turn manned more fleets, thus increasing catch and
perpetuating the belief in the inexhaustible ocean and in our right to as much as we could
catch. Also contributing was the belief of scientists at the time that the explosion in the catch
reflected a similar explosion in cod population, instead of the simple truth: the population
had not changed significantly, just the percentage of fish caught from it (Kurlansky 2008,1).
The third trend, the decline to the present, reflects the limited remaining population
of cod and the quotas desperately put into place once the error was realized.

211
  

Figure 12.19 The state of world fish stocks in 1999.

This bar-graph plots the state of fish stocks in 1999 by the percentage of fish stocks at each
population status. 1% of fish stocks are recovering. 9% are depleted. 18% are overexploited
(at risk of depletion). 47% are fully-exploited (fished the maximum capacity). 21% are
moderately exploited. 4% are under-exploited. (FAO 2001, 12)

Figure 12.20 Per capita seafood consumption between 1970 and 2000 projected to 2020.
This graph plots trends in global amounts of seafood per-capita between 1970 and 2000 and
then projects this trend into the future to the year 2020. (Duda 2002, 10)

Imports & Exports

All of the developments in the seafood, produce and beverage industries have
contributed to the broader trend of import growth. Exports have grown as well, but not as
rapidly. As new capabilities arose in terms of transport and manufacturing and hunting (in
the case of seafood), we began to draw goods from greater distances. There are many
complex and overlapping trends observed between 1940 and 2010. Contemporary leaders

212
  

are still facing many of the same challenges that arose in the 1940s and 1950s. Since its
establishment, New York City’s success has depended heavily on trade. During the first half
of the twentieth century, the New York Times reported that 25% of jobs in the city relied on
foreign trade (Special to The New York 1958). This statistic illustrates the constant role
imports and exports have played in the development of New York, as does Figure 12.16.
By the 1940, New York was already importing fruits grown in South America. New
Yorkers were starting to enjoy fruits in the winter imported from Mexico, such as black
cherries, red wine, Santa Rosa plums, apricots, as well as grapes, pears, and honeydew
melons from Argentina (1940). In 1943, researches started working with farmers in small
town in Mexico to produce heartier strains of wheat, corn, and beans, and in 1950 their
research pays off when the crop yields are significantly higher than the same crops in the
United States (1952). Initially, these fruits were expensive and considered delicacies, but
gradually expanded into the common market and today honeydew melons are scarcely
considered more exotic than the apple. Much of the food New Yorkers eat is also from
California or Florida, while food produced in New York State is sold to buyers in
Pennsylvania and Connecticut (Hewitt 1970). As access to the city’s markets became
increasingly limited around the 1950s, the need for some sort of trade or infrastructure
change was necessary.
The Washington Street market, one of the main marketplaces in New York City, was
getting increasingly congested as the 20th century reached its middle. Small local farmers in
upstate New York could not get their products to the market. Instead, they began sending it
to another developing market in the Bronx, located near today’s Yankee stadium. The
Hunt’s Point Terminal Market was constructed in the 1960s in the Bronx to replace the
Washington Street market, which was plagued by packed streets. The move changed little as
the Hunts Point Market soon grew just as crowded. Today it petitions for expansion (Matt
Barron 2010). When the Washington Street market was moved to this market at Hunt’s
Point, the farmers were again crowded out and needed to distribute their produce to other
states (Seymour 1959). This is still true today: a lot of the small upstate farmers simply don’t
have the means, the funds, or the trucks to deliver to food to places like the Bronx, whereas
more corporate farmers from different places around the country have more money to
invest and an interstate highway system over which to ship their goods. Certain distribution
companies have been created in order to provide farmers from upstate New York with
access to New York City markets, but because there is little demand for products from New
York (often more expensive), the distributors must charge even higher prices which again,
the farmers cannot afford, creating a difficult cycle to get out of (Matt Barron 2010).
Another reason that the food New Yorkers consumed in this era came from
increasingly further distances is the expansion of the population into surrounding areas.
Individuals owning farms near the city realized they could make more money selling their
land, a large percent of which was converted into public housing works (Hewitt 1970). In the
1970’s, many buyers had set up long-term contracts with producers out west, further cutting
off upstate New Yorkers from the city market, and this is still true today.
The abundance of supply also became important in the 1970s. In 1974, for instance,
there was a three day strike at the Hunt’s Point Terminal Market, yet the New York Times
reported that while some consumers stocked up on food items, their grocers and butchers
advised them not to. These grocers and butchers were confident that they could receive
shipments of food from the markets of other cities, such as Philadelphia, Providence, Rhode
Island or Hartford, Connecticut, at comparable prices (Sheppard 1974). In 2010, if one
distributor is unable to make a delivery for whatever reason, there is no cause for concern

213
  

because the supply is so vast that it can be obtained from elsewhere with relative ease (Matt
Barron 2010).
The Hunt’s Point Terminal Market was providing 20 million people in the
metropolitan area, upstate New York, New Jersey, Long Island, and Connecticut with food
in 1974. Today it brings in more revenue than any other food market in the world, and is
threatening to move to New Jersey if it is not soon updated to better meet consumer
demands. The Hunt’s Point Terminal Market was constructed with equal accommodations
for railways and trucks, not expecting the decline in railway transport and a boom in trucking
(Hess 1974). Present-day statistics illustrate New York’s particular dependence on trucks to
facilitate trade:

214
  

Figure 12.20 Domestic food imports to Region 68 by mode of transport by percentage

weight in 2002.
Aggregated food commodities entering Region 68 from domestic origins by mode of
transport by percentage weight.

The following pie charts illustrate the present-day movement of food throughout
Sector 68 (which includes an area beyond New York City):

Figure 12.21 Food imports into Region 68 by percentage weight.

Food commodities entering Region 68 from domestic origins by percentage weight (total:
28.6 million tons), 2002.

215
  

Figure 12.22 Regional origins of food imports to Region 68 by percentage weight in 2002.
Regional origin of food commodities entering Region 68 by percentage weight, 2002.

Figure 12.23 Regional origins of food imports to Region 68 excluding New York.
Regional origin of food commodities entering Region 68 by percentage weight, with Region
68 removed as an origin.

These charts demonstrate that much of what moves through New York City and its
surrounding areas originates from within the United States but from outside of New York

216
  

state. Therefore, though New York historically has been the greatest center of imports and
exports of the United States, much of its food does not travel very far to reach its
destination. The pie charts are somewhat problematic, however, because Sector 68 includes
area beyond the city. Because extra data is included, the numbers are inevitably somewhat
inaccurate, yet still useful. Because information is grouped and generalized in these statistics,
many specific bits of data are unknown.

DISCUSSION
Many technological advances in mass production have brought the United States
into a steep climb in consumption. Since the 1940s, levels of consumption have expanded
rapidly, due to the increase in amount of purchasable goods in the city and the country as a
whole. We are now in a situation wherein we must decide whether or not we will be more
conscious of our effects on our environment.
New York City will not be able to boast about its status as one of the five major
cities that does not use filtration in its water supply system for much longer. The DEP sees
maintaining the city’s watershed as one of its top priorities. As the DEP says in plaNYC,
“the health, welfare, and economic well being of New Yorkers are all intrinsically linked to
the quality of our drinking water.”(City of New York 2006) plaNYC is a report produced by
the DEP in 2006 outlining New York City’s environmental sustainability plans. The City has
taken aggressive steps to preserve our water quality, including planning for the building of a
major water filtration plant in the Bronx for the Croton Reservoir system, and purchasing
almost 80,000 acres [in addition to the 114,000 it already owns] to protect our watersheds
from development. As a result, the Catskill and Delaware Watersheds provide some of the
country’s purest water.” (City of New York 2006, 65) Because “privately-owned forests and
farms cover two-thirds of the [Delaware and Catskill] watershed land area,” the City realizes
that it “must work with foresters to establish sustainable forest management plans and to
ensure the overall health of these important buffers for the city’s water supply.” (City of
New York 2006, 66)
Pollution is not the only evil jeopardizing New York City’s water supply. The
Croton, Delaware and Catskill aqueducts were all built between sixty and one-hundred and
twenty years ago; 1940 in the Delaware’s case and 1893 in the Croton’s case. (Ezemen 1990)
Now, the aqueducts are leaking. “An estimated 15 to 36 million gallons per day of water is
being lost from the Delaware Aqueduct, or 4% of its daily volume peak flows.”(City of New
York 2006) Water leaked from the Delaware Aqueduct periodically flooded the homes in
Wawarsing, an upstate town with a population of 12,000. To perform the repair work, the
aqueducts may need to be shut down and drained. In 2008, the City enlisted six deep-sea
divers to fix a valve that will eventually allow the Delaware Aqueduct to be drained and
repaired. (Belson 2008) Removing water completely from the aqueducts is problematic
because none of the aqueducts have a redundant backup tunnel that water could flow
through in the event of their failure. New York City could not deal with shutting off the
Delaware or Catskill aqueducts without throwing residents into a huge water shortage,
because the Delaware and Catskill aqueducts combined carry 90% of New York City’s water.
The two tunnels that bring water from the reservoirs into the City are also in need of
repair. Begun in 1970, City Water Tunnel No. 3 will enhance and improve the City’s water
delivery system, and allow for the inspection and repair of City Water Tunnels No. 1 and
No. 2 for the first time since they were put into service, in 1917 and 1936, respectively. City
Water Tunnel No. 3 is being built in stages and is one of the largest and most expensive

217
  

projects in New York City’s history. Bottled water is still prevalent in New York City, but
efforts are being made to lessen the environmental impact of the plastic packaging used.
The seventy-year period from 1940 to 2010 showed the entire milk production
process move out of New York City. Advances in technology allowed raw milk to be
transported further distances, and rising real estate prices in New York City made it more
profitable for dairy companies to move their processing plants to a cheaper environment.
In terms of agriculture, there seemed to be two trends at work since the middle of
the twentieth century. Since the 1940s, there has been a great increase in the use of
pesticides. Although there has recently been a push to produce organic fruits and vegetables
without the use of any pesticides, the levels of pesticides in use have yet to decline
significantly, and are still marginally increasing. Public support for organic foods, however,
seems to signal the potential for a demand to decrease the use of these chemicals.
New York is producing fewer and fewer amounts of fruits and vegetables.
To accommodate a growing population and declining production, the City is importing
most of its fruits and vegetables from other states and even other countries. If current trends
continue, the production of fruits and vegetables will continue to move away from New
York City and even away from New York State. To support the production of fruits and
vegetables in New York, the state and the city must start to seriously explore the idea of
sustainable food systems and must undertake the creation of these systems. Only then will
New York once again grow its own produce, ideally organically, and contribute to healthy
and viable communities. Vertical farming and utilizing roof space for gardens are two ideas
that the City is exploring to start growing produce.
Since its inception, ready access to the Hudson River and to the Atlantic Ocean has
helped New York flourish. Coastal access to these waterways made it one of the main ports
for the United States and turned it into what it is today: the economic capital of the country,
if not the world. New York is a commercial center, a consumption center. To the east, one
can behold the Atlantic Ocean, which transported and nourished the fledgling New York
and continues to share its wealth with us. The sea, supposedly inexhaustible, gave life to the
coastal civilizations of early America and has provided jobs and food for generations. We
have drawn from it for our entire history, through our industrial climb to the top of the
world. In the past fifty years, however, we have become too industrialized and too efficient.
What was once commonly thought of as an endlessly renewable resource is quickly proving
the converse. The ocean is most definitely exhaustible. To compound the problem, the
damage to the oceans goes unseen until it is too late. In fact, it is this mentality that has
brought about the depleted fish stocks around the world; perhaps because we think of fish
as food, not creatures, and because we view the ocean as our own vast dinner bucket not as
its own complex ecosystem, that we have haphazardly been hoarding loads of fish as big as
we could carry.
The trends in the fishing industry that we have witnessed between the 1940s and
2010 seem to point to one conclusion: we have caused the current crisis. Modern,
mechanized methods of fishing that developed during the 1950s and took major hold during
the 1960s and 1970s were destructive to oceanic ecosystems and the life contained within
them. Laws were passed by the United States, the United Nations and individual countries
around the world in attempts to address the issues of overfishing and destruction of ocean
ecosystems. The size of vessels would decrease in the decades following this law-making
period, indicative perhaps of an acknowledgement of their over-efficiency.
Pollution levels in New York harbor and across oceans worldwide increased
drastically between the 1940s and today. The advent of new factories making and disposing

218
  

new chemicals meant a wide range of damaging substances entered New York’s and the
world’s waterways. At times pollution was so bad that fish were killed off, forced to leave the
area, or poisoned. There were attempts to address this issue as well but pollution continues
to be a serious issue.
Demonstrative of the difficulty of enforcing oceanic law, overfishing continued
through the 1980s and 1990s. Catch levels peaked around 1998 (exceeding national quotas in
many cases for many consecutive years) and have begun to decline since then which seems
to indicate that fish populations were so damaged during our feeding frenzy that they are
unable to recover - at least, unable to recover so long as we continue consuming them at the
current rate (Murray 2009, 5).
Depletion of many fish populations and the trends of exploitation of various species
have coincided with the boom in the fishing industry and with the increase in pollution
(attributable in large part to the expansion of industrialization as a whole). Many scientists
predict that if fishing methods and consumption levels do not change, we will have caused
the collapse of most fish species we eat by the middle of the twenty first century. Drawing
food, particularly seafood, from greater distances means many things for the food quality:
the food is harder to keep fresh and its source becomes increasingly depleted.
Imports and exports have grown between 1940 and 2010; however, the former has
grown more quickly than the latter, resulting in a trade deficit. This trend helps explain a
number of issues that New York finds itself grappling with. As populations grow unchecked,
congestion and expansion of infrastructure become more and more important as we need to
accommodate ever-greater volumes of food exchange, a ready supply of food, foreign
products being absorbed into American diets, and a general dependence on American food
suppliers from out of state.
As time goes on and population increases, there is the constant need for expansion.
Another important theme observed from 1940 to 2010 in terms of imports and exports of
food is that the common diets of New Yorkers include items that were once delicacies, a
phenomenon likely to become more common in the wake of globalization. Nevertheless,
most of New York’s food supply comes from within the nation rather than being imported
from foreign countries. These trends are likely to continue in the future, with volumes
constantly increasing and infrastructure capacities increasingly stressed.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, our upward trends of consumption seem to have reached a crisis
point. Technological advances in all industries have allowed rapid development to take place
without a concern for the consequences. In the beverage market, water became increasingly
processed for purposes of cleanliness but bottled water consumption continues to rise. Milk
also went through a similar process: homogenized and mass-produced very far from your
local grocery store. Farming practices in New York have involved an increase in the use of
pesticides over the past few decades. More fruits and vegetables are being brought in from
out-of-state. In order for these foods to remain intact and appealing they must be treated
with various chemicals. The middle of the twentieth century saw the invention of the
refrigerator, which greatly increased our ability to save and preserve foods. This was a crucial
change in the fishing industry: filleting, freezing, and preserving fish on-board factory
trawlers enabled them trawl for weeks. No longer did fishermen risk spoiling a catch by
chasing another, potentially valuable aggregation of fish. This also meant fish could easily
come to New York from all over the world. Fish could be sold from wherever they were

219
  

caught, emblematic of the dramatic changes in the global market. We could and did buy
more and more of our products from overseas. Throughout the United States, imports and
exports have risen. Imports, however, have risen at a much faster rate, creating a trade
deficit.
The human desire for growth and expansion has resulted in a somewhat haphazard
attitude towards the environment. Americans have always treated resources as inexhaustible.
Consumption rates reflect this ideology. Every industry has seen an increase in the
consumption of its products. Populations are growing but this growth does not balance the
growth in consumption. This demand for more products has created a mass-manufacturing
mentality that encourages the cheapest ways to make the best-looking products. The
supermarket mentality is all about appearances: we see something we like (advertisers do a
good job of taking appealing pictures) and we purchase enormous quantities. In a
supermarket, the world of salty-sweet-sour is at our fingertips, more or less. We can choose
from a seemingly endless array of food that pretends to be real food, browse through the
petrified mimicry of all the world’s cuisines. Most people are not conscious of the way they
consume let alone what they consume. In this day and age it is difficult to know about each
of the ingredients in the products we buy. One thing is for certain, though: we must make an
attempt to learn.
Beverages are becoming increasingly packaged and processed. Fruits and vegetables
are subject to more and more treatment in an attempt to make something like an always
smooth, always bright red tomato - forget whether it’s watery or anywhere close to what a
tomato should be or taste like. Our consumption of seafood has led to the decline of fish
populations around the world. Our fishing rates are entirely unsustainable - a perfect
example of the way in which a food source’s obscurity can lead to unfettered and un-
conscious consumption of it. As imports rise and exports decrease, we are finding ourselves
in a fiscal situation that quite simply leaves us at a loss.
The longevity of these food sources - of all food sources - and of the environment
from which we draw them depends entirely on our ability to become interested in
consumption. What do we eat? Where does it come from? We need to care about these
things. More than that, we need to make conscious, careful choices about what we eat and
why but more importantly what we do not eat and why not. Everyone prefers organic but
everyone also likes the luxury of the infinite aisle. As food sources become not only less
fresh but actively depleted, we find ourselves in an increasingly dire situation. Mass
manufacturing techniques and materials are also having a negative impact on the state of the
world. New York City produces a very small portion of what it consumes. Most of it comes
from outside: from other states and other nations. Cheap substitutes and imitations are
pretty much always cheaper than local, organic food. In a corporate world, in the global
market, the substitutes and imitations will prevail - and this victory will cost the jobs of small
farmers and the health of Americans. The land of packaged plenty is predicated on the idea
that what we want is unlimited and also on the idea that we need access to every food variant
we can think of (and under one roof, no less). Our results have shown that this is far from
the truth; in fact, it is entirely untrue. Either we act now towards some sustainable future or
the food we take for granted might just dry up and disappear (if it hasn’t already been
shipped in from the other side of the planet, freeze-dried, powdered, or made
microwavable).

220
  

REFERENCES

2009. Gastropolis: Food and New York City. NYC: Columbia University Press.

2010a. EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides. Foodnews.com.

(2010b) FoodNYC: A Blueprint for a sustainable food system. 1-45.

2010c. Pesticides. Washington D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency,.

Agency, E. P. 1999. Turbidity Provisions. In EPA Guidance Manual.

Anderson, A. W. 1939. Fishery Market News 1939. In Bureau of Fisheries Report, ed. R. H.
Fielder. Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior.

Anderson, D. 2008. Modern Law of the Sea. Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Anonymous. 1938. $2,500,000 Depot for Milk Opened. New York Times.

Anonymous. 1939. Milk in Boxes. New York Times.

Anonymous. 1952a. Sheffield Plant Resold To CBS. New York Times.

Anonymous. 1952b. Sheffield Sells West Side Plant. New York Times. May 16, 1952.

Anonymous. 2008. Plumber’s Job on a Giant’s Scale: Fixing New York’s Drinking Straw.
New York Times.

Anonymous. 1995. How Albany Works, Lesson 1: Lobbying: The Beverage Industry Pushes
Hard for a Tax Break, and Succeeds. New York Times. June 12, 1995.

Anonymous. 1937. New Plants Rise Along Rail Route. New York Times.

Anonymous. 1940. Food News of the Week. New York Times

Anonymous. 1945. Food Leaders Fight New Set-Up By U.S. New York Times

Anonymous. 1952. Business Outlook Called Good Here. New York Times

Anonymous. 1997. Pouring It On Extra Virgin Oil as a Staple. New York Times

Barboza, D. 2007. A Slippery, Writhing Trade Dispute. The New York Times 3 July 2007.

Bergfeld, E. C. Y. a. A. J. 1949. Methods Employed in an Analisys of the Spread between

Farm and Consumer Milk Prices in New York City. Journal of Farm Economics, 31,
1194-1202.

Blake, N. M. 1956. Water for the Cities. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

Boyle, E. 2008. Bottlemania. New York, NY: Bloomsbury USA.

221
  

Campana, S. E. 2009. Photographic Atlas of Fish Otoliths of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean.
284. Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada.

Carey, R. A. 1999. Agaist the Tide: The Fate of the New England Fisherman. NYC: Houghton
Mifflin.

Census of Agriculture. 1950. United States Census of Agriculture: 1950 Mid Atlantic States
ed. United States Department of Agriculture.

Census of Agriculture. 1992. County Level Data. ed. United States Department of
Agriculture, 385-399, 401-414.

Census of Agriculture. 1997. County Level Data. ed. United States Department of
Agriculture, 380-419.

Census of Agriculture. 2002. County Level Data. ed. United States Department of
Agriculture, 372-373, 386-405, 407-412, 414-417.

Census of Agriculture. 2007. County Level Data. ed. United States Department of
Agriculture, 437-464, 466-478.

Chao, D. L. V. a. G. 2006. Aquaculture Law And Policy : Towards Principled Access And
Operations. ed. J. I. L. Program.

City of New York. 2008. Progress Report 2008 on Water Network. New York: The City of
New York.

City of New York. 2006. PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater, New York. New York: The City of
New York.

Cotter, B. 2009. The 1939-1940 New York World's Fair. Charleston, SC: Aracdia Publishing.

David A Rubinos, M. A., Carlos Aymerich, Francicso Diaz-Fierros (2005) Aluminum

Contents in Drinking Water from Public Water Supplies of Galicia (Northwest
Spain). Water Resources.

Department of Environmental Protection. 2009. History of New York City's Water Supply
System.

Dillon, J. J. 1941. Seven Decades of Milk.

Drohan, A. F. 2007. Essential fish habitat source document. ed. United States Department
of Commerce. Woods Hole, Massachusetts: Northeast Fisheries Science Center.

Duda, A. (2002) A New Imperative for Improving Management of Large Marine

Ecosystems. Ocean & Coastal Management, 45, 797-833.

Ellis, R. 2003. The Empty Ocean: Plundering the World’s Marine Life. Washington: Shearwater
Books.

222
  

Ezemen, E. G. M. 1990. The New York Environment Book. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

FAF. 2006. Commodity Origin-Destination Database.

Federal Highway Administration. 2002.

Feenstra, G. W. (1997) Local Food Systems and Sustainable Communities. American Journal of
Alternatice Agriculture, 12, 28-36.

Fowle. 1959. New City Market In Bronx Backed. New York Times

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2001. The State of World
Fisheries and Aquaculture 2000. 135. Rome: FAO.

--------. 2009. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008. 175. Rome: FAO.

--------. 2010. Fisheries Dept Glossary. In FAO Fisheries Dept.

--------. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. FAO of the U.N.

--------. 1999. Number of Fishers, 1970-1996. ed. F. Dept., 131. Rome: FAO of the U.N.

--------. 2010a. CECAF (Eastern Central Atlantic) Capture Production.

--------. 2010b. FAOSTAT - Consumption. FAO.

Gandy, M. 2002. Concrete and Clay. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Giuliani, R. W. 1997. New York City 1997 Water Supply Statement.

Goñi, R. (1998) Ecosystem Effects of Marine Fisheries: an Overview. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 40, 37-64.

Greenberg, S. 2003. Waterworks. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.

Grimes, W. 2009. Appetite City: A Culinary History of New York. New York, NY: North Point
Press.

GrowNYC. 2009. GrowNYC Annual Report. 1-32. New York.

Habstritt, M. 2005. Manhattanville and New York City's Milk Supply.

HAER. 1986. Sheffield Farms Milk Plant: Written Historical and Descriptive Data.

Halweil, B. 2006. Catch of the Day: Choosing Seafood for Healthier Oceans. Danvers: Worldwatch
Institute.

Harris, E. S. (1967) Impact of Transportation Changes on Price Structures in City Milk

Markets. Journal of Farm Economics, 49, 844-851.

223
  

Hays, C. L. 2004. The Real Thing. New York Random House.

Hess. 1974. Hunts Point Market, Called 'Grocer's Dream,' Proving Nightmare to Many. New
York Times (1923-Current file).

Hewitt. 1970. Why Local Produce Is Becoming Rarity. New York Times

Hunter Water. 2008. Alum in Drinking Water Fact Sheet.

Kleinfield, N. 1987. Across America, the Fish Are Jumpin'. New York Times 1 March 1987.

Kurlansky, M. 1997. Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World. New York: Walker
and Co.

Kurlansky, M. 2006. The Big Oyster: New York in the World - a Molluscular History. London:
Jonathan Cape.

Kurlansky, M. 2008. The Last Fish Tale. NYC: Penguin Group.

Magnuson, W. 1976 & 1996. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
ed. U. S. Congress.

Manhattan Milk. 2009. Manhattan MIlk is Your New Local Milk Man.

Matt Barron, B. G., Claire Ho, et al (2010) Understanding NYC's Food Supply.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mpaenvironment/pages/documents/Understanding
NYCsFoodSupply_May2010.pdf

Mitchell, J. 1951. The Bottom of the Harbor. In The New Yorker. New York City.

Miyazaki, N. 2005. Mankind and the Oceans. New York: United Nations University Press.

Montaigne, F. 2007. Still Waters: the Global Fish Crisis. In National Geographic. Tampa:
National Geographic Society.

Murray, R. 2009. The End of the Line. United States: New Video Group.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. 2005 Drinking Water
Supply and Quality Report. New York.

---. 2009. New York City 2009 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report. New York.

---. 2010. Filtration Avoidance Annual Report

Patrick, M. 1995. High Seas Fisheries Management Agreement: on Straddling and Highly
Migratory Fish Stocks. United Nations.

Pauly, D. 2003. In A Perfect Ocean: The State Of Fisheries And Ecosystems In The North Atlantic
Ocean. Washington: Island Press.

224
  

Pauly, D. (1998) Fishing Down Marine Food Webs. Science, 279, 860-863.

Raymo, C. R. a. M. E. 2007. Written In Stone: A Geological History Of The Northeastern United

States. Hensonville: Black Dome Press Corp.

Ridgway, R. L., J. C. Tinney, J. T. MacGregor & N. J. Starler (1978) Pesticide Use in

Agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives, 27, 103-112.

Roberts, C. 2007. The Unnatural History of the Sea. Washington: Shearwater Books.

Rovell, D. 2006. First In Thirst. New York, NY: Amacom Books.

Sanderson, E. W. 2009. Manahatta: A Natural History of New York City. NYC: Harry N.
Abrams, Inc.

Schmelzkopf, K. (1995) Urban Community Gardens as Contested Space. Geographical Review,

85, 364-381.

Seymour. 1959. City To Get Plan For Huge Market. New York Times

Sheppard. 1974. Produce Markets Feel Effects Of 3-Day Strike at Hunts Point. New York
Times

Smith, C. 2002. North Sea Cod Crisis Brings Call for Nations to Act. New York Times 7
November 2002.

Special to the New York. 1958. One Job in 4 Here Is Held Dependent On Foreign Trade.
New York Times

Steinback, S. R. 2006. Northeast Region Commercial Fishing Input-Output Model. 54.

Woods Hole, Massachusetts: U.S. Dept. Of Commerce, National Oceanic And
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries
Science Center.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1940. Population of the 100 Largest Urban Places: 1940.

Valdemarsen, J. W. (2001) Technological Trends in Capture Fisheries. Ocean & Coastal

Management, 44, 635-651.

Voorhees, D. V. 2010. Fisheries of the United States 2009. ed. A. Lowther. Silver Spring:
National Marine Fisheries Service - Office of Science and Technology.

Warner, W. 1983. Distant Water: the Fate of the North Atlantic Fisherman. Boston, MA: Little
Brown.

World Health Organization. 1990. Public Health Impact Of Pesticides Used In Agriculture.
1-128. England.

225
  

-13-
FROM MEATS TO BEVERAGES:
The evolution of urban food markets in New York City during the global era

by Julia Gorbach, Jose Jaime, Hannah Kim, Yuliya Kozachenko, and Maisha Lopa

INTRODUCTION
The 20th century and the ushering of the global era have shown dramatic changes in
all spheres of American life. Many of these developments have also affected how and where
food is grown, made and processed, as well as the locations and functions of our markets.
Changes in the locations, functions, and types of urban food markets are directly linked to
the changes in the locations and functions to food production sites. In particular, population
growth in New York City and technological advances in different urban food production,
processing, and markets have greatly affected our food industries.
Most significantly, population growth has led to a high rise in wider demands for
markets offering a variety of products. In the global era (1940 to the present day), there has
been a decline in singular markets and the birth and growth of supermarkets, which are
businesses and companies offering a wide range of goods and services. It is becoming ever
apparent that the majority of our food, bread, fresh produce, meat, and beverages are now
being sold at such supermarket chains and stores. One exception to this modern
phenomenon is the seafood and shellfish industry, which still relies on the Fulton Fish
Market as the main source of seafood and as a main provider for wholesale companies and
restaurants. Even so, supermarkets have developed methods of incorporating and providing
certain varieties of seafood for the general public in-store. This shift from locally sustained,
small-scale distribution stores to a global marketing system has, in turn, revolutionized the
type and quality of food consumed.
Technological developments have also influenced and altered the production,
processing, and marketing techniques food industries use. Many of these advancements have
enabled producers to ship food over long distances and have allowed markets to increase
product shelf-life. Such developments that have transformed the food industry include, new
processing equipments, expedited and adapted shipping strategies, innovations in marketing,
and shifts in the locations and characteristics of urban markets themselves. There have also
been dramatic changes in wheat processing and production on the local, national, and
international levels, particularly during the Industrial Revolution and World War eras.
America's most bountiful crop, corn, has proliferated into the production process of a
multitude of products, most notably beverages, through High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS),
a form of corn syrup, and changed the beverage industry and impacted the consumption of
beverages as well. Through this paper, we will explore the various changes that have
occurred in population, technological developments and food industries.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Despite the fact that our population has been growing at an increasing rate since the
1950s, the number of farms in the United States has decreased from 5.4 million to a mere 2

226
  

million in the 1990s. (“Changes…”) In addition decreasing farm land, the percent of
population of farm residents has plummeted from a whopping 16% to 1.2%. Despite the
dramatic decrease, farm efficiency has greatly increased and has allowed each farmer to
increase the number of people he or she can feed from 17 to 132 people within the past six
decades. (“Changes…”) Thus, it is apparent that industrialization and improvements in
farming technology have had a noticeable impact on farming productivity.
In addition, the move towards industrialization and globalization has left many small-
scale private farmers in the dust. The business of owning and maintaining a farm is
expensive, and usually results in higher costs of labor and higher prices of product. Some
neoclassical economists argue that consumers no longer need their own farmers because a
wealthy nation can afford to cheaply import food from poorer countries. This is the direct
result of advancements in technology and the use of genetic modification and pesticides, all
of which small farmers have trouble keeping up with. Local small town farmers face the
growing demand to lower product prices even though the cost of production continues to
increase.
Large farms are also at an advantage compared to family farms. By the year 1994, 9
% of produce came from 73 % of farms and the 122,000 largest farms, representing only 6%
of the total number of farms, received close to 60 percent of total farm receipts. (Lang 150)
Aside from statistical changes, the locations of farms and concentrations of certain crop
farms have shifted dramatically.
Presently, statistics from several wholesale markets in the U.S demonstrate that fruits
and vegetables are traveling longer distances, such as 2,500 to 4,000 kilometers, from farm to
market, which represents an increase of roughly 20 % in the last two decades. (Halweil 29)
This increase in distance is directly related to demographics. Within the last half century,
millions of people have relocated from small suburban centers of food production into
highly populated urban locations and cities. (Halweil 29) Even as early as the 1950s, virtually
all fruits and vegetables consumed in major American cities were grown on nearby farms.
Today, thanks to lower gasoline prices and advanced technologies, local farming has become
the most inefficient and expensive way of growing produce.
Despite the fact that we now ship food over larger and larger distances, the cost of
shipping produce decreases each year. This trend can be attributed to advances in produce
transportation and processing technologies. For example, it now costs 70 % less to ship
cargo by sea and 50 % less to ship by air than it did 20 years ago. (Halweil 36) Even as early
as 1961, the use of refrigerated trucks and the intricate highway system made it easier to
package food and distribute it elsewhere; thus, leading to more widespread distribution of
perishable foods. (Burk 70) In the United States, annual expenditures for shipping food have
grown from just over $4 billion in 1967 to nearly $24 billion in 1997, and yet have declined
from 7 % to 5 % as a share of the total food marketing bill during the period. (Halweil 36)
Such observations in the food industry can be explained by the introduction of new
technologies.

Technological advances
An important technological achievement in the fruit industry is the invention of
orange juice concentrate. Prior to World War II, oranges could only be enjoyed in certain
seasons and by people in temperature regions in which the fruit could be freshly shipped to.
Yet during the war, due to the high demand of orange juice for overseas troops, American
scientists developed a process for concentrating the orange juice by adding a small amount
of unconcentrated juice for taste, vacuum sealing it in cans and then passing the cans

227
  

through a freezing tunnel before shipping them in refrigerated ocean liners, boxcars and
trucks. (Halweil 36) This process freed the orange industry from seasonal and geographic
constraints.
Even so, seasonal constraints were still quite in effect for other fruits and vegetables.
In 1961, total marketing of fresh fruits and vegetables were lightest in the winter season,
which accounted for 1/5 of the annual unloads. (Burk 33) Accordingly, the heaviest
marketing of fruits and vegetables occurred during the summer. Today, however, advanced
technology has done away with limitations that caused these disparities and allowed the fruit
and vegetable markets to be bountiful all year long.
Another essential innovation for the fruit industry was the British development of
“controlled atmosphere storage” for apples. (Halweil 32) The goal of the invention was to
slow down the ripening of apples by lowering oxygen levels and raising carbon dioxide levels
in the air. To this day, almost all apples are stored and shipped in this type of environment.
Many of the vegetables are now quick-frozen and internationally shipped to various
locations. (Gaull 208) The 1961 edition of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
clearly states that the process of quick freezing foods is the “outstanding development” in
processing and has affected the rate and seasonal consumption of most produce. (Burk 69)
Another device for preserving produce involves adding nitrogen gas to plastic bags
containing pre-cut salads. (Halweil 32) The controlled atmosphere created by the nitrogen
gas reduces browning of the lettuce leaves and allows salads to remain fresh for longer
amounts of time. In addition, the discovery of ethylene now allows fruit producers to ship
produce while it is still unripe and to ripen it upon arrival to the destination using ethylene
gas. (Halweil 32) For example, 80 % of fresh tomatoes on the market today are ripened by
ethylene.
Another interesting innovation, albeit a relatively simple one, is the removal of water
as a method of food preservation. For example, field-drying peas reduces shipping costs and
limits growth of microorganisms, but the peas need to be soaked overnight with a soda
tablet in order to be rehydrated. (Ritson 212) The resulting product barely resembles the
original fresh pea and loses many of its qualities. Another example is dried potato powder, or
the dehydration of the cooked and mashed potato, which experiences a similar loss of
nutrients and taste as the field-dried peas. Thus, although it may seem beneficial to
production and marketing companies, there are many negative consequences to these
seemingly practical advances in technology. Robert Sommers, a University of California
professor, recalls an interesting and disturbing memory of a time when he was once driving
on a highway behind a truck carrying recently harvest tomatoes. When the truck made a
sharp turn, some tomatoes rolled off the top of the truck and bounced when they hit the
highway. (Halweil 34) Obviously, technology has brought about some serious drawbacks.
Similar to the fruits and vegetables industry, as technology improved and population
sky-rocketed, bread making became less home-based. Local bakeries began to spring up in
towns all over the United States and used “large brick ovens heated by wood or coal to
move the dough in and out of the ovens with a long-handled wooden shovel called the
peel.” (McNulty 1) Within the 20th century, inventions like the steamroller mechanism, which
simplified the grinding process and led to mass production of white flour, easy-to-use
packaged yeast, and high speed machinery, allowed large bread making factories to gain
control of the complex process of bread making and to establish city-wide bread markets.
(McNulty 1)
Such innovations and developments allowed white, whole wheat, rye, and other
types of breads to be produced and marketed locally and nationally. Over time, with the

228
  

combination of bread slicing technology (invented in 1928 and marketed as Kleen Maid
Sliced Bread) and bread making factories, store-bought bread became an integral product
within the United States. White bread brands, such as the 1921 creation of Wonder Bread,
became very successful and widely purchased by consumers. Eventually, whole grain, wheat,
and natural breads rose within the bread market and began to compete for consumers
against white bread.
Even as a top international exporter, the U.S implemented the same basic
fundamental process of trading wheat locally and nationally in addition to internationally.
Wheat would be harvested and loaded onto a grain truck and transported to storage bins on
a farm or a grain elevator, which is a large storage facility named for the moving belts used to
move or “elevate” the grain. (Mangelsdorf 6) Either the elevator operator would purchase
the grain or the farmer would store it for future sale. The wheat itself was purchased
depending on its test weight, dockage, and grade. Dockage and grade was determined on the
level of moisture in the grain or the presence of unfamiliar materials. Thus, if the moisture
level of the grain was too high or if the grain had small infestations or decay, then the price
would be “docked” or bargained down and the crop cleaned. (Mangelsdorf 6)
In addition, New York implements conventional farming techniques that use
“chemical pesticides and fertilizers, excessive use of water and fossil fuels, and repeated
planting of single crops.” (B. Stone) Conventional farming techniques, B. Stone discusses,
work well for the short but in the long term, “soil becomes laden with chemical toxins, and
lacking in nutrients, viable land becomes scarce, and the use of water and energy becomes a
growing financial cost as well as an environmental one.”
Technological advancements have drastically altered the process and production of
certain crops. For instance, even though High Fructose Corn Syrup was not officially used as
a sweetener until 1978, the ability to create sugar from corn became a reality in the 1930’s
when corn yield in the United States increased ten folds as a result of government
experimentation with hybrid corn. Increased corn yield led scientists at the United States
Department of Agriculture to experiment and find alternative uses for corn. In 1957,
scientists discovered an enzyme that had the ability to transform glucose to fructose
(although it required arsenic as a cofactor). In 1965, a version of this glucose enzyme that did
not require arsenic was discovered in a species of bacteria called Streptomyces. Once it was
possible to grow this organism using corn-steep liquor to produce a thermally stable enzyme
in a cost-effective way, it became possible to produce sugar from corn that resembled the
sweetness of sugar from sugar cane. (Ladisch 2004) It took a total of 20 years of research to
produce High Fructose Corn Syrup 55 (the 55 denotation stands for the percentage of
fructose present in the syrup). The biotechnology developed for HCFS production
combined with the increases in U.S. agricultural productivity of corn set the stage for the
large-scale use of HFCS as a substitute to traditional cane sugar. (Ayesha 2009)
The introduction of HFCS into the beverage production process occurred in 1978.
By 1982, U.S beverage makers had reduced the use of sucrose in the production process by
one-third and increased their use of HFCS by two folds. A beverage company sponsored a
“taste challenge” and the result of the challenge stipulated that consumers preferred
beverages made with 55-percent HFCS than sugar. (Pendergrast 2000) Yet, little is it known
that the consumer preference of HFCS over sucrose is rooted in chemistry. Fructose
enhances the flavor of fruits, which makes beverages sweeter than they would be if made
with an equal amount of sucrose. Moreover, fructose tastes sweeter in lower temperatures,
which perfectly enhances the chilled serving suggestion of most beverages. (McQueen 2003)

229
  

Taste, as well as economic factors, played an important role in the switch to HFCS in
beverages.
Besides developments within the beverage industry, the meat industry has also
dramatically transformed in order to keep up with the growing demand for different types of
meat. According to “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzeler,” a New York Times editorial by Mark
Bittman, the world total meat supply back in 1961 was approximately Seventy-one million
tons of meat. Sixty-six years later, in the year 2007, it was estimated that the meat supply was
over “284 million tons.” That is over two hundred million tons of meat consumption; that’s
four times the amount. Henning Steinfiled of the United Nation predicts that by the year
2050 this number will double. Besides the fact that these numbers are outrageous, this also
means more meat consumption correlates with higher percentages of animal growth and
processing.
But who provides for all these high demands? Where does the US manage to feed all
these hungry meat eaters? The answer is simple but complicated, it’s simple because markets
are so easy to access and thus products, whether it is meat or any other form of food, can be
easily obtained. However, the answer is complicated because to provide for such huge
consumption means taking a little and turning it into a lot. Thus, this causes unsanitary and
unhealthy meat production techniques like factory farming or the use of steroids and
selective breeding.

The growth of supermarkets

Over the past sixty years, food markets have greatly changed from small locally
owned businesses to large corporate dominated supermarkets. Food stores were
predominantly groups of small stores. As seen in Table I in Section IV, only about 6 % had
annual sales over $50,000 and the sales of 43% percent were under $5,000. (Monroe 46)
Independent traders dominated retail and there were few limitations on who could open a
grocery store. The entire system of production, distribution and retail was much more
simplified than it is today.
At present, the food dealer, as all other retailers, is the consumer’s buying agent and
the grower’s and manufacturer’s selling agent (in the economic but not legal sense). (Monroe
30) Fresh fruits and vegetables that are produced by scores of scattered, small producers
have to pass through more hands than the processed and manufactured goods produced by
large companies. As a result, the number of small local food markets and stores is losing to
the dominance of larger more efficient industrial farms. In the late 1930s, most retailers
operated stalls or informal outside markets, including roadside markets or stands, and public
retail markets were usually located in the central section of a town or a city, frequently in
open air. (Monroe 43)
However, the newfound ability to process produce for long distance shipment and
the resources to ship the produce has created a competition between big national food
businesses and the traditional markets of local farmers. (Halweil 43) Even as early as 1961,
the trend towards fewer retail stores and larger supermarkets was clear. (Burk 68) Because
the one-stop shopping companies, such as large supermarket chains, typically offer lower
prices on fruits and vegetables, small firms tend to be driven out of business and many
traditional aspects of food markets are lost in this process. For example, the shift from small
local markets to large corporate supermarkets hinders the promotion of human connections
and feelings of community that existed 50 years ago. From a practical perspective,
supermarkets cut down on the consumer’s freedom to choose among locally grown produce,
and the ability to locate and eat healthy and organically grown foods. (Halweil 44)

230
  

With this moving away from locally sustained systems, the community retains a
declining share of the ultimate profit of sold produce since more of the services once
provided by the farm community are out-sourced to other regions or nations. (Harweil 45)
Brian Halweil, the author of “Eat Here: Reclaiming Homegrown Pleasures in a Global
Supermarket,” dubs this transformation as the “Wal-Mart Effect.” This trend can be
observed in Table II in Section IV, which shows the million dollar sales of leading
supermarket companies. The shift is staggering when compared to the <$5,000 sales of the
majority of stores in the late 1930s. “The relationship between production and marketing is
symbolic,” says Helena Norberg-Hodge of the International Society for Ecology and
Culture. (Halweil 46) She elaborates that large-scale, specialized agriculture we have today is
best suited to a global and centralized market. Therefore, the continual swallowing up of
small farmer businesses and neighborhood stores is only a natural consequence of the
changes in agriculture at its core. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for a small number of large
corporations to monopolize an entire chunk of the global market. For example, only a
handful of multinational companies control about 90 % of the global trade in cocoa and
pineapples and 80 % of the banana market. (Halweil 47) Having conquered the problem of
seasonal supply, the supermarket provides a marketplace of variety all year long. (Camp 89)
A classic example of how much fruit and vegetable markets have evolved in the past
50 years is the specialized superstore Harry’s Farmers Markets. The flagship store devotes
about one half of its 120,000 square feet to fresh fruits, vegetables and other produce. The
superstore carries five or six types of lettuce, fifteen types of mushrooms, and twenty kinds
of peppers at any one time. (Pillsbury 106) It is simple to see how difficult it is for smaller
businesses to compete with the convenience, selection and unbeatable prices of these
supermarket giants.
The constantly increasing population is a direct reason for such increasing demands
within the industry. As the population rises, for example, the demand for products increases
and causes a fall in meat markets and a rise in supermarkets. But are these markets, whether
singular aimed or multi-aimed markets, keeping up with demand rates (population rates)?
How are these livestock being transported? The numbers of livestock grow by the second,
and as the numbers grow the treatment of each livestock worsens, and the quality of the end
product we consume worsens.
As the number of consumers tends to increase, markets as a whole tend to increase
as well. Currently, the biggest market aiding to such demands is Wal-Mart. According to
research conducted by Coriolis in 2001, titled “Retail Supermarket Globalization: Whose
winning,” 12.7 % of market sales comes from Wal-Mart. This percent is ranked first above
other competing markets, including Kroger, Albertsons, Safeway, Costco and etc. Wal-Mart
has over 1000 supermarkets in North America alone. Surprisingly, the company “other” that
entails all other markets accounts for 37.4% and they have over 21,000 supermarkets. Hence,
ten major companies are controlling the entire market.
Small markets are no longer able to sustain standing alone against these huge
companies and that is why we see the decrease in many specialty markets, especially meat
markets in New York City, in particular the Meat Market District (also known as
Gansevoort). Most of the meat markets that existed in the 1940’s are no longer present and
they will continue to disappear as consumption increases, population increases, and
supermarkets prevail.

231
  

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Population growth
As the following figure indicates, the population has increased by three million
people
Figure 13.1 “Population in New York City”

POPULATION  IN  NYC    

10000000  
9000000  
8000000  
7000000  
6000000  
5000000  
4000000   POPULATION  IN  NYC  
3437202  4766883  5620048  
3000000  
2000000  
1000000  
0  
1930  1940  1950  1960  1970  1980  1990  2000  2010  2020  2030  

between 1930 and 2010, and by five million people between 1900 and 2010. The figure also
shows a trend in consistent increase in population, indicating that the population of New
York City may never decline and even if it were to drop like in 1980, it is sure to increase
again. The chart also predicts a population of over nine million residents in New York City
by the year 2030. This population growth is a major factor in affecting the food industries.
The second pie chart indicates the distribution of New York City's population among each
borough. It is notable that Brooklyn holds 31% of the population, and Staten Island holds
the least amount of residents at 5%. The order of most populated to least populated
boroughs is: Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, Bronx, and Staten Island.

POPULATION  2009  
Staten  
Island;  
5%  
Bronx;  
Bronx  
17%  
Queens;   Brooklyn  
Figure 13.2 “Population of New York City in 28%   Manhattan  
2009” Brooklyn;  
Move to supermarkets 31%   Queens  
It was inferable that the regions with Staten  Island  
the most concentrated amounts of people Manhatta
require more supermarkets. This deduction ties n;  19%  

232
  

into our claim that the growth of population resulted in a move from smaller markets to
supermarkets in NYC. The figure below measures the need for markets in New York City.
The darker areas are regions in high need of supermarkets, and the lightly colored regions
are in minimal need of supermarkets. It is notable that locations with high volumes of
people, such as: Washington Heights, East New York, Bedford, Stuyvesant, Concourse,
Harlem, East Village, Flat Bush, and Far Rockaway, are all in high needs of supermarkets.
The map on the left only displays the areas in which there is a high need for markets. The
dark spots are located over large areas of Brooklyn, the Bronx, and upper Manhattan, and
some part of Queens. It is apparent that the heaviest-populated boroughs correlated with the
areas with the most need for supermarkets.

Figure 13.3 “Supermarket High Need Areas in New York City”

233
  

Figure 13.4 “New York City Supermarket Access Index: Measurement of Need”

Furthermore, there has been a decrease in specialized meat markets. The Meat Market: New
York City Meatpacking District Guide claims that there are only fourteen meat markets left
in the Gansevoort Meat Market District from the original one hundred and twenty-five that
once crowded the district over eighty years ago.

Figure 13.5 “Oligopoly of the Meat Industry Today”

The guidebook also mentions that by the end of this year there will only be thirteen meat
markets left. This means that since the 1930s, there has been a total of almost 90% of meat

234
  

markets that have closed down. Meat markets once, “fed the entire city…the city no longer
cares about them.” (H.P. France Meat Market Guidebook)

Supermarket  Group  Market  

Share  In  North  America  
Wal-­‐mart  
Kroger  
12.70%  
Albertsons  
Safeway  
37.40%   10.90%  
Figure 13.5 Costco  
“Supermarket
Ahold  
Group Market 8.20%  
Share in North Publix  
America” 7.10%   Winn-­‐Dixie  

2.80%   6.90%   Loblaw  

On the other
hand, there has 3.00%   4.70%   Delhaize  
been a steady 3.00%   3.20%   Other  
increase in the
amount of
supermarkets, and in the power that they hold nationwide. The doughnut graph on the left
shows the distribution of market share. The ten major supermarkets, Wal-mart, Kroger,
Albertsons, Safeway, Costco, Ahold, Publix, Winn-Dixie, Loblaw, Delhaize, hold the
majority of the market share - a combined percentage of 62.5%! It is evident that the "other"
markets hold a very small market share compared to that of the top ten supermarkets.

Figure 13.6 “Fulton Fish Market”

235
  

One exception is the example of the Fulton Fish Market, however. Although most
supermarkets do have a small section for seafood and shellfish, it is evident that the majority
of wholesale and retail sales of seafood and shellfish occur through the Fulton Fish Market
(Bronx). However, at the core of its organization and marketing, it is very much like a
supermarket. Unlike in the past, when fisherman would catch and subsequently sell their
own fish and seafood, presently, all of the products go to the Fulton Fish Market and then
different restaurant owners or salespeople purchase their goods.

Figure 13.7
Technological advances
The development of HFCS has had a great affect on the beverage industry. As the
figure above indicates, HFCS rose from an insignificant role to eventually accounting for
about 35% of sweetener calories in the United States. Furthermore, the trajectory of corn
sweeteners and cane sugar cross and corn sweeteners surpass sugar in consumption in 1985.
The decline of white sugar is almost mirrored by the rise of HFCS, as is seen in the graph
below.

236
  

Figure 13.8 “Added Sugar Consumption”

Even after the switch for HFCS over sugar was complete, consumption of HFCS
continued to rise, eventually reaching a plateau of about 200 calories per day. (USDA:
Economic Research Service 2010) Even when there was a 12% price increase between 2006
and 2007, consumption of soda beverages only dropped 3.4%. It is apparent that this
development in the beverage industry has had a major effect on that trade.
In the past, food was brought directly into the city either by trucks or by car floats
over the Hudson and East Rivers. (Albrecht 9) Prior to technological developments that
allowed the proliferation of food, the piers- where the car floats unloaded- were usually used
as markets to sell most of the perishable foods that had to be sold quickly and efficiently.
The main market for produce was located on the Lower West Side—it handled
approximately ¾ of the city’s fresh produce. (Bressier 1) The majority of the foods sold at
the main markets would then be trucked away to secondary markets, such as the Washington
Market, the Gansevoort Market in midtown New York, Harlem Market in uptown New
York, Wallabout Market in Brooklyn, as well as Newark in New Jersey. (Albrecht 10)
As of the 1930s, 13, 685 grocery stores sold fruits and vegetables in New York City,
as well as 5,534 fruit and vegetable stores, 8,700 pushcarts, and 4,000 hucksters. (Albrecht
10) Overall, the system was considered chaotic and inefficient. Aside from the canning of
fruits and vegetables, produce underwent minimal processing on its way to the market.

237
  

Figure 13.9 “Farmers’ Declining Share of the Food Dollar, 1910-1997”

Looking at the New York Economic Handbook of the year 2006, the changes that have
occurred since World War II can be easily noticed. The percent of fruits and vegetables
produced within New York City’s bounds has decreased dramatically (NYEH). As of 2006,
vegetables are produced mostly in California and Florida, as well as the upper Midwest.
(NYEH) From these regions, the vegetables are shipped thousands of miles to their
destination in New York City, where they are distributed and sold by large corporations.
New York State has experienced the same shift as the rest of the country. With the
development of new technologies and the passing of power to supermarket companies, the
farmers’ share of the food dollar has declined dramatically since the 1940s (see figure above).
Technological advances had allowed developments in the marketing of foods, so that
individualized markets are no longer needed, and supermarkets can provide a variety of non-
perishable foods to the public.

DISCUSSION
It is inferable that the United States (and New York specifically), relies heavily on
abusing natural resources, such as fertile land, by implementing farming techniques that do
not focus on conserving nature, substantiating soil capacity for renewal, or saving water. The
nation has a very capitalistic approach of handling problems as they arise to the surface
instead of thinking ahead. Instead of continuing to use chemical pesticides and fertilizers,
excessive use of water and fossil fuels, and repeatedly planting the same crop on the same
land, farmers as a unity should follow NOFA’s lead and obtain more sustainable methods of
farming. Farmers should rotate crops, conserve water, and avoid fertilizers, herbicides, and
any other chemicals that pollute the soil and local ecosystems. Also, farmers should reuse
materials as much as possible.
There are several trends that can be interpreted from the information gathered. Prior
to World War II and during a short time after, the United States had not yet experienced the
push towards industrialization to the fullest extent. The majority of produce was still grown
on private farms and sold by private vendors, forming a confusing, inefficient and cost-
ineffective system. Since then, global changes in how we grow our crops, how we treat

238
  

produce for shipping, and the declining cost of shipping have all affected the efficiency of
our system of marketing. We now have access to a much wider range of products from all
around the world. In addition, these items are more accessible due to lower prices, as well as
more convenient to obtain, thanks to one-stop supermarket chains.
Despite all of these advancements, quite a few negative complications have been
caused by this industrialization. Majority of the small farmers responsible for most of our
produce in the 1940s are now without work. Although, quite a huge chunk of our population
is employed in the factories and industrial farms that have replaced the small farms. With the
use of new technologies, such as quick-freezing, the quality and freshness of the produce we
buy has declined. A huge focus on the outer appearance of the food has led to the
development of topical coatings and instant ripening techniques that inevitably fool the
consumer.
Due to the trend between population size and consumer demand as shown in figures
one through four, it may be predicted that with higher population more markets are needed.
Also, it can be concurred that if population continues to increase, meat consumption will
continue to increase, and maybe quadruple later in the future. Unfortunately, meat markets
are quickly disappearing; a phenomenon that can be seen in the Meat Market District where
only 13 meat markets will be around by the end of this year. Meat markets were the source
of food for the entire city during the early 1900’s, but now in the later Global era
supermarkets are addressing consumer demand. There are ten major supermarkets that are
currently controlling Market share. According to “The issue: slaughterhouses and
processing,” there is also a designate number of meat processing companies controlling meat
processing. In 2005, four companies controlled over 80% of the countries beef (Out of the
four, three controlled 60% of the countries pork). On top of that in 1996, 79% of cattle
slaughter only occurred in 22 plants.
Moving forward, since the 1940’s there have been less farms, but those that remain
continue to increase in size in order to try and continue to fulfill the demands of consumers.
In order to fulfill these demands, farmers have developed horrific techniques of processing
meat, through farm factories. In farm factories, animals are no longer treated as such, rather
as meat-producing machines. The conditions in which animals are forced to live in are
treacherous and enter animal abuse territory. Animals are jam-packed into tiny cages and
dark rooms, are forced to feed and excrete in close proximity to other animals, and are
physically abused and tormented until the time arrives to kill them for food. From a humane
perspective, this production is the true horror of food (meat) consumption and will continue
to be so unless companies figure out a more humane approach to reaching population
demands for meat.
The increase in corn production had several consequences on the sweetener industry.
In terms of price, corn sweeteners such as HFCS were able to beat out competing sugar.
HFCS entered the market at around 10-13 cents per pound and sugar was at 15 cents per
pound. Between 1986 and 1996, the price gap ranged from 2 to 10 cents per
pound.(McQueen 2003)
Even though sugar was largely imported into the U.S, high tariffs imposed on the imports
kept the price of sugar high. HFCS, on the other hand, was more economical to produce
because of the abundant supply of corn and sales of corn byproducts, such as corn oil and
corn feed. Due to the market forces described above, HFCS eventually became a substitute
for sugar.
Even after the HFCS and the sugar switch was complete, consumption of HFCS
kept rising. The lower price of HFCS made it very lucrative for large beverage retailers such

239
  

as Coca Cola to make the switch from sucrose to HFCS. It is estimated that Coca Cola saved
100 million dollars per year by replacing 50% of the sugar in its product with HFCS in the
early 1980’s.(Fredreick 1994) In 2002, the soft-drink industry used 8 billion pounds of
HFCS, but only about 200 million pounds of sugar.(Fredreick 1994, USDA: Economic
Research Service 2010 )
The beverage industry has clearly benefitted from the switch as the consumption
rates of beverage have steadily inclined. In 1945, Americans drank four times more milk than
carbonated soft drinks; in 1997, they downed nearly two and a half times more soda than
milk. Since 1950, soft-drink consumption per capita has quadrupled, from about 11 gallons
per year to about 46 gallons in 2003.(Querna 2005)

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, various food industries have greatly changed within the global era due
to many factors: political acts, social modification, economical stability, and environmental
issues. However, it is evident that population growth and technological advances have had a
great effect on New York City, especially in bringing about the rise in supermarkets. While
some of these changes have certainly benefited the consumer financially, as well as helped
our economy flourish, many drawbacks came out of the transformation. For example, as
beverages have become an integral part of the American diet, the production, consumption
and health effects of beverages have come under intense scrutiny. In New York, which was
at one point an epicenter of beverage production, the state government is considering
levying a soda tax due to adverse health effects associated with soda consumption. Critiques
of beverages argue that the increase in New York State’s obesity rate coincides with increase
in consumption of beverages. (Dinour 2010) Although studies have not substantively
correlated beverage consumption with obesity, they have correlated beverage consumption
with increased calorie intake and body mass index, an indicator of obesity(Vartanian LR,
Schwartz MB and Brownell KD 2007). This issue of quicker food production versus public
health is a problem along all sectors of the food market. In every possible section of produce
production and growth, whether grains, fruits, vegetables, meats, etc, technological
advancements have had mixed results. In order to meet higher demands for produce, the
quality of food has decreased. However, in general, we were able to conclude that population
growth and technological advances have changed the way food industries provide food to
New York City residents by introducing and establishing supermarkets to serve a large and
growing population.

REFERENCES

1940a. 1914 Lessons Rule Allies on Grains. In ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York
Times, 25. THE NEW YORK TIMES.

1940b. Weather Watched by Wheat Traders. In ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York
Times, 22. THE NEW YORK TIMES.

1940c. Wheat Off Hard on Talk of Peace. In ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York
Times, 41. THE NEW YORK TIMES.

240
  

1944. Reich Exhaustion Placed a Year Off. In ProQuest Historical Newspaper New York Times, 6.
THE NEW YORK TIMES.

1948. Urges Free Grain Export. In ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times, 61.
THE NEW YORK TIMES.

(1979). Whole Foods Natural Foods Guide: What Happens to Natural Food Products
from Farm to Consumer. Berkeley, Whole Foods Publishing Company.

(2006). New York Economic Handbook. (NYEH)

2010a. In Northeast Organic Wheat. NESARE.

2010b. Ground Cover Issue 83 - Wheat Breeding Supplement. In Grains Research and
Development Corporation. Australian Government GRDC.

2010c. Underfunded Genebanks Key To Crop Diversity. In Gene Banks.

Albrecht, A. E. (1932). About Foods and Markets: A Teacher's Handbook and

Consumer's Guide. New York, Teacher's College, Columbia University.

Ayesha, R. (2009) High Fructose Corn Syrup: History, Consumption and Spread.

BITTMAN, MARK. "The World - Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler - NYTimes.com." The New
York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html>.

Bressier, R. G. (1940). "Review of "The Wholesale Fruit and Vegetable Markets of

New York City by WIlliam C. Crow"." Journal of Farm Economics 22(4).

Burk, M. C. (1961). Influences of Economic and Social Factors on U.S. Food

Consumption. Minneapolis, Burgess Publishing Company.

Burk, M. C. (1961). Trends and Patterns in U.S. Food Consumption. Washington, D.C.,
U.S. Department of Agriculture.

California State Summer School for Math and Science - UC DAVIS. October 11, 2010 ).
Camp, C. (1989). American Foodways: What, When, Why and How We Eat in
America. Little Rock, August House.

Carmical, J. H. 1955. Wheat Producers Face Crucial Poll. In ProQuest Historical Newspapers The
New York Times, F1. THE NEW YORK TIMES.

"Changes in U.S. Agriculture: From the 1950s to the 1990s." from

http://www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/agecon/pubs/agric50-90.htm.

Clapp, J. and S. M. Stringer (2010). FoodNYC: a blueprint for a sustainable food

system. New York, Manhattan Borough President's Office: 45.

241
  

Considine, D. M. (1982) Foods and Food Production Encyclopedia. 02 M-Z, 284, 293-294,
266.

DeWeerdt, S. (2007) Can Cities Feed Us? Conservation Magazine.

Dinour, L. (2010) New York State's Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Goes Down the
Drain: Lessons for Nutrition Advocates Corporations and Health Watch.
http://corporationsandhealth.org/Sugar-Sweetened_Beverages_Tax.php (last
accessed October 11, 2010 ).

Dupaigne, B. 1999. The History of Bread. Italy: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers.
"Factory Farming Facts." Animal Rights Concerns. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.animalsuffering.com/resources/facts/factory-farming.php>.

"Facts: Factory Farming." In Defense of Animals. idausa.org, n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.idausa.org/facts/factoryfarmfacts.html>.

Fredreick, A. 1994. Secret Formula: How brilliant marketing and relentless salesmanship made Coca-
Cola the best-known product in the world New York, NY: Harper Business.

Gaull, G. E. (1993). The Emerging Global Food System: Public and Private Sector
Issues. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Gjerde, E. C. H. a. J. Major Problems in American History. 2.

Going to Market: New York City's Neighborhood Grocery Store and Supermarket Shortage. New York:
New York City Deparment of City Planning and NYC HEALTH, 2008. Print.
Levenston, M. (2010) Establish urban food production as a priority in NYC for
personal, community, or commercial use by year 2030. FoodNYC- A Blueprint for a
Sustainable Food System.

Halweil, B. (2004). Eat Here: Reclaiming Homegrown Pleasures in a Global

Supermarket. New York, W.W. Norton.

Hoffman, Mary . "Global Warming due to Animal Agriculture - Saving Wildlife from Mass
Extinction due to Global Warming." all-creatures.org: Working for a Peaceful World for
Humans, Animals, and the Environment. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.all-creatures.org/hope/gw/01_animal_agriculture.htm>.

Jacobs, M. B. 1959. Manufacture and Analysis of Carbonated Beverages New York, NY: Chemical
Publishing Co.

Ladisch, M. (2004) The Role of Bioprocess Engineering in Biotechnology. The Bridge -

National Academy of Engineers (NAE) 34.

Lang, T. (2004). Food Wars: the Global Battle for Mouths, Minds, and Markets.
London, Earthscan.

242
  

Mangan, F., M. Moreira, et al. "How Farmers Can Access Urban Consumers from
Farmers' Markets to Supermarkets and Everything in Between."

McNulty, M. F. How Products are Made: Bread and Wheat. How Products are Made
Encyclopedia.

McQueen, H. 2003. The Essence of Capitalism: The Orignis of Our Future Montreal: Black Rose
Books.

Meaker, R. D. (1946). "Fruit and Vegetable Sales at City Municipal Markets,

December 1945." Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics 14(01): 5.

"MEAT MARKET : MEATPACKERS." MEAT MARKET. H.P. France Inc., n.d. Web. 26
Oct. 2010. <http://www.mmg-nyc.com/meatpackers.html>.

"Meat.org | The Website the Meat Industry Doesn't Want You to See." Meat.org | The
Website the Meat Industry Doesn't Want You to See. PETA: People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://www.meat.org/index.asp>.

Mnagelsdorf, P. C. (1953) Wheat. Scientific American, 2-11.

Mock, Gregory . "EarthTrends: Feature - How Much Do We Consume?." EarthTrends |

Environmental Information. World Resources Institute , n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.
<http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.php?fid=7&theme=6>.

Monroe, D. (1938). Food Buying and Our Markets. New York, M. Barrows and
Company.

NASS, U. D. A.-e. Small Grains- DC.

Olver, L. 2010. History of Wheat. U.S Copyright.

Pendergrast, M. 2000. For God, Country and Coca Cola New York Basic Books

Pillsbury, R. (1998). No Foreign Food: the American Diet in Time and Place.
Colorado, Westview Press.
Putnam, J. J. & J. E. Allshouse. 1999. Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1970-97
USDA: Economic Research Services

Querna, E. 2005. One Sweet Nation: No it's not just your sweet tooth. In US News and World
Weekend, 60-62.

Retail Supermarket Globakization: Who's winning?. Auckland, New Zealand:

CORIOLISRESEARCH, 2001. Print.

Riley, J. J. 1946. A History of the American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages. American Bottlers of
Carbonated Beverages (1958)

243
  

Ritson, C. (1986). The Food Consumer, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Salvo, Jospeh , Arun Lobo, and Adam L. New York CIty Population Projections by Age/Sex and
Borough. New York: Department of City Planning, 2006. Print.

Santos, J. M. (2010) Going Against the Grain: Why Do Canada and the United States Market
Wheat So Differently? American Review of Canadian Studies, 40, 104-117.

Scott, J. (2003) Specialty Foods: Strong in Weak Economy. New York Times.

Severson, K. (2010). Local Carrots With a Side of Red Tape. New York Times. New
York.

"Slaughterhouses and Processing, industrial meat production - The Issues - Sustainable

Table." Sustainabletable. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/processing/>.

Smith, D. C. and D. Clayton (2002). Studies in the land: the Northeast corner.

Stone, B. (2009) The Challenges and Glories of Environmentally Sustainable Wheat

Farming. Sustainable Agriculture.

Taft , Will. "How Much Meat Do We Eat?." Will Taft . com — Healthy Living For People and
Planet Earth. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://willtaft.com/sustainability/how-
much-meat-do-we-eat/>.

USDA: Economic Research Service. 2010 Sugars and Sweetners: Recommended Data
USDA

Vartanian LR, Schwartz MB & Brownell KD ( 2007) Effects of drink consumption on

nutrition and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health., 97,
667-675.

Author. 2008. In Price and Supply, Wheat Is the Unstable Staple NY Times February 13,
2008.

244
  

-14-
NEW YORKERS BITING TOO MUCH OFF THE BIG APPLE
Conclusions about the Historical and Geographic Perspective of the Food Industry

We all came into this investigation with our own prejudices about the importance of
food. What we discovered was that every detail, no matter how small, was essential to the
development of the food culture of modern New York City.
This extensive study examined the intricate evolution of the food system in New
York City from pre-colonial times to the global era. These chapters assessed the changes in
agriculture, diversity of food, colonial and urban food markets by looking at the increasing
complexity of technology, diversity, and geography. The history of New York City's
agriculture, inhabitants, population changes, colonization, and economic activity provided
specific information about changes over the past few centuries.
We collected information that contributed insight to the growth of Dutch New
Amsterdam into present day New York City. In our research, we discovered patterns
concerning advances in technology and their effects on food production and distribution
throughout the existence of this bustling, steel-framed megalopolis. The variety of foods
available to hungry New Yorkers also expanded over time with the aid of innovations such
as railroads, refrigerated rail cars, and canals. Besides technological improvements,
agricultural advances in milling and production greatly furthered the progression of New
York City’s cuisine.
While there are numbers of factors involved in supplying New Yorkers with the food
they need, certain overall trends are apparent in terms of food markets, their locations,
distribution and their subsequent effects.
From the days of the Lenape and colonization of the Dutch to the thriving
metropolis of today, market structure in New York has undergone necessary change. The
Lenape engaged in little trade, mostly harvesting and hunting the food that would be used
for their own family or small community, making “markets” infrequent and informal (if
present at all). The first true markets were introduced to the new world by the Dutch, one
of many traditional forms of infrastructure sourced from their urban origin. As the city
grew, its markets multiplied, with one centered in nearly every neighborhood. Expansion in
the diversity of foods available also paralleled the city’s growth, with exotic fruits like dragon
fruit available to those who once lived where they grew naturally.
Over time, New York City experienced a change in the types and amounts of foods
available. New technologies, such as the refrigerator freight car and pasteurization,
dramatically increased the amount of food available to New Yorkers. Commodities such as
grain and wheat could be grown in abundance. When the amount of foods available to New
Yorkers increased, prices for these foods often decreased. As a result, food became more
widely available to all consumers. New technologies also expanded the types of foods
available in markets. By the early 1900s, New Yorkers could enjoy exotic new foods such as
oranges from Florida for the first time. In the mid 1950s, even more different types of foods
became available as more new technological innovations were developed. The changes in
foods available to New Yorkers reflect New York’s use of innovative technologies. In
addition to the shifts in the types and amounts of food available, the modes by which they

245
  

were brought to consumers in New York City. Prior to the rise of the elaborate railway
networks--and the National Interstate Highway System in the years to follow--food transport
remained very much a local process; products were carted in on horse-drawn carriages and
occasionally, motor trucks. As these infrastructural networks were built and expanded,
however, food was sourced from increasingly vast distances, whether internationally (as is
often the case with container-filled ships) or across states. While different modes of
transport have risen and fallen across time, their subsequent integration is responsible for
today’s streamlined system.
During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, legislation had played an
important role in the local public market system in the regulation and prevention of illegal
practices. After the enactment of the first agricultural and food laws in the early twentieth
century, national food safety laws were passed, and federal agencies were established to
administer those laws. The federal government’s greater involvement in food legislation
serves to protect the health of consumers, and maintain higher food quality standards.
Overall, legislation has played a larger role in American society from the local regulation of
the primary food distribution mechanism and agricultural practices to national food safety.
Technologies were invented to create efficiency in the way food is shipped and
preserved. The invention of the container in the mid-twentieth century allowed for
convenience in freight movement and lowered the distribution costs. The refrigerated rail car
improved the shelf life of perishable items, diversifying the foods shipped to the city. Also,
the refrigerated rail cars increased the quantity of food accessible to the city. The
advancements helped integrate different modes of transportation such as rail, trucks, and
marine. One key trend we have since the mid-19th century is the change in location of
production of New York City’s food supply. This was both intentional and incidental. As
technology advanced, transportation of raw materials was made easier. Mass production was
also utilized in industries such as the beer industry and the meat packing industry. As a
result of increased accessibility due to the rise of mass production, resources in and around
the city were depleted and polluted. New York had to look outside its borders to procure
raw materials. By extending its reach across the country and across international borders,
the New York City food industry increased the distance again between the source and the
location of production.
Along with the overlying trends seen in the New York City’s food industry at this
time, changes in geography, complexity, diversity, and technology have followed clear
patterns. These themes are all interconnected, and advancements in one area often
influenced changes in the others. From our research, we observed an increased use of
technology in food production and distribution. Advancements in hunting and harvesting
occurred early in New York’s history, and as time went on technologies involving
transportation and preservation began to improve. As the technologies proved to increase
food accessibility and production, advancements are constantly made to further satisfy New
Yorkers’ increasing demand.
A geographic theme of outward expansion regarding food production is obvious as
well. In pre-colonial New York, the Lenape Indians would constantly migrate, so they would
grow and eat food locally at their new resting places. When English settlers arrived in New
York, however, the first markets sprung up. Eventually, as Manhattan’s population grew,
people began settling northward, and new markets opened to satisfy the demand of the
public in their new location. By the 18th Century, food was brought to Manhattan’s markets
from Long Island, King’s and Queen’s Counties, and even North Carolina by ferryboat.

246
  

Soon, New Yorkers received food from other counties and across the country. Today, we
can see that our food comes from all over the world.
The diversity of food products has also increased. From colonists introducing non-
native grains and animals early in New York’s history to technological advancements
allowing the transport of goods from across the world, New Yorkers have always been
interested in bringing new foods into their diets. Thanks to the expansion of food
production and technological advancements over time, it has become easier to grow and
import a large variety of food.
It seems easier and far less complex for New Yorkers to obtain food in the twenty-
first century than ever before. There is no need to spend time growing and harvesting your
own crops, so the only thing standing between a New Yorker and a plateful of steamed
broccoli today is a trip to the grocery store. In actuality, however, New York City’s food
supply became more complicated as time went on. Food comes to New York City from vast
distances, requiring an extensive transportation system to sustain a supply of fresh food. The
actual production of food has gotten increasingly complicated due to the development of
new technologies designed to make food both impervious to pests and time. In the twenty-
first century, most food that New Yorkers eat comes from hundreds of miles away and
arrives either filled with preservatives or covered with pesticides. This is a far more complex
process than existed in Colonial times, when food was harvested in close proximity to
people’s homes.
All the trends of our research imply that food production, regulation, education, and
distribution will need to be changed and reworked as New York City’s population and
improvements in technologies continue to grow. Historically, the new features of our food
industries have been responses to the ever-increasing demand. The technological advances
that brought the city through the Industrial age and into the modern age as one of the
biggest metropolises in the world also enabled several million people to be fed on a daily
basis. Presently, an enormously intricate highway system enables this whereas refrigerated
rail cars that ran on set tracks permitted this in the past. Millions of trucks now follow routes
that are subject to change regularly according to their needs. New routes are added and old
ones are reconfigured as food industries adjust to accommodate New York’s growing
population.
Food production moving away from the city has enabled mass production and
distribution at a cost that is becoming increasingly severe. Our produce is often treated with
pesticides and other unfriendly chemicals in an effort to preserve it for an unnaturally long
period of time. Milk, water and other beverages are bottled out-of-state (often in non-
biodegradable materials) and shipped into the city every morning, contributing to the
massive amounts of daily waste. The seafood industry, over time, has overdrawn from the
oceans to a destructive degree, depleting many fish populations to sizes beyond recovery.
Meat is produced on factory farms, which are known for both inhumane treatment of
animals and massive carbon footprints. Lastly, the larger scale factories that provide
pesticides for our crops, bottles for our beverages, and the motor parts to our trucks are
responsible for some of the most significant technological advances. Consequently, these
factories have also been the biggest contributors to air and water pollution seen in New
York City's history.
In all of these industries, damage has been done in an effort to create an efficient
assembly-line style food production. The question now becomes how to mitigate the
damage. Legislation comes long after the fact and is often too little too late. Our waterways,
although cleaner than they were in the 1950s, are still highly polluted. Fishing populations

247
  

are still being depleted despite congressional legislation regarding careful maintenance of
ocean fisheries. With increasing urbanization comes a greater need for regulatory legislation.
The effectiveness and more importantly, the timeliness, of such legislation have yet to be
seen.
As food markets and trade networks become more complex, it becomes more
important for us to address problems like pollution and unnatural treatment of foods. Food
provisioning is one of the single most important issues that we all have a hand in. As we
continue on an environmentally destructive track towards an ambiguously stable future, it
will become increasingly important that New York addresses this grocery-list of issues in the
near future. As the city and the list continue to develop, the solution becomes difficult to
achieve and even more imperative. If the city wants to continue to eat, it must carefully
examine the long-term viability of its diet starting now.

248