Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:58:29.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Twentieth-Century Product Innovations in the German Food Industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2011

Uwe Spiekermann
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Product innovation, a decisive factor in modern economies, is usually analyzed from one point of view–that of the producers. A more realistic approach to the subject would add at least four dimensions to a consideration of the topic: the perspective of consumers and the cultural context within which they form their views; the differences in how experts and consumers acquire knowledge about products; the increasing influence of retailers at the point of sale; and the technological options available to producers and households. Two twentieth-century German case studies–on the scientific innovation of yogurt and the preserving and canning of food–connect the often separate perspectives of business, consumers, and culture.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 83 , Issue 2: A Special Issue on Food and Innovation , Summer 2009 , pp. 291 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © Harvard Business School 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Stehr, Nico, Arbeit, Eigentum und Wissen. Zur Theorie von Wissensgesellschaften (Frankfurt/ M., 1994).Google Scholar

2 Stehr, Nico, “A World Made of Knowledge,” Society 38, no. 11/12 (2001): 89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Cf. Caron, Francois, “Innovation,” in Entrepreneurship in Theory and History, ed. Cassis, Youssef and Minoglou, Ioanna Pepelasis (Houndmills, 2005), 111–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rossfeld, Roman, “Unternehmensgeschichte als Marketinggeschichte. Zu einer Erweiterung traditioneller Ansätze in der Unternehmensgeschichtsschreibung,” in Marketing. Historische Aspekte der Wettbewerbs- und Absatzpolitik, ed. Kleinschmidt, Christian and Triebel, Florian (Essen, 2004), 17–39Google Scholar; Berghoff, Hartmut, ed., Marketinggeschichte. Die Genese einer modernen Sozialtechnik (Frankfurt/M., 2007).Google Scholar An example of intentional economic history that does not reflect the perception of products and symbols is Schug, Alexander, “Missionare der globalen Konsumkultur. Corporate Identity und Absatzstrategien amerikanischer Unternehmen in Deutschland im friihen 20. Jahrhundert,” in Politische Kulturgeschichte derZwischenkriegszeit 1918–1939, ed. Hardtwig, Wolfgang (Göttingen, 2005), 307–42.Google Scholar

4 Rudder, Alison, Ainsworth, Paul, and Holgate, David, “New Food Product Development: Strategies for Success?” British Food Journal 103, no. 9 (2001): 657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Kotler, Philip, Armstrong, Gary, Saunders, John, and Wong, Veronica, Principles of Marketing, 5th European ed. (London, 2008).Google Scholar

6 Cf. Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge, Mass., 2001)Google Scholar and “The Enduring Logic of Industrial Success,” Harvard Business Review 68 (Mar./Apr. 1990): 130–40.Google Scholar

7 Cf. Green, J. Hilary, Bladeren, Peter J. v., and German, J. Bruce, “Translating Nutrition Innovation into Practice,” Food Technology 60, no. 5 (2006): 26–30, 33.Google Scholar

8 Rück, Daniela, “Innovationsdruck,” Lebensmittelzeitung no. 35 (2005): 29–30Google Scholar; Olbrich, Heinrich and Cama, Alessandra, “Innovationen richtig steuern,” Lebensmittelzeitung no. 35 (2005): 42, 44Google Scholar; Rück, Daniela, “Milliardenverluste mit Produktneuheiten,” Lebensmittelzeitung no. 17 (2006): 51.Google Scholar

9 Schumpeter, Joseph A., The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle (Cambridge, Mass.,, 1936).Google Scholar

10 The most advanced theory based on such research is Christensen, Clayton M., The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail (Boston, 1997).Google Scholar

11 Dosi, Giovanni, “Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation,” Journal of Economic Literature 26 (Sept. 1988): 1120–71.Google Scholar

12 Braun, Helmut, “Korreferat zu Mark Spoerer,” in Innovationsgeschichte, ed. Walter, Rolf (Stuttgart, 2007), 61–68.Google Scholar

13 Pavitt, Keith, “Sectoral Patterns of Technological Change: Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory,” Research Policy 13, no. 6 (1984): 343–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Stewart-Knox, Barbara and Mitchell, Peter, “What Separates the Winners from the Losers in New Food Product Development?” Trends in Food Science & Technology 14, no. 1 (2003): 58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Keller, Teresa, Produkte am globalen Markt. Nahrungsmittelhersteller zwischen Standardisierung und kultureller Anpassung (Münster, 2005).Google Scholar

16 Gofton, Leslie, “British Market Research Data on Food: A Note on Their Use for the Academic Analysis of Food Choice,” in ‘The Nation's Diet’: The Social Science of Food Choice, ed. Murcott, Anne (London, 1998), 302–10Google Scholar; Stieß, Immanuel and Hayn, Doris, Ernährungsstile im Alltag. Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Untersuchung (Frankfurt/M., 2005), 8–13.Google Scholar

17 Goodman, David, “Rethinking Food Production-Consumption: Integrative Perspectives,” Sociologia Ruralis 42, no. 4 (2002): 271–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar and “The Qualitative ‘Turn’ and Alternative Food Practices,” Journal of Rural Studies 19, no. 1 (2003): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Cf. Sijetsema, S. J. et al., “Consumer Orientation of Product Developers and Their Product Perception Compared to That of Consumers,” Trends in Food Science and Technology 15, no. 10 (2004): 489–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 See Trentmann, Frank, Beyond Consumerism: New Historical Perspectives on Consumption (London, 2002)Google Scholar; Prinz, Michael, “‘Konsum’ und ‘Konsumgesellschaft’—Vorschläge zu Definition und Verwendung,” in Der lange Weg in den Überfluss: Anfänge und Entwicklung der Konsumgesellschaft seit der Vormoderne, ed. Prinz, Michael (Paderborn, 2003), 11–34Google Scholar; Berghoff, Hartmut, Moderne Unternehmensgeschichte (Paderborn, 2004).Google Scholar The term “embedded” is closely linked to a social framework of economic institutions like markets, see Granovetter, Mark, “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness,” American Journal of Sociology 91, no. 3 (1985): 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Due to statistical problems, resulting from an unhistorical separation of agriculture, handcraft and industry, food production is an underestimated branch. For details and data see Ellerbrock, Karl-Peter, Geschichte der deutschen Nahrungs- und Genußmittelindustrie, 1750–1914 (Stuttgart, 1993)Google Scholar; Oddy, Derek J., From Plain Fare to Fusion Food: British Diet from the 1890s to the 1990s (Woodbridge, 2003)Google Scholar; Levenstein, Harvey, Revolution at the Table: The Transformation of the American Diet (New York, 1988).Google Scholar

21 See Barlösius, Eva, Soziologie des Essens (Weinheim, 1999)Google Scholar; Spiekermann, Uwe, “E—Was, wie und wo essen wir?” in Gesunde Ernährung zwischen Natur- und Kulturwissenschaft, ed. Wild-Stiftung, Rainer (Münster, 1999), 41–56Google Scholar; Scholliers, Peter, “Meals, Food Narratives, and Sentiments of Belonging in Past and Present,” in Food, Drink, and Identity, ed. Scholliers, Peter (Oxford, 2001), 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Belasco, Warren, “Food Matters: Perspectives on an Emerging Field,” in Food Nations: Selling Taste in Consumer Societies, ed. Belasco, Warren and Scranton, Philip (New York, 2002), 2–23.Google Scholar

22 Data from Statistisches Bundesamt, , ed., Wo bleibt die Zeit? Die Zeitverwendung der Bevölkerung in Deutschland 2001/02 (Berlin, 2003), 11–13.Google Scholar See Ironmonger, Duncan, “Household Production,” in International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences, vol. 10, ed. Smelser, Neil J. and Baltes, Paul B. (Oxford, 2001), 6934–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 See Spiekermann, Uwe, “Rationalitäten im Widerstreit. Bildung von Präferenzen am Beispiel des deutschen Lebensmittelmarktes im 20. Jahrhundert,” in Wirtschaftsgeschichte als Kulturgeschichte. Dimensionen eines Perspektivenwechsels, ed. Berghoff, Hartmut and Vogel, Jakob (Frankfurt/M., 2004), 197–217.Google Scholar

24 Henrich, Joseph et al., “‘Economic Man’ in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Behavioral Experiments in Fifteen Small-Scale Societies,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28, no. 6 (2005): 795–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Consequently, evidence-based food campaigns mostly fail because they believe that transfer of objective knowledge leads to a change of people's behavior. See Worsley, Anthony, “Nutrition Knowledge and Food Consumption: Can Nutrition Knowledge Change Food Behaviour?” Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition 11, suppl. no. 3 (2002): S579–S585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

26 Stehr, Nico, Wissen und Wirtschaften. Die gesellschqftlichen Grundlagen der modernen Ökonomie (Frankfurt/M., 2001)Google Scholar and, on the concept of incorporation, Tanner, Jakob, “The Arts of Cooking: Modern Times and the Dynamics of Tradition,” in Changing Tastes: Food Culture and the Process of Industrialization, ed. Lysaght, Patricia and Burckhardt-Seebas, Christine (Basel, 2004), 18–32.Google Scholar

27 Leibfried, Stephan, Nutritional Minima and the State: On the Institutionalization of Professional Knowledge in National Social Policy in the U.S. and Germany (Bremen, 1992)Google Scholar; Smith, David, “The Discourse of Scientific Knowledge on Nutrition and Dietary Change in the Twentieth Century,” in ‘The Nation's Diet’: The Social Science of Food Choice, ed. Murcott, Anne (London, 1998), 311–31.Google Scholar

28 See Mokyr, Joel, “Why ‘More Work for Mother?’ Knowledge and Household Behavior, 1870–1945,” Journal of Economic History 60, no. 1 (2000): 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Breitenacher, Michael and Täger, Uwe Christian, Ernährungsindustrie. Strukturwandlungen in Produktion und Absatz (Berlin, 1990)Google Scholar; Hughes, David, “Building Partnerships and Alliances in European Food Industry,” in Economics of Innovation: The Case of Food Industry, ed. Galizzi, Giovanni and Venturini, Luciano (Heidelberg, 1996), 101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lang, Tim and Heasman, Michael, Food Wars: The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds and Markets (London, 2004).Google Scholar

30 Escher, Felix and Conde-Petit, Béatrice, “Die Rolle der Lebensmitteltechnologie in der Ernährungswissenschaft,” in Die Zukunft der Ernährungswissenschaft, ed. Schönberger, Gesa U. and Spiekermann, Uwe (Berlin, 2000), 103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Orland, Barbara, “Haushalt, Konsum und Alltagsleben in der Technikgeschichte,” Technikgeschichte 65, no. 4 (1998): 273–95.Google Scholar

31 See Bowden, Sue and Offer, Avner, “The Technological Revolution That Never Was: Gender, Class and the Diffusion of Household Appliances in Interwar England,” in All the World and Her Husband: Women in Twentieth-Century Consumer Culture, ed. Grazia, Victoria de and Furlough, Ellen (Berkeley, 1996), 244–74Google Scholar; Zachmann, Karin, “A Socialist Consumption Junction: Debating the Mechanization of Housework in East Germany, 1956–1957,” Technology and Culture 43, no. 1 (2002): 73–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Business history has primarily concentrated on successful companies and their brands. See Conrad, Hans-Gerd, Werbung und Markenartikel am Beispiel der Markenfirma Dr. Oetker von 1891 bis 1975 in Deutschland (Berlin, 2002)Google Scholar; Gilomen, Hans Jörg et al., eds., Innovationen: Voraussetzungen und Folgen—Widerstände und Antriebskräfte (Zürich, 2001).Google Scholar

33 Landesanstalt für Entwicklung der Landwirtschaft und der Ländlichen Räume, ed., Agrarmärkte 2007 (Schwäbisch Gmünd, 2007), 217.Google Scholar

34 For other examples, see Spiekermann, Uwe, “Functional Food: Zur Vorgeschichte einer ‘modernen’ Produktgruppe,” Ernährungs-Umschau 49, no. 5 (2002): 182–88.Google Scholar

35 See Podolsky, Scott, “Cultural Divergence: Elie Metchnikoff's Bacillus Bulgaricus Therapy and His Underlying Concept of Health,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 72, no. 1 (1998): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Bertrand, Gabriel and Weisweiler, Gustave, “Action du ferment bulgare sur le lait,” Annales de l'lnstitute Pasteur 20 (1906): 977–90Google Scholar; Metchnikoff, Elie, “Etudes sur la flore intestinale. Deuxième Mémoire. Poisons intestaux et scleroses,” Annales de l'Institut Pasteur 24 (1910): 755–70, pl. XI–XIIIGoogle Scholar; Herschell, George, “On the Use of Selected Acid Bacilli and Soured Milk in the Treatment of Some Forms of Chronic Ill-Health,” Lancet 175 (1908): 371–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 See Reinhardt, Ludwig, “Metchnikoff's Theorie des Alterns und der Yoghurt,” Die Umschau 10 (1906): 281–84Google Scholar; Hanauer, Wilhelm, “Der Yoghurt als Schutz- und Heilmittel,” Die Gesundheit in Wort und Bild 5 (1908): 86–87.Google Scholar

38 Reitz, Adolf, Die Milch und ihre Produkte (Leipzig, 1911), 102Google Scholar; Kirchner, Wilhelm, Handbuch der Milchwirtschaft aus wissenschaftlicher und praktischer Grundlage, 6th ed. (Berlin, 1919), 680–81Google Scholar. In 1914, nearly twelve thousand dairies existed in Germany. See Friedel, Kurt, “Die Milch in ihrer wirtschaftlichen Bedeutung,” in Deutsche Milchwirtschaft in Wort und Bild, ed. Friedel, Kurt and Keller, Arthur (Halle a.S., 1914), plate V.Google Scholar

39 Eberlein, Ludwig, Die neueren Milchindustrien (Dresden, 1927), 70–74.Google Scholar

40 See, for instance, “Hahns Yoghurt-Kakao,” Die praktische Berlinerin 9, no. 11 (1912/1913): VIGoogle Scholar; “Joghurt-Butter,” Vegetarische Warte 46 (1913)Google Scholar: advertisment-suppl., s.p.; “Yabs Yoghurt Bonbon,” Die praktische Berlinerin 11, no. 36 (1914/1915): 9.Google Scholar

41 Due to the lack of milk production figures for imperial Germany, there are no detailed data. But this estimation was backed by most contemporary publishers, like, for instance, Viktor Brudny. See Gräf, Heinz, “Über Joghurtkuren,” Die Umschau 15 (1911): 1066–67.Google Scholar

42 “Was ist Joghurt? Urteil des Reichsgerichts vom 27. Oktober 1913,” Deutsche Nahrungsmittel-Rundschau (1914), 9.Google Scholar

43 For the development in the United States, see Larsen, C. and White, William, Dairy Technology: Treating of Market Milk and Ice Cream (New York, 1914).Google Scholar

44 This was a common argument of skeptical German scientists from 1907/08. See Luerssen, Artur and Kühn, M., “Yoghurt, die bulgarische Sauermilch,” Centralblatt für Bakteriologie, Parasitenkunde und Infektionskrankheiten 2, sect. 20 (1908): 234–48Google Scholar; Rosenberg, Ernst, “Kritik des Yoghurt und die Indikationen für seine Anwendung,” Archiv für Verdauungs-Krankheiten 15 (1909): 458–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Heuberger, Paul, Der Yoghurt und seine biochemischen und therapeutischen Leistungen (Bern, 1913).Google Scholar

45 Yogurt production was not mentioned in Die Lage der deutschen Milchwirtschaft. Verhandlungen und Berichte des Unterausschusses für Landwirtschaft (II. Unterausschuß), Bd. 15 (Berlin, 1931)Google Scholar; Reichs- und Preußische Ministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft, ed., Die deutsche Milchwirtschaft in der Gegenwart (Kempten, 1933).Google Scholar

46 Henneberg, Wilhelm, “Über Bacillus acidophilus und ‘Acidophilus-Milch’ (= Reform-Yoghurt),” Molkerei-Zeitung 40 (1926): 2633–35Google Scholar; Spieker, , “Joghurt in der Theorie und Praxis,” Milchwirtschaftliche Zeitung 34 (1929): 1505–8.Google Scholar

47 Spohr, J. L. P., “Acidophilus-Milch,” Molkerei-Zeitung 41 (1927): 604–5.Google Scholar

48 See, for example, “Konzentrierter Miltela-Yoghurt,” Zeitschrift für Biochemie 26 (1927): 22.Google Scholar Miltela was easy to spread and should be healthier than margarine and cheaper than butter.

49 See Lutz, , “Die Bedeutung der Joghurtmilch bzw. des Reformjoghurts für die Volksernährung und Volksgesundheit,” Landfrau 50 (1928): 2Google Scholar; Demeter, Karl J., “Über Acidophilusund Joghurt-Milch,” Milchwirtschaftliches Zentralblatt 59 (1930): 190–91.Google Scholar

50 For detailed information on yogurt products, see Kleeberg, Julius and Behrendt, Hans, Die Nährpräparate mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Sauermilcharten (Stuttgart, 1930).Google Scholar

51 Since the mid-1920s fermented milk was used by Bavarian doctors to treat dyspepsia and tuberculosis. Many of the bacteria cultures causing fermentation were analyzed by chemists and bacteriologists of the South-German Experimental and Research Station at Weihenstephan near Munich. The most promising bacteriological cultures were isolated to begin standardized test production in the laboratory, and afterwards, a large number of animal experiments were conducted to study health effects. Finally, the technological know-how was patented, and a new firm, Saya G.m.b.H., Munich, was established to produce and promote the most advanced brand “Saya” (which was the name of a traditional Russian fermented milk). For details see Kieferle, F., Demeter, Karl J., and Forster, A., “‘Saya,’ ein neues Sauermilchpräparat,” Süddeutsche Molkerei-Zeitung 50 (1929): 101–2Google Scholar; Forster, A., “‘Saya’ ein neues Sauermilchpräparat,” Deutsche Nahrungsmittel-Rundschau (1929): 83–85.Google Scholar

52 “‘Yarom,’ der neue süße Joghurt mit Fruchtaroma,” Molkerei-Zeitung 41 (1927): 1329Google Scholar; Schulz, Max E., “Joghurt und Joghurt-Kulturen,” Die Milchwissenschaft 4 (1949): 208.Google Scholar The new fruit yogurt was successfully introduced in Vienna and Prague, although the 200 gr. tub was 5 to 7 Pfg. more expensive than the common “natural” dish. On the other hand, yogurt was successfully combined with cheese, mainly camembert, to improve the flavor and to reduce the fat content.

53 Kater, Michael H., “Die ‘Gesundheitsführung’ des Deutschen Volkes,” Medizinhistorisches Journal 18, no. 4 (1983): 349–75.Google Scholar For a general view, see Welch, David, “Nazi Propaganda and the Volksgemeinschaft: Constructing a People's Community,” Journal of Contemporary History 39, no. 2 (2004): 213–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 For this, the fate of “Saya” is a good example. It failed mainly because of severe technological and distributional problems. See Baumgärtel, Traugott, “‘SAYA’ ein spezifisches Milchgärprodukt?” Milchwirtschaftliches Zentralblatt 59 (1930): 137–39Google Scholar; Kunze, Käte, “Über das Sauermilchpräparat Saya,” Phil. Diss., Leipzig, 1932.Google Scholar

55 Streck, Walter, “Erfolgreiche Werbung in der Milchwirtschaft,” Die Milchwissenschaft 4 (1949): 216–17.Google Scholar

56 Skar, Olav, “Die Pasteurisierung der Milch,” Milchwirtschaftliches Zentralblatt 61 (1932): 173–77,185–90.Google Scholar

57 Orland, Barbara, “Cow's Milk and Human Disease: Bovine Tuberculosis and the Difficulties Involved in Combating Animal Diseases,” Food & History 1, no. 1 (2003): 179–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Niemeyer, Hellmuth, “Rohe oder erhitzte Milch?” Der öffentliche Gesundheitsdienst 1 (1935/1936): Part B, 232–34.Google Scholar

58 Mainzer, Inold Hans, “Verkaufserfolge mit BIOghurt-Schwedenmilch,” Die Molkerei-Zeitung. Welt der Milch 12(1958): 1001Google Scholar; Wasserfall, Friedrich, “Bioghurt,” Milchwissenschaft 15 (1960): 383–92.Google Scholar

59 Storck, Wennemar, Milchmischgetränke und Sauermilchgetränke einschließlich Joghurt und Bioghurt (Hildesheim, 1959).Google Scholar

60 Wasserfall, F., “Sauermilchprodukte und ihre Bedeutung als Nahrungsmittel,” Ernährungs-Umschau 19 (1972): 155–58Google Scholar; Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., “A Consumer-Led Approach to Marketing of Foods in the EU: The Case of Yoghurt,” in European Research towards Safer and Better Food (3rd Karlsruhe Nutrition Forum), ed. Gaukel, V. and Spieß, W. E. L. (Karlsruhe 1998), 274–83.Google Scholar

61 LC1 yogurt lost its market leadership in the early 2000s to Danone's Actimel yogurt, and was sold to the German firm Müller-Milch. Today, Germany's €500 million probiotica market is dominated by Danone's brands Actimel and Activia. See Bär, Claudia, “Wellness portionsweise,” Lebensmittelzeitung 9, no. 9 (2007): 42–43.Google Scholar

62 For detailed information on modern marketing, see Spiekermann, Uwe, “Der Markt für Functional Food. Überblick, Bedeutung, Perspektiven,” Internationaler Arbeitskreis für Kulturforschung des Essens. Mitteilungen 8, no. 8 (2001): 25–36Google Scholar and “Zwischen Wissenschaft und Alltagskost. Funktionelle Lebensmittel auf dem Prüfstand,” Ernährung/Nutrition 31, no. 9 (2007): 364–71.Google Scholar For different cultural attitudes cf. ACNielsen, , “Functional Food and Organics: A Global ACNielsen Online Survey on Consumer Behavior and Attitudes, November, 2005” (n.p., 2005).Google Scholar

63 Heasman, Michael and Mellentin, Julian, eds., The Functional Foods Revolution: Healthy People, Healthy Profits? (London, 2001)Google Scholar; Meijboom, Franck L. B., “Trust, Food, and Health: Questions of Trust at the Interface between Food and Health,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20, no. 3 (2007): 231–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 Holm, Lotte, “Food Health Policies and Ethics: Lay Perspectives on Functional Foods,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16, no. 6 (2003): 531–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; König, Hartmut, “Verbraucherschutz und Verbrauchereinstellung heute,” in Functional Food—Forschung, Entwicklung und Verbraucherakzeptanz, ed. Gedrich, Kurt, Karg, Georg, and Oltersdorf, Ulrich (Karlsruhe, 2005), 35–52.Google Scholar In 2003, global sales added up to 0.71 million tons or less than 5 percent of total production. See Desktop Study into Demand for Dairy Products: Final Report for Daily Supply Chain Forum (London 2004), 95.Google Scholar

65 Cf. Ellerbrock Geschichte der deutschen Nahrungs- und Genußmittelindustrie, 375–76, although he used the misguiding term “era of canned food”; Spiekermann, Uwe, “Zeitensprünge: Lebensmittelkonservierung zwischen Haushalt und Industrie 1880–1940,” in Ernährungskultur im Wandel der Zeiten, ed. Katalyse, e.V. and Buntstift, e.V. (Cologne, 1997), 30–42Google Scholar; Humbert, Martin, diss., Hamburg, 1997.Google Scholar

66 For detailed information on technology, see Flick, Hermann, “150 Jahre Konservenindustrie: Ein geschichtlicher Überblick über das Wesen und Wachsen der Konservennahrung,” Die industrielle Obst- und Gemüseverwertung 45 (1960): 86–100Google Scholar; Nehring, Paul, “50 Jahre Konservendose—Ein Rückblick und Ausblick,” Die industrielle Obst- und Gemüseverwertung 50 (1965): 300–5Google Scholar; “120 Jahre Gemüse- und Obstkonserven,” Die industrielle Obstund Gemüseuerwertung 50 (1965): 241–93.Google Scholar

67 Such problems were discussed early but without any relevant result. See Renk, Friedrich, “Conservirung von Nahrungsmitteln,” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für öffentliche Gesundheitspflege 13 (1881): 36–50.Google Scholar

68 See Meinecke, Friedrich, Die volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung der deutschen Gemüse-Konservenindustrie (Braunschweig, 1914).Google Scholar Before 1914 canned foodstuffs, especially beans, were affordable for skilled workers, principally. But market range aimed at middle-class consumers. The consumer-cooperatives, as part of the labor movement, did not start their canning plants until the 1920s.

69 Hempel, Bruno, “Deutschlands Konservierungs- und Nahrungsindustrie,” Die Konserven-Industrie 19 (1932): 231Google Scholar; cf. Stegemann, Franz, “Die Konservenindustrie,” in Handbuch der Wirtschaftskunde Deutschlands, vol. 3 (Leipzig, 1904), 830–44.Google Scholar

70 Wagner, Curt, Konserven und Konservenindustrie in Deutschland (Jena, 1907).Google Scholar

71 The average price for 1 kilogram of canned peas dropped from 2 M in 1872 to 1 M in 1902; for canned beans, from 1 M to 30 Pfg. See Thorns, Henry Ed., “Die volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung der Obst- und Gemüsekonservenindustrie,” Monatsschrift für Handel und Industrie 16 (1906): 341.Google Scholar During that period the nominal yearly wages of skilled workers rose from ca. 500 M to ca. 800 M, while real wages increased probably more than 40 percent. See the different calculations in Pierenkemper, Toni, “The Standard of Living and Employment in Germany, 1850–1980: An Overview,” Journal of European Economic History 16, no. 1 (1987): 66.Google Scholar The problems in interpreting such average data are discussed in Spiekermann, Uwe, “Die Ernährung städtischer Arbeiter in Baden an der Wende vom 19. zum 20. Jahrhundert. Monotone Einheit oder integrative Vielheit?” Internationale wissenschaftliche Korrespondenz zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung 32, no. 4 (1996): 453–83.Google Scholar

72 Barg, B. H., “Konservierte Nahrungsmittel,” Zeitschrift für Volksernährung 13 (1938): 57.Google Scholar Canned meat was less important, mainly after the tariff reform of 1902, which closed the German market to cheaper U.S. imports. Meat dishes were canned either as luxuries or for consumption by the armed forces.

73 Examples are Schottelius, Max, “Giftige Konserven,” Die Umschau 10 (1906): 781–85Google Scholar; Gerhardt-Amyntor, Dagobert v., “Warum in meinem Hause keine Konserven gegessen werden,” Blätter für Volksgesundheitspflege 8 (1908): 33–35Google Scholar; Reitz, Adolf, “Konservengifte,” Kosmos 7 (1910): 217–22.Google Scholar

74 In 1902 and 1904, many preservatives were forbidden for meat and meat products. See “Technische Begründung des vorstehenden Bundesraths-Beschlusses über gesundheitsschädliche und täuschende Zusätze zu Fleisch und dessen Zubereitungen vom 18. Februar 1902,” Zeitschrift für Untersuchung der Nahrungs- und Genussmittel 5 (1902): 333–52.Google Scholar

75 “Die Borsäure im Reichstag,” Zeitschrift für öffentliche Chemie 9 (1903): 85–89, 105–112, 125–29Google Scholar; Schottelius, Max, “Konserven als Volksnahrung,” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für öffentliche Gesundheitspflege 42 (1910): 59–77 (incl. discussion).Google Scholar

76 Hydor, (pseudonym), “Verdorbene Nahrungsmittel, ihre Erkennung und Wirkung,” Der Zeitgeist 5 (1912): 504–7Google Scholar; “Gefahren in Lebensmitteln,” Blätter für Volksgesundheitspflege 12 (1912): 20–22.Google Scholar

77 See Spiekermann, Uwe, “Die Normalität des (Lebensmittel-)Skandals. Risikowahrnehmungen und Handlungsfolgen im 20. Jahrhundert,” Hauswirtschaft und Wissenschaft 52, no. 2 (2004): 61–63.Google Scholar

78 “Kupferhaltige Konserven,” Deutsche Nahrungsmittel-Rundschau 2 (1904): 59–61Google Scholar; “Giftige Konserven?” Deutsche Nahrungsmittel-Rundschau 9 (1911): 171,181.Google Scholar

79 Stengele, F., “Das Eindünsten von Obst und Gemüse nach J. Week's (verbesserte Dr. Rempel's und Hüffner's) Methode,” Wochenblatt des Landwirthschaftlichen Vereins im Großherzogthum Baden (1898): 358–;59, 380–82.Google Scholar

80 Müller, W. D., “Aus der Werbegeschichte des Hauses, Week,’” Mitteilungen des Vereins Deutscher Reklamefachleute (1915): 280–82.Google Scholar

81 The price of Week's basic standard equipment (pot and jar holder) was ca. 13 M, depending on size and materíal. A 1 kg. glass jar cost 0.85 M, a rubber band 0.10 M (Week Preisliste Nr. 18 [;Öflingen, 1913], s.p.). Hundreds of household advice books and cookbooks reflected and presented home canning as a standard skill of German bourgeois housewives. See Wiedemann, Inga, Herrin im Hause: Durch Koch- und Haushaltsbücher zur bürgerlichen Hausfrau (Pfaffenweiler, 1993).Google Scholar Over time, Week diversified the range of products. Smaller equipment sets were offered for as little as 5.10 M, competitors sold even cheaper machines, and—apart from the inflation period—fixed prices steadily reduced the relative costs of home canning.

82 Kuhn, Barbel, “‘… und herrschet weise im häuslichen Kreise’: Hausfrauenarbeit zwischen Disziplin und Eigensinn,” in Verbrecher, Strafen und soziale Kontrolle: Studien zur historischen Kulturforschung 3, ed. Dülmen, Richard v. (Frankfurt/M., 1990), 238–77, 301–6.Google Scholar Jars and canning machines were durable consumer goods, which one could expect to use for several decades. Only rubber rings and locks needed to be replaced after about six uses.

83 Although jars were the containers predominantly used for preserving food, more than 50 million cans were also produced in German households in 1930. This was 50 percent of the whole output of the canning industry. See Hempel, Bruno, “Immer breitere Basis der Herstellung von Gemüse- und Obstkonserven in Deutschland,” Die Konserven-Industrie 19 (1932): 56.Google Scholar

84 Willms, Angelika, “Grundzüge der Entwicklung der Frauenarbeit von 1880 bis 1980,” in Müller, Walter, Willms, Angelika, and Handl, Johann, Stmkturwandel der Frauenarbeit 1880–1980 (Frankfiirt/M., 1983), 35.Google Scholar In the prewar and early postwar periods German women's employment rates exceeded those in the U.K. and the U.S.

85 See Saul, H., “Die Gemüse- und Obstkonservenfabrik der GEG in Stendal,” Konsumgenossenschaftliche Rundschau 24 (1927): 116–17Google Scholar; Sierakovsky, Fritz, “Der Erweiterungsbau der Konservenfabrik der GEG in Stendal,’ Konsumgenossenschaftliche Rundschau 26 (1929): 402–3.Google Scholar

86 “Konservierung und Vitaminzerstörung,” Die Volksernährung 4 (1929): 252–54Google Scholar; Kirchhof, Hans, Ratgeber für Dosen-Konservierung im Haushalt und Kleinbetrieb (Braunschweig, 1936).Google Scholar

87 Winkler, E., “Welchen Umfang nimmt die Konserve in unserer heutigen Ernährung ein?” Zeitschrift für Ernährung 1 (1931): 307–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

88 “Die Konservengegner,” Die Volksernährung 5 (1930): 112–13Google Scholar; Fincke, Heinrich, “‘Gift in der Nahrung,’” Deutsche Nahrungsmittel-Rundschau (1931): 112–15.Google Scholar

89 Data from “Ergebnisse einer Untersuchung über die häusliche Vorratshaltung,” Markt und Verbrauch 14 (1942): 81 and 72.Google Scholar

90 “Die Konservenindustrie im Jahre 1937,” Wirtschaft und Statistik 18 (1938): 595–96.Google Scholar

91 “Vollkonserven—die Zukunft der deutschen Fischkonserven,” Deutsche Fischerei-Rundschau (1933): 331–34.Google Scholar

92 Mosolff, Hans, “Der Aufbau der deutschen Gefrierindustrie,” Der Vierjahresplan 5 (1941): 596–600Google Scholar; Emblik, Eduard, “Die Bedeutung der Gefrierkonserve in der europäischen Gro” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Kälteindustrie 50 (1943): 89–93.Google Scholar

93 Berghoff, Hartmut, “Enticement and Deprivation: The Regulation of Consumption in Pre-War Nazi Germany,” in Politics of Consumption: Material Culture and Citizenship in Europe and America, ed. Daunton, Martin and Hilton, Matthew (Oxford, 2001), 173.Google Scholar

94 “Europa als Markt fur konservierte Nahrungsmittel. Zusammengestellt von der Firma J.A. Schmalbach,” Die industrielle Obst- und Gemüseverwertung 43 (1958): 466.Google Scholar

95 Kirsch, Paul G., “Mehr als eine Milliarde in Konserven: Die Einfuhr macht zu schaffen,” Der Volkswirt 16 (1962): 2524–26.Google Scholar

96 See Heinecke, Barbel, Nahrungs- und Genußmittelindustrie: Strukturelle Probleme und Wachstumschancen (Berlin, München, 1964), 84–87Google Scholar; Müller, Jan, Entwicklung der Konzentration in der Ernährungsindustrie in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland von 1962 bis 1970, vol. 2 (Munich, 1973), 6–40Google Scholar; Breitenacher, Michael and Täger, Uwe Christian, Ernährungsindustrie. Strukturwandlungen in Produktion und Absatz (Berlin, 1990).Google Scholar

97 In 1954, 75 percent of German households preserved food. See Mosolff, Hans, Schwenzer, J. E., and Andersen, E., Marktanalyse über Zucker (Bonn, 1954), 65.Google Scholar

98 Kirchmann, Ruth, Einmachen in Deutschland (Bonn, 2002).Google Scholar

99 For a comparative view, see Hamilton, Shane, “The Economics and Convenience of Modern-Day Living: Frozen Foods and Mass Marketing, 1945–1965,” Business History Review 77 (Spring 2003), 33–60Google Scholar; Davies, David and Charr, Alf, “When It's Time to Make a Choice”: Fifty Years of Frozen Food in Britain (Grantham, 1998).Google Scholar

100 Original data from http://www.tiefkuehlinstitut.de. On product innovation, compare to Pawlik, Heike, Die Nachfrage nach Tiefkühlkost—Struktur, Bestimmungsgründe und Perspektiven (Hamburg, Berlin, 1993).Google Scholar

101 Data from Statistisches Jahrbuch über Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten 50 (2006): 217 and 223.Google Scholar The market share of German cans was 12 percent (vegetables) and 33 percent (fruit).