AUDRN Project on "Promoting Indigenous Filipino Food Ingredients through Digital 'Social Tags'"

Promoting Indigenous Filipino Food Ingredients

through Digital ‘Social Tags’

Project Leader: MARK RAYGAN E. GARCIA Institution: Silliman University, Dumaguete City, Philippines Website: www.smarkideas.comEmail: [email protected]

1. Promote indigenous Filipino food ingredients in modern-day cooking using digital tools (website, YouTube, Facebook)

2. Develop “social tags” on identified indigenous Filipino food ingredients to establish their cultural/historical relevance.

Aims and Objectives

3. Produce instructional videos of cooking demonstrations for online access and availability on discussion platforms.

4. Facilitate the strengthening of the Filipino identity through increased awareness of indigenous Filipino food ingredients.

5. Assist in addressing malnutrition and promoting healthy

eating using indigenous food recipes.

Methodology (1 of 3)

Phase 1Orientation

• Profiling • Expectation-Setting • Identification & Ranking of Indigenous Ingredients • ‘Town Hall’ Discussion on Food as Identity• Tasking

* Documentation; Popularization on Facebook

Phase 1 Implementation

Ingredients Ranking 1 Kalamunggay Nilag-ga 2 Tabyos Nilag-ga 3 Kalabasa Nilubihan 4 Kapayas Atsara 5 Patani Ginisa 6 Talong Torta 7 Sayote Ginisa 8 Okra Nilag-ga 9 Balatong Nilat-an 10 Monggos Ginisa 11 Puso sa Saging Pinirito 12 Tinangkong Nilag-ga 13 Nangka Hinumba

Questions Why do you use these Filipino food ingredients?

If you had the money, would you still use and serve these Filipino food ingredients?

What memories of your childhood can you remember through these Filipino food ingredients?

If your children would refuse to use these Filipino ingredients, how would you feel?

Why do you think young people today, especially those living in urban areas, do not have the same appreciation for these Filipino food ingredients? What can be done about it?


Phase 2Demonstration

• On-site Step-by-Step Preparation & Cooking• Interviews (Instructional; Anecdotal) • Tasting & Critique

* Documentation (using mobile phone & ordinary camera)

Phase 2 Implementation

LOLITA PARTOSADish: Sinakol Age: 45Children: 6Education: Elementary Grad

Docu. Tool: LG KP500

ALICIA TUQUERODish: Tortang Puso Saging Age: 27Children: 3Education: Grade 1

Docu. Tool: Sony Digicam

BLECY ENCILAYDish: Nilubihang Kalabasa Age: 26Children: 3Education: High School Grad

Docu. Tool: Blackberry 8810

ROSALIE ELLORENDish: Tortang Talong Age: 41Children: 3Education: 2nd Year HS

Docu. Tool: Sony Cybershot

ANALIZA GADINGANDish: Ginisang Mongos Age: 34Children: 2Education: College Level

Docu. Tool: Sony Digicam

CANESIA GADINGANDish: Nilat-ang Tabios Age: 21Children: 1Education: -

Docu. Tool: Canon Digicam

JILL HULGUINDish: Humbang Nangka Age: 26Children: 4Education: High School Grad

Docu. Tool: Sony Cybershot

MAHLOU CASTUMBRAS Dish: Ginisang Balataong Age: 25Children: 1Education: 3rd Year HS

Docu. Tool: Nokia 3120 C


Phase 3Packaging

• Transcription & Translation • Nutritional Content Analysis • Video Development • Uploading (Facebook, YouTube,

www.smarkideas.com)

Outcomes1. Promotion of the Maayong Tubig community (livelihood and

resource availability; culture: sense of belonging and oneness; characteristic of resilience).

2. Reinforcement of the value of local Filipino food recipes vis-à-vis sense of pride and identity.

3. “Outsiders’” appreciation for indigenous Filipino food ingredients (“discovery” of what already exists for generations).

4. Widened reference and discussion options.

Applications/Outputs 1. Integration into curriculum/program as a service-learning

activity. (Education, Nutrition and Dietetics, Socio-Anthro, Communication)

2. Utilization as a reference (or subject) for online discussions among students and/or faculty on local knowledge (how seemingly trivial items such as food build identity)

3. Adoption of methodologies as an approach to undertaking IRE-related initiatives.

Conclusions1. Food choices are influenced by at least two things:

(a) availability of resources(b) personal affinity/experience.

1. Food builds up identity; identity roots from what links you to family (clan or generation; ancestry) or a personal experience.

2. Food bridges cultural divide.

* Nothing beats the sincerity of people in grassroots communities.

Recommendations1. Conduct a national (and/or regional) online dialogue on

indigenous food with focus on: (a) extent by which food builds identity (b) interconnectedness [yet distinctness] of localities/

cultures through food ingredients (c) food-related threats (actual and/or potential) to culture

2. Outputs in #1 to be consolidated into an/a I/R/E material. 3. Integration as a service-learning activity. (Twist: SL via the Net)

References

Website: www.smarkideas.com (Project Documents > Indigenous Food)

Facebook: “Indigenous Food Ingredients”

YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/smarkideas

Daghang salamat!

Project Leader: MARK RAYGAN E. GARCIA Institution: Silliman University, Dumaguete City, Philippines Website: www.smarkideas.comEmail: [email protected]