Letteratura scientifica selezionata sul tema "Potato chip industry – United States – History"

Potato zebra chip (ZC) disease is a relative newcomer to the world of important potato diseases. First reported in Mexico in the 1990s, by 2004-2005 the disease was causing serious economic damage in parts of Texas. ZC is now widespread in the south-western and central United States, Mexico, Central America, and was recently reported in New Zealand. By 2006, there seemed to be an association between ZC and the potato psyllid (Bactericera cockerelli). The exact nature of the relationship, however, has only recently been identified by the discovery of a new Candidatus Liberibacter bacterium that is transmitted to potatoes, tomatoes, and other solanaceous hosts by the potato psyllid. This review examines the history of this disease, the association of ZC with the potato psyllid, the host range, and recent research into the bacterial pathogen. Accepted for publication 15 December 2009. Published 17 March 2010.

Zebra Chip (ZC), an emerging disease of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) first documented in potato fields around Saltillo in México in 1994, has been identified in the southwestern United States, México, and Central America and is causing losses of millions of dollars to the potato industry (4). Recently, this damaging potato disease was also documented in New Zealand (3). This disease is characterized by a striped pattern of necrosis in tubers produced on infected plants, and fried chips processed from these infected tubers are commercially unacceptable (4). Recent studies conducted in the United States and New Zealand have associated ZC with a new species of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter’ vectored by the potato psyllid, Bactericera cockerelli Sulc (1,3,4). A bacterium designated ‘Candidatus Liberibacter psyllaurous’ has recently been identified in potato plants with “psyllid yellows” symptoms that resemble those of ZC (2). To investigate whether liberibacter is associated with ZC in México, 11 potato (cv. Atlantic) tuber samples exhibiting strong ZC symptoms and six asymptomatic tubers were collected from a ZC-affected commercial potato field near Saltillo City, Coahuila, México in September 2008 and tested for this bacterium by PCR. Total DNA was extracted from symptomatic and asymptomatic tubers with cetyltrimethylammoniumbromide (CTAB) buffer (4). DNA samples were tested by PCR using primer pair OA2/OI2c (5′-GCGCTTATTTTTAATAGGAGCGGCA-3′ and 5′-GCCTCGCGACTTCGCAACCCAT-3′, respectively) specific for 16S rDNA and primer pair CL514F/R (5′-CTCTAAGATTTCGGTTGGTT-3′ and 5′-TATATCTATCGTTGCACCAG-3′, respectively) designed from ribosomal protein genes (3). Seven of eleven (63.7%) ZC-symptomatic tubers and one of six (16.7%) asymptomatic potatoes yielded the expected 1,168-bp 16S rDNA and 669-bp CL514F/R amplicons, indicating the presence of liberibacter. Amplicons generated from symptomatic tubers were cloned into pCR2.1-Topo plasmid vectors (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and one clone of each amplicon was sequenced in both directions (ACGT, Inc., Wheeling, IL). BLAST analysis of the ZC OA2/OI2c sequence (GenBank Accession No. FJ498806) showed 100% identity to liberibacter 16S rDNA sequences amplified from potato psyllids from Dalhart, TX and potato tubers from Garden City, KS (GenBank Accession Nos. EU921627 and EU921626, respectively). The ZC CL514F/R sequence (GenBank Accession No. FJ498807) was 98% identical to analogous rplJ and rplL liberibacter ribosomal protein gene sequences amplified from several solanaceous plants in New Zealand (GenBank Accession Nos. EU834131 and EU935005). The OA2/OI2c sequence was also identical to the 16S rDNA sequence (Genbank Accession No. EU812559) of ‘Ca. Liberibacter psyllaurous’ (2). To our knowledge, this is the first report of ‘Ca. Liberibacter psyllaurous’ associated with ZC-affected potatoes in México. References: (1) J. A. Abad et al. Plant Dis. 93:108, 2009. (2) A. K. Hansen et al. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74:5862, 2008. (3) L. W. Liefting et al. Plant Dis. 92:1474, 2008. (4) J. E. Munyaneza et al. J. Econ. Entomol. 100:656, 2007.

Zebra chip (ZC), an emerging disease causing economic losses to the potato chip industry, has been reported since the early 1990s in Central America and Mexico and in Texas during 2000 (4). ZC was subsequently found in Nebraska, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, and Kansas (3). Severe losses to potato crops were reported in the last few years in Mexico, Guatemala, and Texas (4). Foliar symptoms include purple top, shortened internodes, small leaves, enlargement of the stems, swollen axillary buds, and aerial tubers. Chips made from infected tubers exhibit dark stripes that become markedly more visible upon frying, and hence, are unacceptable to manufacturers. Infected tubers may or may not produce plants when planted. The causal agent of ZC is not known and has been the subject of increased investigation. The pathogen is believed to be transmitted by the potato psyllid, Bactericera cockerelli, and the association of the vector with the disease is well documented (3). Following the report of a potential new liberibacter species in solanaceous crops in New Zealand, we sought to identify this liberibacter species in plants with symptoms of the ZC disease. Six potato plants (cv. Russet Norkota) exhibiting typical ZC symptoms were collected in Olton, TX in June of 2008. DNA was extracted from roots, stems, midribs, and petioles of the infected plants using a FastDNA Spin Kit and the FastPrep Instrument (Qbiogene, Inc., Carlsbad, CA). Negative controls from known healthy potato plants were included. PCR amplification was carried out with ‘Candidatus L. asiaticus’ omp primers (1), 16S rDNA primers specific for ‘Ca. L. asiaticus’, ‘Ca. L. africanus’, and ‘Ca. L. americanus’ (1), and 16S rDNA primers OA2 (GenBank Accession No. EU834130) and OI2c (2). Amplicons from 12 samples were directly sequenced in both orientations (McLab, San Francisco CA). PCR amplifications using species-specific primers for the citrus huanglongbing liberibacter were negative. However, 1.1- and 1.8-kb amplicons were obtained with the OA2/OI2C and omp primers, respectively. The sequences for the rDNA were submitted to NCBI GenBank (Accession Nos. EU884128 and EU884129). BLASTN alignment of the 16S rDNA sequences obtained with primers OA2 and OI2c revealed 99.7% identity with a new species of ‘Ca. Liberibacter’ identified in New Zealand affecting potato (GenBank Accession No. EU849020) and tomato (GenBank Accession No. EU834130), 97% identity with ‘Ca. L. asiaticus’, and 94% with ‘Ca. L. africanus’ and ‘Ca. L. americanus’. The neighbor-joining phylogenetic tree constructed using the 16S rDNA fragments delineated four clusters corresponding to each of the liberibacter species. These results confirm that ‘Ca. Liberibacter’ spp. DNA sequences were obtained from potatoes showing ZC-like symptoms, suggesting that a new species of this genus may be involved in causing ZC disease. To our knowledge, this is the first report of the detection of ‘Ca. Liberibacter’ spp. in potatoes showing ZC disease in the United States. References: (1) C. Bastianel et al. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71:6473, 2005. (2) S. Jagoueix et al. Mol. Cell. Probes 10:43, 1996. (3) J. E. Munyaneza et al. J. Econ. Entomol. 100:656, 2007. (4) G. A. Secor and V. V. Rivera-Varas. Rev. Latinoamericana de la Papa (suppl.)1:1, 2004.

In August 2008, 30% of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants in plots in Lubbock County, Texas showed yellowing, lateral stem dieback, upward leaf curling, enlargement of stems, adventitious roots, and swollen nodes. Yellowing in leaves was similar to that seen with zebra chip disease (ZC) of potato that was confirmed in a potato field 112 km away in July 2008 and was associated with a ‘Candidatus Liberibacter’ species (1), similar to findings earlier in 2008 in New Zealand and California (2,3). Tissue from four symptomatic plants of cv. Spitfire and two of cv. Celebrity were collected and DNA was extracted from midribs and petioles with a FastDNA Spin Kit (Qbiogene, Inc., Carlsbad, CA,). PCR amplification was done with 16S rRNA gene primers OA2 and OI2c, which are specific for “Ca. Liberibacter solanacearum” from potato and tomato and amplify a 1.1-kb fragment of the 16S rRNA gene of this new species (1,3). Amplicons of 1.1 kb were obtained from all samples and these were sequenced in both orientations (McLab, San Francisco, CA). Sequences of the 16S rRNA gene were identical for both Spitfire and Celebrity and were submitted to the NCBI as GenBank Accession Nos. FJ939136 and FJ939137, respectively. On the basis of a BLAST search, sequence alignments revealed 99.9% identity with a new species of ‘Ca. Liberibacter’ from potato (EU884128 and EU884129) in Texas (1); 99.7% identity with the new species “Ca. Liberibacter solanacearum” described from potato and tomato (3) in New Zealand (EU849020 and EU834130, respectively) and from the potato psyllid Bactericera cockerelli in California (2) (EU812559, EU812556); 97% identity with ‘Ca L. asiaticus’ from citrus in Malaysia (EU224393) and 94% identity with both ‘Ca. L. africanus’ and ‘Ca. L. americanus’ from citrus (EU921620 and AY742824, respectively). A neighbor-joining cladogram constructed using the 16S rRNA gene fragments delineated four clusters corresponding to each species, and these sequences clustered with “Ca. L. solanacearum”. A second PCR analysis was conducted with the CL514F/CL514R primer pair, which amplifies a sequence from the rplJ and rplL ribosomal protein genes of “Ca. L. solanacearum”. The resulting 669-bp products were 100% identical to a sequence reported from tomato in Mexico (FJ498807). This sequence was submitted to NCBI (GU169328). ZC, a disease causing losses to the potato industry, is associated with a ‘Candidatus Liberibacter’ species (1–3) and was reported in Central America and Mexico in the 1990s, in Texas in 2000, and more recently in other states in the United States (4). In 2008, a “Ca. Liberibacter solanacearum” was detected on Capsicum annuum, S. betaceum, and Physalis peruviana in New Zealand (3). Several studies have shown that the potato psyllid, B. cockerelli, is a potential vector for this pathogen (2,4). To our knowledge, this is the first report of “Ca. Liberibacter solanacearum” in field tomatoes showing ZC-like foliar disease symptoms in the United States. References: (1). J. A. Abad et al. Plant Dis. 93:108, 2009 (2) A. K. Hansen et al. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74:5862, 2008. (3) L. W. Liefting et al. Plant Dis. 93:208, 2009. (4) G. A. Secor et al. Plant Dis. 93:574, 2009.

An overview is provided for the aspects of history, biology, genomics, genetics, and epidemiology of zebra chip (ZC), a destructive disease of potato (Solanum tuberosum) that represents a major threat to the potato industries in the United States as well as other potato-production regions in the world. The disease is associated with a gram-negative, phloem-limited, insect-vectored, unculturable prokaryote, ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’, that belongs to the Rhizobiaceae family of α-Proteobacteria. The closest cultivated relatives of ‘Ca. L. solanacearum’ are members of the group of bacteria known as the α-2 subgroup. In spite of the fact that Koch's postulates sensu stricto have not been fulfilled, a great deal of progress has been made in understanding the ZC disease complex since discovery of the disease. Nevertheless, more research is needed to better understand vector biology, disease mechanisms, host response, and epidemiology in the context of vector–pathogen–plant interactions. Current ZC management strategies focus primarily on psyllid control. The ultimate control of ZC likely relies on host resistance. Unfortunately, all commercial potato cultivars are susceptible to ZC. Elucidation of the ‘Ca. L. solanacearum’ genome sequence has provided insights into the genetic basis of virulence and physiological and metabolic capability of this organism. Finally, the most effective, sustainable management of ZC is likely to be based on integrated strategies, including removal or reduction of vectors or inocula, improvement of host resistance to the presumptive pathogen and psyllid vectors, and novel gene-based therapeutic treatment.

Fusarium dry rot is a significant postharvest disease of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) and is often controlled by applying thiabendazole to tubers prior to storage. However, thiabendazole-resistant isolates of Fusarium spp. have been reported from Europe (2), the United States (1), and Canada (1,4). To address concerns, samples of potato tubers showing symptoms of dry rot caused by Fusariumspp. were collected from three storage bays in a commercial storage facility in Nova Scotia, Canada, in February 2001. All tubers had been treated with thiabendazole after harvest and prior to storage. Tubers were cut longitudinally, and small tissue samples (10 × 5 × 3 mm) were taken from the margins of internal necrotic regions with a sterile scalpel, surface-sterilized in 0.6% sodium hypochlorite for 15 s, rinsed twice in sterile distilled water (SDW), and blotted dry on sterile filter paper. Tissue pieces were plated on 0.5-strength potato dextrose agar (PDA) amended with tetracycline (0.05 g/liter) and streptomycin sulfate (0.1 g/liter). Petri dishes were incubated in the dark at 22°C for 4 to 7 days. After incubation, hyphal tips from the margins of actively growing isolates were removed with a sterile probe and plated on 0.5-strength PDA to generate pure cultures. Of 35 potato tubers examined, 10 (29%) yielded Fusarium isolates for further study. All 10 isolates were identified as F. sambucinum Fuckel according to Nelson et al. (3). Agar plugs (5 mm diameter) taken from the margins of 7- to 10-day-old cultures of F. sambucinum isolates were transferred to petri dishes containing 0.5-strength PDA amended with thiabendazole at 0, 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, or 100 mg/liter. Thiabendazole was prepared as a stock solution in SDW and added to molten agar after autoclaving. Cultures were grown in the dark for 7 days at 22°C, after which mycelial growth diameter was measured using digital calipers. Two measurements, along orthogonal diameters, were taken from each of three replicate plates for a total of six measurements per thiabendazole concentration. Means were calculated, and the diameter of the inoculation plug was subtracted from each mean. Calculated EC50 values (thiabendazole concentration inhibiting pathogen growth by 50%) were obtained by regression of the log of the chemical concentration against the corresponding probit of percent fungal inhibition. All isolates of F. sambucinum were resistant to thiabendazole, with EC50 values ranging from 7 to 82 mg/liter. Six isolates had EC50 values between 40 and 82 mg/liter. Control isolates of F. sambucinum, F. avenaceum, F. solani, and F. oxysporum were sensitive to thiabendazole, with EC50 values of <1 mg/liter. Although isolates of F. sambucinum resistant to thiabendazole have been recovered from eastern Canada (1,4), this is the first report of thiabendazole resistance in F. sambucinum isolates from tubers in commercial storage in the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia, Canada, a production region that concentrates on growing processing potatoes for the potato chip industry and is several hundred kilometers from other potato-growing regions of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. References: (1) A. E. Desjardins. Am. Potato J. 72:145, 1995. (2) G. A. Hide et al. Plant Pathol. 41:745, 1992. (3) P. E. Nelson et al. 1983. Fusarium Species: An Illustrated Manual for Identification . Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA. (4) H. W. Platt. Phytoprotection 78:1, 1997.

The potato chip industry has critical requirements regarding tuber physical and chemical aspects and these requirements are the characteristics targeted by chip potato breeding programs. This study aimed to evaluate 33 chip potato cultivars for the tuber yield and some physical and chemical characteristics of the tuber and potato chips at harvest and during cold storage period. Field experiments were conducted during the 2017 and 2018 growing seasons under sprinkler irrigation. Twenty-one cultivars were evaluated in 2017 and 22 cultivars were evaluated in 2018 using a randomized complete block design with four replications. The target traits under this study were tuber yield, tuber size, internal and external defects, sucrose and glucose content of the tuber and the chip color at harvest and during storage time. Fresh potato tuber yield varied with cultivar and ranged from 44.7 to 72.1 t/ha, averaging 58.5t/ha in 2017 and 60.8 t/ha in 2018. In 2017, cultivar NDTX081648CB-13W obtained the highest tuber yield and TX09396-1W obtained the lowest, while in 2018, Lamoka obtained the highest tuber yield and MSW044-1obtained the lowest. Cultivars NDTX081648CB-13W, MSW485-2, Atlantic, ACO1144-1W, and WANETA were the highest yielding cultivars in 2017, and Lamoka, HODAG, NICOLET, DAKOTA PEARL, and AF5429-3 were the highest yielding cultivars in 2018. Potato tuber size class of 4.7-8.75 cm was the most dominant and accounted for 93% in 2017 and 89% in 2018, respectively. Potato tuber specific gravity varied from 1.08-1.11 during both growing seasons and the dry matter content of the tubers ranged from 17.2 to 22.2% W9968-5 and MSV030-4 showed the highest internal defects of 47.2% and 33.7%, respectively, at harvest. W9968-5 still showed the highest external defects during the storage period. CO07070-13W, NDA081453CAB-2C and NY157 showed some internal defects during storage time in 2017. In 2018, NDA081453CAB-2C presented very high undesirable chip color (71.1%) followed by ND7519-1 (33.1%). In 2018, NDTX081648CB-13W, NY152 Niagara, and MSV313-2 showed relatively high internal defects (>15%) while Atlantic, MSV313-2, MSV358-3 and W9968-5 showed the highest external defects. During eight months of cold storage, NY162 showed 44.5% of external defects followed by MSV358-3 (24.6%), MSV313-2 (24%) and W9968-5 (20%). NY162 showed the highest total defects of 44.5% followed by MSV358-3, MSV313-2 and W9968-5 with total defects greater than 20%. Overall, there was a decrease in sucrose contents in the tubers after six months of cold storage except for the cultivars AF5040-8 and NDA081453CAB-2C. It increased thereafter during eight months in cold storage. However, sucrose content of the tubers at the end of the storage period was lower than the sucrose content at harvest except for B2727-2, NDA081453CAB-2C, NDTX081648CB-13W, and CO07070-13W. Significantly 100% increase in sucrose content in tubers of AF5040-8, DAKOTA PEARL, MSW485-2 Huron, MSX540-4 Mackinaw, NDA081453CAB-2C, and NDTX081648CB-13W was observed during the storage period. Glucose content of tubers changed during the storage period and was more noticeable in AF5040-8, AF5040-8, DAKOTA PEARL, MSW485-2 Huron, MSX540-4 Mackinaw, ND7519-1, NDA081453CAB-2C, and NDTX081648CB-13W. There was considerable increase in glucose content in ACO1144-1W, NDA081453CAB-2C, NDTX081648CB-13W, CO07070-13W, and W9968-5 tubers. At nine-month storage period, only Lamoka, ACO1144-1W, AF5040-8, MSX540-4, and CO02321-4W, HODAG, MSV030-4, MSW044-1, NY152 Niagara, NY162, and WANETA HODAG showed nice chip color. NDA081453CAB-2C, NDTX081648CB-13W, ND7519-1, and NDA081453CAB-2C presented the least desirable chip color with score “5”. Cultivars with consistent scores of “1” constitute promising lines for chip potato producers across the dry and hot environment of the southwest region of the United States.

Integrated circuits (ICs or microchips) are used in high-tech consumer electronics such as computers and automobiles. In the history of IC manufacturing, the 1980s featured rapid improvement and spreading of the chip manufacturing technology around the globe. This led to the United States manufacturers which had been the incumbent leaders so far to face new competition. The Japanese manufacturers had effectively captured both the US and world market by the mid-1980s. In reaction, the US manufacturers filed complaints to the Office of the US Trade Representative leading to an official protective initiative. Under the threat of being cut out of the largest electronics market at the time, Japan agreed to sign the 1986 Japan-US Semiconductor Agreement, with significant demands placed on its industry. The agreement was renewed in 1991 and in 1996, the expectation on the US side was another renewal. Instead, Japan proposed founding the World Semiconductor Council (WSC). This major framework change from a bilateral agreement between governments to a multilateral forum of private sector representatives begets the question of “why.” This paper presents a historical analysis of the factors that led to the Japanese proposal for foundation of the WSC. In this analysis, explanation factors are divided into international and domestic factors from the viewpoint of Japan. It is concluded that the effect of the US diplomatic advantage in the 1986 agreement and Japan’s own domestic political economic transformation culminated in the WSC proposal.

Introduction Television has become more and more restricted within the past few years. Rating systems and "family programming" have taken over the broadcast networks, relegating violent programming, often some of the most cutting edge work in television, to pay channels. There are very few people willing to stand up and say that viewers -- even young children -- should be able to watch whatever they want, and that viewing acts of violence can actually result in more mature, balanced adults. Jib Fowles is one of those people. His book, The Case For Television Violence, explores the long history of violent content in popular culture, and how its modern incarnation, television, fulfils the same function as epic tragedy and "penny dreadfuls" did -- the diverting of aggressive feelings into the cathartic action of watching. Fowles points out the flaws in studies linking TV violence to actual violence (why, for example, has there been a sharp decline in violent crime in the U.S. during the 1990s when, by all accounts, television violence has increased?), as well as citing overlooked studies that show no correlation between viewing and performing acts of violence. The book also demonstrates how efforts to censor TV violence are not only ineffective, but can lead to the opposite result: an increase in exposure to violent viewing as audiences forsake traditional broadcast programming for private programming through pay TV and videocassettes. The revised excerpt below describes one of the more heated topics of debate -- the V-Chip. Television Violence and You Although the antiviolence fervor crested in the US in the first half of the 1990s, it also continued into the second half. As Sissela Bok comments: "during the 1990s, much larger efforts by citizen advocacy groups, churches, professional organizations, public officials, and media groups have been launched to address the problems posed by media violence" (146). It continues as always. On the one side, the reformist position finds articulation time and again; on the other side, the public's incessant desire for violent entertainment is reluctantly (because there is no prestige or cachet to be had in it) serviced by television companies as they compete against each other for profits. We can contrast these two forces in the following way: the first, the antitelevision violence campaign, is highly focussed in its presentation, calling for the curtailment of violent content, but this concerted effort has underpinnings that are vague and various; the second force is highly diffused on the surface (the public nowhere speaks pointedly in favor of violent content), but its underpinnings are highly concentrated and functional, pertinent to the management of disapproved emotions. To date, neither force has triumphed decisively. The antiviolence advocates can be gratified by the righteousness of their cause and sense of moral superiority, but violent content continues as a mainstay of the medium's offerings and in viewers' attention. Over the longer term, equilibrium has been the result. If the equilibrium were upset, however, unplanned consequences would result. The attack on television violence is not simply unwarranted; it carries the threat of unfortunate dangers should it succeed. In the US, television violence is a successful site for the siphoning off of unwanted emotions. The French critic Michel Mourlet explains: "violence is a major theme in aesthetics. Violence is decompression: Arising out of a tension between the individual and the world, it explodes as the tension reaches its pitch, like an abscess burning. It has to be gone through before there can be any repose" (233). The loss or even diminishment of television violence would suggest that surplus psychic energy would have to find other outlets. What these outlets would be is open to question, but the possibility exists that some of them might be retrogressive, involving violence in more outright and vicious forms. It is in the nation's best interest not to curtail the symbolic displays that come in the form of television violence. Policy The official curbing of television violence is not an idle or empty threat. It has happened recently in Canada. In 1993, the Canadian Radio- Television and Telecommunications Commission, the equivalent of the Australian Broadcasting Authority or of the American FCC, banned any "gratuitous" violence, which was defined as violence not playing "an integral role in developing the plot, character, or theme of the material as a whole" (Scully 12). Violence of any sort cannot be broadcast before 9 p.m. Totally forbidden are any programs promoting violence against women, minorities, or animals. Detailed codes regulate violence in children's shows. In addition, the Canadian invention of the V-chip is to be implemented, which would permit parents to block out programming that exceeds preset levels for violence, sexuality, or strong language (DePalma). In the United States, the two houses of Congress have held 28 hearings since 1954 on the topic of television violence (Cooper), but none has led to the passage of regulatory legislation until the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to the Act, "studies have shown that children exposed to violent video programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children not so exposed, and that children exposed to violent video programming are prone to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior" (Section 551). It then requires that newly manufactured television sets must "be equipped with a feature designed to enable viewers to block display of all programs with a common rating" (Telecommunications Act of 1996, section 551). The V-chip, the only available "feature" to meet the requirements, will therefore be imported from Canada to the United States. Utilising a rating system reluctantly and haltingly developed by the television industry, parents on behalf of their children would be able to black out offensive content. Censorship had passed down to the family level. Although the V-chip represents the first legislated regulation of television violence in the US, that country experienced an earlier episode of violence censorship whose outcome may be telling for the fate of the chip. This occurred in the aftermath of the 1972 Report to the Surgeon General on Television and Social Behavior, which, in highly equivocal language, appeared to give some credence to the notion that violent content can activate violent behavior in some younger viewers. Pressure from influential congressmen and from the FCC and its chairman, Richard Wiley, led the broadcasting industry in 1975 to institute what came to be known as the Family Viewing Hour. Formulated as an amendment to the Television Code of the National Association of Broadcasters, the stipulation decreed that before 9:00 p.m. "entertainment programming inappropriate for viewing by a general family audience should not be broadcast" (Cowan 113). The definition of "inappropriate programming" was left to the individual networks, but as the 1975-1976 television season drew near, it became clear to a production company in Los Angeles that the definitions would be strict. The producers of M*A*S*H (which aired at 8:30 p.m.) learned from the CBS censor assigned to them that three of their proposed programs -- dealing with venereal disease, impotence, and adultery -- would not be allowed (Cowan 125). The series Rhoda could not discuss birth control (131) and the series Phyllis would have to cancel a show on virginity (136). Television writers and producers began to rebel, and in late 1975 their Writers Guild brought a lawsuit against the FCC and the networks with regard to the creative impositions of the Family Viewing Hour. Actor Carroll O'Connor (as quoted in Cowan 179) complained, "Congress has no right whatsoever to interfere in the content of the medium", and writer Larry Gelbert voiced dismay (as quoted in Cowan 177): "situation comedies have become the theater of ideas, and those ideas have been very, very restricted". The judge who heard the case in April and May of 1976 took until November to issue his decision, but when it emerged it was polished and clear: the Family Viewing Hour was the result of "backroom bludgeoning" by the FCC and was to be rescinded. According to the judge, "the existence of threats, and the attempted securing of commitments coupled with the promise to publicize noncompliance ... constituted per se violations of the First Amendment" (Corn-Revere 201). The fate of the Family Viewing Hour may have been a sort of premoniton: The American Civil Liberties Union is currently bringing a similar case against proponents of the V-chip -- a case that may produce similar results. Whether or not the V-chip will withstand judicial scrutiny, there are several problematic aspects to the device and any possible successors. Its usage would appear to impinge on the providers of violent content, on the viewers of it, and indeed on the fundamental legal structure of the United States. To confront the first of these three problems, significant use of the V- chip by parents would measurably reduce the audience size for certain programmes containing symbolic violence. Little else could have greater impact on the American television system as it is currently constituted. A decrease in audience numbers quickly translates into a decrease in advertising revenues in an advertising system such as that of the United States. Advertisers may additionally shy away from a shunned programme because of its loss of popularity or because its lowered ratings have clearly stamped it as violent. The decline in revenues would make the programme less valuable in the eyes of network executives and perhaps a candidate for cancellation. The Hollywood production company would quickly take notice and begin tailoring its broadcast content to the new standards. Blander or at least different fare would be certain to result. Broadcast networks may begin losing viewers to bolder content on less fastidious cable networks and in particular to the channels that are not supported and influenced by advertising. Thus, we might anticipate a shift away from the more traditional and responsible channels towards the less so and away from advertising-supported channels to subscriber-supported channels. This shift would not transpire according to the traditional governing mechanism of television -- audience preferences. Those to whom the censored content had been destined would have played no role in its neglect. Neglect would have transpired because of the artificial intercession of controls. The second area to be affected by the V-chip, should its implementation prove successful, is viewership, in particular younger viewers. Currently, young viewers have great license in most households to select the content they want to watch; this license would be greatly reduced by the V-chip, which can block out entire genres. Screening for certain levels of violence, the parent would eliminate most cartoons and all action- adventure shows, whether the child desires some of these or not. A New York Times reporter, interviewing a Canadian mother who had been an early tester of a V-chip prototype, heard the mother's 12-year-old son protesting in the background, "we're not getting the V-chip back!" The mother explained to the reporter, "the kids didn't like the fact that they were not in control any longer" (as quoted in DePalma C14) -- with good reason. Children are losing the right to pick the content of which they are in psychological need. The V-chip represents another weapon in the generational war -- a device that allows parents to eradicate the compensational content of which children have learned to make enjoyable use. The consequences of all this for the child and the family would be unpleasant. The chances that the V-chip will increase intergenerational friction are high. Not only will normal levels of tension and animosity be denied their outlet via television fiction but also so will the new superheated levels. It is not a pleasant prospect. Third, the V-chip constitutes a strong challenge to traditional American First Amendment rights of free speech and a free press. Stoutly defended by post-World War II Supreme Courts, First Amendment rights can be voided "only in order to promote a compelling state interest, and then only if the government adopts the least restrictive means to further that interest" (Ballard 211). The few restrictions allowed concern such matters as obscenity, libel, national security, and the sometimes conflicting right to a fair trial. According to legal scholar Ian Ballard, there is no "compelling state interest" involved in the matter of television violence because "the social science evidence used to justify the regulation of televised violence is subject to such strong methodological criticism that the evidence is insufficient to support massive regulatory assault on the television entertainment industry" (185). Even if the goal of restricting television violence were acceptable, the V-chip is hardly "the least restrictive means" because it introduces a "chilling effect" on programme producers and broadcasters that "clearly infringes on fundamental First Amendment rights" (216). Moreover, states Ballard, "fear of a slippery slope is not unfounded" (216). If television violence can be censored, supposedly because it poses a threat to social order, then what topics might be next? It would not be long before challenging themes such a feminism or multiculturalism were deemed unfit for the same reason. Taking all these matters into consideration, the best federal policy regarding television violence would be to have no policy -- to leave the extent of violent depictions completely up to the dictates of viewer preferences, as expertly interpreted by the television industry. In this, I am in agreement with Ian Ballard, who finds that the best approach "is for the government to do nothing at all about television violence" (218). Citation reference for this article MLA style: Jib Fowles. "Television Violence and You." M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 3.1 (2000). [your date of access] <http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/0003/television.php>. Chicago style: Jib Fowles, "Television Violence and You," M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 3, no. 1 (2000), <http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/0003/television.php> ([your date of access]). APA style: Jib Fowles. (2000) Television Violence and You. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 3(1). <http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/0003/television.php> ([your date of access]).

Kangatarianism is the rather inelegant word coined in the first decade of the twenty-first century to describe an omnivorous diet in which the only meat consumed is that of the kangaroo. First published in the media in 2010 (Barone; Zukerman), the term circulated in Australian environmental and academic circles including the Global Animal conference at the University of Wollongong in July 2011 where I first heard it from members of the Think Tank for Kangaroos (THINKK) group. By June 2017, it had gained enough attention to be named the Oxford English Dictionary’s Australian word of the month (following on from May’s “smashed avo,” another Australian food innovation), but it took the Nine Network reality television series Love Island Australia to raise kangatarian to trending status on social media (Oxford UP). During the first episode, aired in late May 2018, Justin, a concreter and fashion model from Melbourne, declared himself to have previously been a kangatarian as he chatted with fellow contestant, Millie. Vet nurse and animal lover Millie appeared to be shocked by his revelation but was tentatively accepting when Justin explained what kangatarian meant, and justified his choice on the grounds that kangaroo are not farmed. In the social media response, it was clear that eating only the meat of kangaroos as an ethical choice was an entirely new concept to many viewers, with one tweet stating “Kangatarian isn’t a thing”, while others variously labelled the diet brutal, intriguing, or quintessentially Australian (see #kangatarian on Twitter).There is a well developed literature around the arguments for and against eating kangaroo, and why settler Australians tend to be so reluctant to do so (see for example, Probyn; Cawthorn and Hoffman). Here, I will concentrate on the role that ethics play in this food choice by examining how the adoption of kangatarianism can be understood as a bargain struck to help to manage grief in the Anthropocene, and the limitations of that bargain. As Lesley Head has argued, we are living in a time of loss and of grieving, when much that has been taken for granted is becoming unstable, and “we must imagine that drastic changes to everyday life are in the offing” (313). Applying the classic (and contested) model of five stages of grief, first proposed by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her book On Death and Dying in 1969, much of the population of the western world seems to be now experiencing denial, her first stage of loss, while those in the most vulnerable environments have moved on to anger with developed countries for destructive actions in the past and inaction in the present. The next stages (or states) of grieving—bargaining, depression, and acceptance—are likely to be manifested, although not in any predictable sequence, as the grief over current and future losses continues (Haslam).The great expansion of food restrictive diets in the Anthropocene can be interpreted as part of this bargaining state of grieving as individuals attempt to respond to the imperative to reduce their environmental impact but also to limit the degree of change to their own diet required to do so. Meat has long been identified as a key component of an individual’s environmental footprint. From Frances Moore Lappé’s 1971 Diet for a Small Planet through the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation’s 2006 report Livestock’s Long Shadow to the 2019 report of the EAT–Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems, the advice has been consistent: meat consumption should be minimised in, if not eradicated from, the human diet. The EAT–Lancet Commission Report quantified this to less than 28 grams (just under one ounce) of beef, lamb or pork per day (12, 25). For many this would be keenly felt, in terms of how meals are constructed, the sensory experiences associated with eating meat and perceptions of well-being but meat is offered up as a sacrifice to bring about the return of the beloved healthy planet.Rather than accept the advice to cut out meat entirely, those seeking to bargain with the Anthropocene also find other options. This has given rise to a suite of foodways based around restricting meat intake in volume or type. Reducing the amount of commercially produced beef, lamb and pork eaten is one approach, while substituting a meat the production of which has a smaller environmental footprint, most commonly chicken or fish, is another. For those willing to make deeper changes, the meat of free living animals, especially those which are killed accidentally on the roads or for deliberately for environmental management purposes, is another option. Further along this spectrum are the novel protein sources suggested in the Lancet report, including insects, blue-green algae and laboratory-cultured meats.Kangatarianism is another form of this bargain, and is backed by at least half a century of advocacy. The Australian Conservation Foundation made calls to reduce the numbers of other livestock and begin a sustainable harvest of kangaroo for food in 1970 when the sale of kangaroo meat for human consumption was still illegal across the country (Conservation of Kangaroos). The idea was repeated by biologist Gordon Grigg in the late 1980s (Jackson and Vernes 173), and again in the Garnaut Climate Change Review in 2008 (547–48). Kangaroo meat is high in protein and iron, low in fat, and high in healthy polyunsaturated fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid, and, as these authors showed, has a smaller environmental footprint than beef, lamb, or pork. Kangaroo require less water than cattle, sheep or pigs, and no land is cleared to grow feed for them or give them space to graze. Their paws cause less erosion and compaction of soil than do the hooves of common livestock. They eat less fodder than ruminants and their digestive processes result in lower emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas methane and less solid waste.As Justin of Love Island was aware, kangaroo are not farmed in the sense of being deliberately bred, fed, confined, or treated with hormones, drugs or chemicals, which also adds to their lighter impact on the environment. However, some pastoralists argue that because they cannot prevent kangaroos from accessing the food, water, shelter, and protection from predators they provide for their livestock, they do effectively farm them, although they receive no income from sales of kangaroo meat. This type of light touch farming of kangaroos has a very long history in Australia going back to the continent’s first peopling some 60,000 years ago. Kangaroos were so important to Aboriginal people that a wide range of environments were manipulated to produce their favoured habitats of open grasslands edged by sheltering trees. As Bill Gammage demonstrated, fire was used as a tool to preserve and extend grassy areas, to encourage regrowth which would attract kangaroos and to drive the animals from one patch to another or towards hunters waiting with spears (passim, for example, 58, 72, 76, 93). Gammage and Bruce Pascoe agree that this was a form of animal husbandry in which the kangaroos were drawn to the areas prepared for them for the young grass or, more forcefully, physically directed using nets, brush fences or stone walls. Burnt ground served to contain the animals in place of fencing, and regular harvesting kept numbers from rising to levels which would place pressure on other species (Gammage 79, 281–86; Pascoe 42–43). Contemporary advocates of eating kangaroo have promoted the idea that they should be deliberately co-produced with other livestock instead of being killed to preserve feed and water for sheep and cattle (Ellicott; Wilson 39). Substituting kangaroo for the meat of more environmentally damaging animals would facilitate a reduction in the numbers of cattle and sheep, lessening the harm they do.Most proponents have assumed that their audience is current meat eaters who would substitute kangaroo for the meat of other more environmentally costly animals, but kangatarianism can also emerge from vegetarianism. Wendy Zukerman, who wrote about kangaroo hunting for New Scientist in 2010, was motivated to conduct the research because she was considering becoming an early adopter of kangatarianism as the least environmentally taxing way to counter the longterm anaemia she had developed as a vegetarian. In 2018, George Wilson, honorary professor in the Australian National University’s Fenner School of Environment and Society called for vegetarians to become kangatarians as a means of boosting overall consumption of kangaroo for environmental and economic benefits to rural Australia (39).Given these persuasive environmental arguments, it might be expected that many people would have perceived eating kangaroo instead of other meat as a favourable bargain and taken up the call to become kangatarian. Certainly, there has been widespread interest in trying kangaroo meat. In 1997, only five years after the sale of kangaroo meat for human consumption had been legalised in most states (South Australia did so in 1980), 51% of 500 people surveyed in five capital cities said they had tried kangaroo. However, it had not become a meat of choice with very few found to eat it more than three times a year (Des Purtell and Associates iv). Just over a decade later, a study by Ampt and Owen found an increase to 58% of 1599 Australians surveyed across the country who had tried kangaroo but just 4.7% eating it at least monthly (14). Bryce Appleby, in his study of kangaroo consumption in the home based on interviews with 28 residents of Wollongong in 2010, specifically noted the absence of kangatarians—then a very new concept. A study of 261 Sydney university students in 2014 found that half had tried kangaroo meat and 10% continued to eat it with any regularity. Only two respondents identified themselves as kangatarian (Grant 14–15). Kangaroo meat advocate Michael Archer declared in 2017 that “there’s an awful lot of very, very smart vegetarians [who] have opted for semi vegetarianism and they’re calling themselves ‘kangatarians’, as they’re quite happy to eat kangaroo meat”, but unless there had been a significant change in a few years, the surveys did not bear out his assertion (154).The ethical calculations around eating kangaroo are complicated by factors beyond the strictly environmental. One Tweeter advised Justin: “‘I’m a kangatarian’ isn’t a pickup line, mate”, and certainly the reception of his declaration could have been very cool, especially as it was delivered to a self declared animal warrior (N’Tash Aha). All of the studies of beliefs and practices around the eating of kangaroo have noted a significant minority of Australians who would not consider eating kangaroo based on issues of animal welfare and animal rights. The 1997 study found that 11% were opposed to the idea of eating kangaroo, while in Grant’s 2014 study, 15% were ethically opposed to eating kangaroo meat (Des Purtell and Associates iv; Grant 14–15). Animal ethics complicate the bargains calculated principally on environmental grounds.These ethical concerns work across several registers. One is around the flesh and blood kangaroo as a charismatic native animal unique to Australia and which Australians have an obligation to respect and nurture. Sheep, cattle and pigs have been subject to longterm propaganda campaigns which entrench the idea that they are unattractive and unintelligent, and veil their transition to meat behind euphemistic language and abattoir walls, making it easier to eat them. Kangaroos are still seen as resourceful and graceful animals, and no linguistic tricks shield consumers from the knowledge that it is a roo on their plate. A proposal in 2009 to market a “coat of arms” emu and kangaroo-flavoured potato chip brought complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau that this was disrespectful to these native animals, although the flavours were to be simulated and the product vegetarian (Black). Coexisting with this high regard to kangaroos is its antithesis. That is, a valuation of them informed by their designation as a pest in the pastoral industry, and the use of the carcasses of those killed to feed dogs and other companion animals. Appleby identified a visceral, disgust response to the idea of eating kangaroo in many of his informants, including both vegetarians who would not consider eating kangaroo because of their commitment to a plant-based diet, and at least one omnivore who would prefer to give up all meat rather than eat kangaroo. While diametrically opposed, the end point of both positions is that kangaroo meat should not be eaten.A second animal ethics stance relates to the imagined kangaroo, a cultural construct which for most urban Australians is much more present in their lives and likely to shape their actions than the living animals. It is behind the rejection of eating an animal which holds such an iconic place in Australian culture: to the dexter on the 1912 national coat of arms; hopping through the Hundred Acre Wood as Kanga and Roo in A.A. Milne’s Winnie-the-Pooh children’s books from the 1920s and the Disney movies later made from them; as a boy’s best friend as Skippy the Bush Kangaroo in a fondly remembered 1970s television series; and high in the sky on QANTAS planes. The anthropomorphising of kangaroos permitted the spectacle of the boxing kangaroo from the late nineteenth century. By framing natural kangaroo behaviours as boxing, these exhibitions encouraged an ambiguous understanding of kangaroos as human-like, moving them further from the category of food (Golder and Kirkby). Australian government bodies used this idea of the kangaroo to support food exports to Britain, with kangaroos as cooks or diners rather than ingredients. The Kangaroo Kookery Book of 1932 (see fig. 1 below) portrayed kangaroos as a nuclear family in a suburban kitchen and another official campaign supporting sales of Australian produce in Britain in the 1950s featured a Disney-inspired kangaroo eating apples and chops washed down with wine (“Kangaroo to Be ‘Food Salesman’”). This imagining of kangaroos as human-like has persisted, leading to the opinion expressed in a 2008 focus group, that consuming kangaroo amounted to “‘eating an icon’ … Although they are pests they are still human nature … these are native animals, people and I believe that is a form of cannibalism!” (Ampt and Owen 26). Figure 1: Rather than promoting the eating of kangaroos, the portrayal of kangaroos as a modern suburban family in the Kangaroo Kookery Book (1932) made it unthinkable. (Source: Kangaroo Kookery Book, Director of Australian Trade Publicity, Australia House, London, 1932.)The third layer of ethical objection on the ground of animal welfare is more specific, being directed to the method of killing the kangaroos which become food. Kangaroos are perhaps the only native animals for which state governments set quotas for commercial harvest, on the grounds that they compete with livestock for pasturage and water. In most jurisdictions, commercially harvested kangaroo carcasses can be processed for human consumption, and they are the ones which ultimately appear in supermarket display cases.Kangaroos are killed by professional shooters at night using swivelling spotlights mounted on their vehicles to locate and daze the animals. While clean head shots are the ideal and regulations state that animals should be killed when at rest and without causing “undue agonal struggle”, this is not always achieved and some animals do suffer prolonged deaths (NSW Code of Practice for Kangaroo Meat for Human Consumption). By regulation, the young of any female kangaroo must be killed along with her. While averting a slow death by neglect, this is considered cruel and wasteful. The hunt has drawn international criticism, including from Greenpeace which organised campaigns against the sale of kangaroo meat in Europe in the 1980s, and Viva! which was successful in securing the withdrawal of kangaroo from sale in British supermarkets (“Kangaroo Meat Sales Criticised”). These arguments circulate and influence opinion within Australia.A final animal ethics issue is that what is actually behind the push for greater use of kangaroo meat is not concern for the environment or animal welfare but the quest to turn a profit from these animals. The Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia, formed in 1970 to represent those who dealt in the marsupials’ meat, fur and skins, has been a vocal advocate of eating kangaroo and a sponsor of market research into how it can be made more appealing to the market. The Association argued in 1971 that commercial harvest was part of the intelligent conservation of the kangaroo. They sought minimum size regulations to prevent overharvesting and protect their livelihoods (“Assn. Backs Kangaroo Conservation”). The Association’s current website makes the claim that wild harvested “Australian kangaroo meat is among the healthiest, tastiest and most sustainable red meats in the world” (Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia). That this is intended to initiate a new and less controlled branch of the meat industry for the benefit of hunters and processors, rather than foster a shift from sheep or cattle to kangaroos which might serve farmers and the environment, is the opinion of Dr. Louise Boronyak, of the Centre for Compassionate Conservation at the University of Technology Sydney (Boyle 19).Concerns such as these have meant that kangaroo is most consumed where it is least familiar, with most of the meat for human consumption recovered from culled animals being exported to Europe and Asia. Russia has been the largest export market. There, kangaroo meat is made less strange by blending it with other meats and traditional spices to make processed meats, avoiding objections to its appearance and uncertainty around preparation. With only a low profile as a novelty animal in Russia, there are fewer sentimental concerns about consuming kangaroo, although the additional food miles undermine its environmental credentials. The variable acceptability of kangaroo in more distant markets speaks to the role of culture in determining how patterns of eating are formed and can be shifted, or, as Elspeth Probyn phrased it “how natural entities are transformed into commodities within a context of globalisation and local communities”, underlining the impossibility of any straightforward ethics of eating kangaroo (33, 35).Kangatarianism is a neologism which makes the eating of kangaroo meat something it has not been in the past, a voluntary restriction based on environmental ethics. These environmental benefits are well founded and eating kangaroo can be understood as an Anthropocenic bargain struck to allow the continuation of the consumption of red meat while reducing one’s environmental footprint. Although superficially attractive, the numbers entering into this bargain remain small because environmental ethics cannot be disentangled from animal ethics. The anthropomorphising of the kangaroo and its use as a national symbol coexist with its categorisation as a pest and use of its meat as food for companion animals. Both understandings of kangaroos made their meat uneatable for many Australians. Paired with concerns over how kangaroos are killed and the commercialisation of a native species, kangaroo meat has a very mixed reception despite decades of advocacy for eating its meat in favour of that of more harmed and more harmful introduced species. Given these constraints, kangatarianism is unlikely to become widespread and indeed it should be viewed as at best a temporary exigency. As the climate warms and rainfall becomes more erratic, even animals which have evolved to suit Australian conditions will come under increasing pressure, and humans will need to reach Kübler-Ross’ final state of grief: acceptance. In this case, this would mean acceptance that our needs cannot be placed ahead of those of other animals.ReferencesAmpt, Peter, and Kate Owen. Consumer Attitudes to Kangaroo Meat Products. Canberra: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, 2008.Appleby, Bryce. “Skippy the ‘Green’ Kangaroo: Identifying Resistances to Eating Kangaroo in the Home in a Context of Climate Change.” BSc Hons, U of Wollongong, 2010 <http://ro.uow.edu.au/thsci/103>.Archer, Michael. “Zoology on the Table: Plenary Session 4.” Australian Zoologist 39, 1 (2017): 154–60.“Assn. Backs Kangaroo Conservation.” The Beverley Times 26 Feb. 1971: 3. 22 Feb. 2019 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article202738733>.Barone, Tayissa. “Kangatarians Jump the Divide.” Sydney Morning Herald 9 Feb. 2010. 13 Apr. 2019 <https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/kangatarians-jump-the-divide-20100209-gdtvd8.html>.Black, Rosemary. “Some Australians Angry over Idea for Kangaroo and Emu-Flavored Potato Chips.” New York Daily News 4 Dec. 2009. 5 Feb. 2019 <https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/eats/australians-angry-idea-kangaroo-emu-flavored-potato-chips-article-1.431865>.Boyle, Rhianna. “Eating Skippy.” Big Issue Australia 578 11-24 Jan. 2019: 16–19.Cawthorn, Donna-Mareè, and Louwrens C. Hoffman. “Controversial Cuisine: A Global Account of the Demand, Supply and Acceptance of ‘Unconventional’ and ‘Exotic’ Meats.” Meat Science 120 (2016): 26–7.Conservation of Kangaroos. Melbourne: Australian Conservation Foundation, 1970.Des Purtell and Associates. Improving Consumer Perceptions of Kangaroo Products: A Survey and Report. Canberra: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, 1997.Ellicott, John. “Little Pay Incentive for Shooters to Join Kangaroo Meat Industry.” The Land 15 Mar. 2018. 28 Mar. 2019 <https://www.theland.com.au/story/5285265/top-roo-shooter-says-harvesting-is-a-low-paid-job/>.Garnaut, Ross. Garnaut Climate Change Review. 2008. 26 Feb. 2019 <http://www.garnautreview.org.au/index.htm>.Gammage, Bill. The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 2012.Golder, Hilary, and Diane Kirkby. “Mrs. Mayne and Her Boxing Kangaroo: A Married Woman Tests Her Property Rights in Colonial New South Wales.” Law and History Review 21.3 (2003): 585–605.Grant, Elisabeth. “Sustainable Kangaroo Harvesting: Perceptions and Consumption of Kangaroo Meat among University Students in New South Wales.” Independent Study Project (ISP). U of NSW, 2014. <https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/1755>.Haslam, Nick. “The Five Stages of Grief Don’t Come in Fixed Steps – Everyone Feels Differently.” The Conversation 22 Oct. 2018. 28 Mar. 2019 <https://theconversation.com/the-five-stages-of-grief-dont-come-in-fixed-steps-everyone-feels-differently-96111>.Head, Lesley. “The Anthropoceans.” Geographical Research 53.3 (2015): 313–20.Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia. Kangaroo Meat. 26 Feb. 2019 <http://www.kangarooindustry.com/products/meat/>.“Kangaroo Meat Sales Criticised.” The Canberra Times 13 Sep. 1984: 14. 22 Feb 2019 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article136915919>.“Kangaroo to Be Food ‘Salesman.’” Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, 2 Dec. 1954. 22 Feb 2019 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article134089767>.Kübler-Ross, Elisabeth. On Death and Dying: What the Dying Have to Teach Doctors, Nurses, Clergy, and their own Families. New York: Touchstone, 1997.Jackson, Stephen, and Karl Vernes. Kangaroo: Portrait of an Extraordinary Marsupial. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 2010.Lappé, Frances Moore. Diet for a Small Planet. New York: Ballantine Books, 1971.N’Tash Aha (@Nsvasey). “‘I’m a Kangatarian’ isn’t a Pickup Line, Mate. #LoveIslandAU.” Twitter post. 27 May 2018. 5 Apr. 2019 <https://twitter.com/Nsvasey/status/1000697124122644480>.“NSW Code of Practice for Kangaroo Meat for Human Consumption.” Government Gazette of the State of New South Wales 24 Mar. 1993. 22 Feb. 2019 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-page14638033>.Oxford University Press, Australia and New Zealand. Word of the Month. June 2017. <https://www.oup.com.au/dictionaries/word-of-the-month>.Pascoe, Bruce. Dark Emu, Black Seeds: Agriculture or Accident? Broome: Magabala Books, 2014.Probyn, Elspeth. “Eating Roo: Of Things That Become Food.” New Formations 74.1 (2011): 33–45.Steinfeld, Henning, Pierre Gerber, Tom Wassenaar, Vicent Castel, Mauricio Rosales, and Cees d Haan. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, 2006.Trust Nature. Essence of Kangaroo Capsules. 26 Feb. 2019 <http://ncpro.com.au/products/all-products/item/88139-essence-of-kangaroo-35000>.Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Kangaroo Pet Food Trial. 28 Mar. 2019 <https://www.wildlife.vic.gov.au/managing-wildlife/wildlife-management-and-control-authorisations/kangaroo-pet-food-trial>.Willett, Walter, et al. “Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems.” The Lancet 16 Jan. 2019. 26 Feb. 2019 <https://www.thelancet.com/commissions/EAT>.Wilson, George. “Kangaroos Can Be an Asset Rather than a Pest.” Australasian Science 39.1 (2018): 39.Zukerman, Wendy. “Eating Skippy: The Future of Kangaroo Meat.” New Scientist 208.2781 (2010): 42–5.

The period from the 1820s to 1890 was one of invention, new trends, and growth in the American food culture. Inventions included the potato chip and Coca-Cola. Patents were taken out for the tin can, canning jars, and condensed milk. Vegetarianism was promulgated. Factories and mills such as Pillsbury came into being, as did Quaker Oats and other icons of American food. This volume describes the beginnings of many familiar mainstays of our daily life and consumer culture. It chronicles the shift from farming to agribusiness. Cookbooks proliferated and readers will trace the modernization of cooking, from the hearth to the stove, and the availability of refrigeration. Regional foodways are covered, as are how various classes ate at home or away. A final chapter covers the diet fads, which were similar to those being touted today. The period from the 1820s to 1890 was one of invention, new trends, and growth in the American food culture. Inventions included the potato chip and Coca-Cola. Patents were taken out for the tin can, canning jars, and condensed milk. Vegetarianism was promulgated. Factories and mills such as Pillsbury came into being. This volume describes the beginnings of many familiar mainstays of our daily life and consumer culture. It chronicles the shift from farming to agribusiness. Cookbooks proliferated and readers will trace the modernization of cooking, from the hearth to the stove, and the availability of refrigeration. Regional foodways are covered, as are how various classes ate at home or away. A final chapter covers the diet fads, which were similar to those being touted today. The volume is targeted toward high school students on up to the general public who want to complement U.S. history cultural studies or better understand the fascinating groundwork for the modern kitchen, cook, and food industry. Abundant insight into the daily life of women is given. Period illustrations and recipes and a chronology round out the text.