Appetite, 1992, 19, 69-73 Commentary Real People, Real Foods, Real Eating Problems and Real Advantages Situations: Real DAVID J. MELA, PETER J. ROGERS, RICHARD SHEPHERD & HALLIDAY J. H. MAcFIE Consumer Sciences Department, A FRC Institute of Food Research, Reading, U. K. It is difficult to disagree with the principal notion put forward by Meiselman (1992): researchers involved in the study of human eating should strive to ensure that their work is, ultimately, of relevance to human eating. Thus, we would support his view that the field would benefit from more experimentation using “real people eating real foods in real eating situations”. There are, however, many shortcomings in the way Meiselman attempts to promote this view. In our response, we have noted some of the problems in Meiselman’s paper, and go on to consider some of the reasons why this type of experimentation is not more commonly conducted. WHAT HYPOTHESIS IS BEING zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUT TESTED? The foremost problem occurring throughout Meiselman’s paper is that it is never made clear what sorts of hypotheses are being considered or are to be tested. “Human eating” is a broad field of study covering a range of different behaviours, biological systems, and environmental influences. Meisehnan notes a paucity of research on the social and economic influences on eating. However, having restricted his literature search to biomedical sources, this is hardly surprising. Had he searched social sciences, marketing, and consumer research databases he would have found a totally different emphasis and a wealth of information, although incorporating insights from such studies into more laboratory-based approaches is not easy. When he states that the field “. . . has not prioritized the things that affect eating”, it is not clear what is meant: When, where, why, who, how much? Nevertheless, he goes on to select out social and cultural factors for the top slot. It is doubtful that anyone would deny that forces external to the individual- cultural, socioeconomic, geographical-are the major determinants of the total amount and specific types of food likely to be available. At this level, they are clearly paramount intluences on human eating. This is neither a novel nor controversial thought, though it seems reasonable that a journal such as Appetite should encourage greater submission of papers focusing on these topics. Investigators in biology, psychology, and medicine naturally concentrate on biological, psychologi- cal, and medical phenomena, forces influencing human eating that cross the bounds of culture and economics (notwithstanding the sociobiological view that human cultural and economic values reflect biological conditions). The emphasis of most 01956663/92/040069+05 %08.00/O 0 1992 Academic Press Limited