Spam: Redefining Food

By Laura Moncur @ 5:00 am — Filed under:

Click to see full sizeI was reading the retro advertisement blog, Found in Mom’s Basement, and I saw this ad for Spam from 1975. I was six years old in 1975. I loved Spam. Looking at the picture of Spam and eggs reminded me of how much I loved Spam.

Now, I don’t really consider Spam food. Just like styrofoam or crayons, sure you can chew and swallow it, but it’s now categorized in the “Not Food” category. When did that happen?

Nutrition facts. I’m pretty sure I classified Spam as “Not Food” when I could actually see how much fat and how little meat there was in that can. Logically, that makes sense, right? It must have been when I saw the nutrition facts.

Spam Nutrition Facts via NutritionData.comThe truth is, the nutrition facts for Spam look pretty bad. According to NutritionData, Spam has almost twice the calories and fat than regular ham.

When we were kids, Spam was considered the coolest food. Just look at the ad showing it used in so many different situations. Although my parents never barbequed it or put it on pizza, I’ve eaten spam in casseroles, with eggs and on sandwiches. We always had a can of it in the cupboard, just in case.

All of this has me thinking. If Spam was a perfectly cromulent food in 1975, what food of today is going to be the Spam of tomorrow? Flax seed cereal? Cabbage soup? Whole foods in general? Whatever the food fad of today, there is certainly going to be a backlash for it later.

Our definition of food is constantly changing and it’s hard to keep up. Poor Spam just got caught in the crossfire between marketing and nutrition.


One Response to “Spam: Redefining Food”

  1. iportion Says:

    they have spam light it’s prob not as light as ham but if you want span.

Leave a Reply


Powered by WordPress
(c) 2004-2017 Starling Fitness / Michael and Laura Moncur