This chapter draws the argument together and offers suggestions for future research. It assesses the difference it makes to approach convenience food in terms of social practice theory and the insights that can be drawn from our comparative, international and interdisciplinary approach. The chapter highlights the analytical utility of the distinction we draw between ‘convenience’ and ‘convenient’ food and the value of our key concept of ‘conveniencization’. Conclusions are provided at the level of the project as a whole and for each of our four cases, including a series of inferences about the relevance of our work for policy and practice. The chapter summarizes the lessons learnt from our ‘reframing’ of convenience food through a social practice lens in terms of the health and environmental implications of current consumption practices and the potential for developing healthier and more sustainable alternatives.
- DeVault, M. (1991). Feeding the family: The social organisation of caring as gendered work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Grinnell-Wright, V., Wilson, J., & Downing, P. (2013). Review of evidence on consumer food-related behaviours that impact on sustainability (Final Report EVO541). Best Foot Forward: The Sustainability Consultants.Google Scholar
- Grunert, K. G. (2003). Conveniencemad [Convenience food]. In L. Holm & S. T. Kristensen (Eds.), Mad, Mennesker og Måltider [Food, people and meals] (pp. 227–238). Copenhagen: Munksgaard (second edition 2012).Google Scholar
- Halkier, B. (2013). Easy eating? Negotiating convenience food in media food practices. In L. Hansson, U. Holmberg, & H. Brembeck (Eds.), Making sense of consumption (pp. 119–136). Gothenburg: Gothenburg University Press.Google Scholar
- MINTEL. (2013). Prepared meals. London: Mintel Group.Google Scholar
- Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Warde, A. (2016). The practice of eating. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar