Return to Jim Thomas's homepage
By: Mary Bosworth and Jim Thomas
From: Sage Encyclopedia of Prison, 2004 (Mary Bosworth, ed.)
The United States Supreme Court has consistently ruled that prisoners
have the right to an adequate and varied diet, including the right to
tailor meals to religious prescriptions and medical needs. However,
the provision of food in prison often remains a sore point for
inmates. Problems include food quality, portion sizes, preparation
quality, and the temperature at which it is served. In prison, food
possesses more than a sustenance function. It creates or ameliorates
conflict, establishes social boundaries of power and status, and
provides a significant element in prisoner culture. Prison meals
demarcate significant points in a day and establish a ritualistic
routine for prisoners and staff. Inmates are not required to go to
meals, and some manage to avoid them all together by living off
commissary items and "gifts" from others. For most, however, meals
provide a break from normal routine and an opportunity to interact
with others.
History
Traditionally, food was used in prisons as a means of reward and
punishment. In the nineteenth century, for example, incoming
prisoners were often served bread and water until they had earned the
right for such luxuries as meat or cheese. At this time, food was
just one of numerous items that could be improved or retracted to
encourage obedience. In the Eastern penitentiary in Philadelphia,
breakfast were sparse and invariant, consisting of coffee, cocoa or
green tea, and a mix of bread and Indian mush. The primary meal at
midday consited of substantial portions of boiled pork or beef, soup,
potatos or rice, sauerkraut, and tea. Indian mush and tea constituted
the evening meal (Johnson, 1994: 52). Although prison fare varied by
state, 19th century administrators recognized the importance of a
proper nutrition in maintaining both discipline and and prisoners'
health. Prison reformers emphasized dietary improvements on
humanistic and ethical grounds. As a consequence, prison diets become
more varied, less restrictive, and based on increasingly sophisticated
nutritional planning.
Under the medical model of rehabilitation emerging in the
mid-20th century, prison food became linked to scientific notions of
nutrition. Prison diets were examined for the calorific content
rather than used primarily as a means of control. Healthy prisoners,
it was believed, would be productive workers and, ultimately, reformed
citizens. On the other hand, some prisons, such Alcatraz, a daily
total of at least 5,000 calories, combined with minimal exercise, was
believed to make prisoners more lethargic and less likely to engage in
violent behavior.
In recent decades, the science of nutrition remains crucial to the
provision of food in most prison. In many prison systems, diets are
carefully planned and standardized, and some facilities post the
weekly menu, including nutritional analyses of each meal listing
caloric, fat, cholesterol and sodium content of each prepared item.
In addition, all federal prisons are meant to have a salad bar and
offer a 'heart healthy' version of the main meal. Fried chicken and
baked chicken, for example, or french fries and baked potatoes may be
served at the same meal.
State prison systems, however, vary dramatically, and many do not
match the federal standards. This occurs in part because contracting
food services out to the private sector is becoming increasingly
common and the type and quality of food available is much more varied.
However, because of both formal and informal pressures, such as prison
reform efforts, prisoner litigation challenges conditions, and the
nation wide influence of the American Correctional Association in
providing minimal standards before individual prisons receive
accreditation, prison food has improved dramatically.
Despite variations, in both state and federal penal systems, prisoners
with medical conditions, such as diabetes, HIV/AIDs, pregnancy or
heart problems, may usually request special meals. They may also be
allowed special snacks, but these must be examined and authorized by a
dietician. Many religions also have specific rules governing food.
Orthodox Jews require their meals to be kosher, while Muslim prisoners
need their meat to be Halal. Some Christians should eat fish on
Fridays, Hindus are vegetarian, and Vegans, who eat no animal
byproducts, are increasingly becoming recognized as a legitimate group
with special dietary needs. Some prisons provide different meals for
each religious group, others, like the US Federal Bureau of Prisons,
offer one uniform option known as Common Fare that tries to satisfy
the dietary requirements of all religions. In order to avoid
contamination with non-kosher or Halal food, special meals are usually
served with disposable plates and cutlery. Certain other
religious-based food requirements are usually honored throughout the
year. Muslims may eat breakfast before dawn and dinner after sunset
during Ramadan. All Jewish prisoners, who submit a request in writing
to the Chaplain, are entitled to kosher food for Passover. Christians
will be offered a meatless meal on the mainline menu during Ash
Wednesday and on all Fridays of Lent.
Food as Punishment
Other than restricting access to the commissary, food may not, by law,
officially be used as punishment. There is no longer any such thing
as a diet of bread and water. Inmates, even when in disciplinary
segregation, are entitled to nutritionally adequate meals that are
ordinarily from the menu of the day for the institution. However,
some state super-maximum security facilities serve what is known as a
foodloaf or mealloaf to recalcitrant inmates, especially those who
continually throw feces or urine on staff. This product is made up of
the ingredients of a regular meal, for example hotdogs, potatoes and
beans that have been mashed together, baked like a meat loaf, and
served. Although nutritionally adequate, and thus not equivalent to a
diet of bread and water, in serving, taste and aesthetics, it
functions a form of punishment, even if defined as a "dietary
adjusment."
Commissary
Prison commissaries stock food and other goods for prisoners to buy.
Items include shoes, radios, food, stamps, photocopy and phone
credits, and, in some institutions, over the counter medication like
Tylenol, ibuprofen and allergy medicine. Prison commissaries vary in
pricing policies, variety and accessibility. Prices are usually at
least market rate, making prisoners dependent on funds from outside
since their prison salaries, often starting at $15 a month, are often
insufficent to purchase other than the most basic hygeine items.
Prison Farms and Gardens
Throughout the 19th century, most prisons operated a farm outside the
walls. Prisoners, it was believed, should produce the food they were
to consume in order to minimize costs for the tax-payers. Since the
mid-20th century, a combination of urbanization around formerly
agricutural areas where prisons were built, and economic factors, have
made it both impractical and uneconomical for prisons to sustain their
own food production. Today, few institutions raise livestock for
consumption, but some continue to grow vegetables in large prison
gardens.
The cultural significance of food in prison
The scarcity of desirable food creates an illicit market for more
alternatives. As with other scarce resources, competition generates an
underground acquisition and distribution system. Some food can be
obtained from the prison commissary or kitchen by theft and cooked in
the privacy of one's cell. Staff discretion in allowing access to and
consumption of forbidden food adds a control mechanism over inmates,
but also provides staff with an opportunity for sharing the resources.
Possessing or sharing food with other inmates can lead to unpleasant
repercussions, because sharing increases risks of competition with or
"rip-off" by other prisoners, or discovery by unsympathetic staff.
Failure to share risks intimidation, peer pressure, or retaliatory
violence. In addition to its value as a token in bonding rituals and
establishing community, food can be equally valuable as a commodity to
enhance individual interests. Pilfered food can be returned to the
cellblock and distributed or sold, sometimes in collusion with staff.
For well-connected inmates, a cell can be turned into a mini-cafeteria
where food is sold. Similarly, just as food can exacerbate
punishment, it can also provide rewards for those able to acquire it.
Because food symbolizes a system of rewards, creates informal leisure
activity, and provides a means of breaking the normal routine, access
to food furnishes a commodity that can be bartered or sold to other
prisoners, and gives staff a negotiating chit in an informal game of
reward-compliance. Those who can acquire quantities of high-quality
food use it as status-enhancing currency by sharing it with friends or
impressing outsiders. Those particularly adept at obtaining quality
merchandise develop a reputation as a valued peer. In an environment
where edible alternatives to the standard fare become a valuable
resource, few opportunities are lost to snatch whatever food becomes
available, even in the presence of staff. Anything unprotected can be
fair game. The ubiquity of food, its importance both as one of life's
small luxuries and a survival need, its relative ease of accessibility
compared to other illicit resources, and its seemingly benign
nature--"who has ever been stabbed with a sandwich?"--disguise both
its practical and symbolic dual character as a conveyor and
ameliorator of punishment. It also serves staff self-interests of
control and reward, and helps promote the interests of some inmate
groups over competing groups. The individual act of acquiring food
also contributes to the collective bonding mechanism of the inmate
community.
Some Problems with Prison Food
Concerns about food are often related to how and when meals are
distributed. The serving line at meals is a constant reminder of the
diners' vulnerability and their powerlessness over the daily routine.
Sanitary prescriptions in kitchens and dining rooms may or may not be
rigidly enforced, and on hot days in poorly ventilated sweltering
areas, the servers' perspiration, mingled with steam from the trays,
may drip into the food. The prevalent rumors that some inmates
"sabotage" food with saliva, feces, or other matter perpetuates the
image of uncleanliness. Although there are few documented cases of
foreign substances such as feces or saliva added to the food during
preparation, the rumors contribute to lack of confidence in prison
sanitation, especially for prisoners isolated in segregation units to
whom food is delivered. While usually delivered in a covered wagon
from the central kitchen, food served in this way may be vulnerable to
hygiene problems. It also frequently arrives cold.
Another problem with meals in prison is the hour at which they are
served and the amount of time available to eat. Most meals are eaten
in prison far earlier than is normal in the free community. Prisoners
must, therefore, get used to an entirely new eating schedule that may
commence as early as 6am and end by 4pm. Generally, no more than 14
hours may elapse between the evening and breakfast meals. Thus,
religious inmates fasting during Ramadan or Passover must sign a
waiver form, articulating that they have chosen to go hungry for more
than the allowed time period. In total institutions, mealtime is
short, usually about a half hour from entry to exit. If the lines into
the dining room or through the "chow line" are slow, the time for
eating is reduced proportionately. Inmates are taken to the dining
hall from their cell blocks or assignments in lines, with one line
entering when the previous group exits. Although variations occur
within and across prison systems, dining generally follow a highly
structured regimen.
Finally, prison food can be repetitive despite variation in menus.
This occurs in part because of poor preparation resulting in meals in
which soggy vegetables and overcooked meat, for example, are
indistinguishable from one meal to the next. Some institutions
attempt to overcome the problems associated with the provision of food
by making cooking facilities available to inmates. Women and
low-security prisoners may have access to hotplates, microwaves, and
other appliances necessary to cook and serve food. Sometimes,
sympathetic staff may allow inmates to prepare food in their cells
using illicit "stingers" or other heating devices, or ignore
contraband food that prisoners have managed to obtain. The bulk of
the population, however, is dependent upon what the institution
kitchens produce for everything other than what they may buy at the
prison commissary. Other than those who may have access to
(**==SOMETHING MISSING HERE?)
Conclusion
The provision and quality of food varies in prison. Prisons must meet
certain minimum standards of food service. They must also make
available particular religious and health diets. While some inmates
are allowed to cook their own food, most are dependent on what the
institution decides to give them. Depending on financial resources,
all food may be supplemented with items from the commissary. Such
snack food, however, is generally over-priced in relation to the
meager salaries afforded by prison work.
The ability to control when and what one eats is a basic aspect of
adulthood. It is, therefore, often a flash-point for conflict. The
restriction of something as mundane as food adds a significant layer
of punishment to the prison experience. The consequences derive not
simply from deprivation of a discrete resource, but from the
disruption of normal eating rituals such, as mealtimes. In addition to
being a valuable amenity, food functions as a commodity of exchange
for other resources. The deprivation of fundamental amenities
constantly reinforces loss of individual control.
The variety of ways by which inmates attempt to re-assert control may
be perceived as maladaptive by administrators and outsiders, but the
attempts also function as an adaptive mechanism to increase normalcy
in an abnormal environment. Prisons are, to a large extent restricted
in the freedom they can give to inmates in preparing their own food
because of security fears. Food service staff must account for knives
and other potentially threatening implements before ending duty. They
must also lock away any products, like yeast, cloves or other spices
that could potentially be used in the production of homemade alcohol
(hooch). Elsewhere, prisons that offer the opportunity for inmates to
prepare and cook their own food have met with much success. Currently
only some prisoners have this option. Consequently, institutional
food and its attendant problems are here to stay.
Return to Jim Thomas's homepage
Page maintained by: Jim Thomas - jthomas@math.niu.edu