Food to die for?

There is no question that the general public has been increasingly frustrated by the advice it receives about diet and health. The perception is that, instead of clarifying things, new research only adds confusion by contradicting previous “evidence.” For example, we were told to avoid butter because of its saturated fat content and use vegetable oil instead, only to learn later that vegetable oils contain trans fatty acids, which are as bad as saturated fat. Scientists blame the media for this confusion, because they hype “hot” results, regardless of their quality or relevance, and cite partial results out of context. In turn, the media blame scientists, and some journalists accuse them of “nutritionism”—of having reduced food to lists of chemicals, in the process providing justification to a food industry that is eager to create more, ever changing products that end up having little resemblance to natural foods. This is why Pollan, clearly in the anti-nutritionist camp, feels the need to come to the defence of “real” food.

Pollan, however, cannot avoid going a step further, developing a full conspiracy theory, in which scientists and the food industry deliberately avoid mentioning whole foods, focusing instead in their advice on individual nutrients (saturated fat, cholesterol, and so on). Why? To protect producers of “bad” foods, Pollan claims. Thus, instead of saying, “Don’t eat meat,” scientists say, “Don’t eat saturated fat,” hoping that by the time the average person has figured out the difference between saturated and unsaturated fat they will have finished that quarter pounder with cheese. He calls this a “great Conspiracy of Scientific Complexity” (his capitals).

In fact, there is no need to invoke a conspiracy: some corporations have always used scientific facts to sell more and to gain market share by justifying new “unique” products, from cars to snack bars. Many of these new products have no demonstrable advantage to consumers. The food industry, not immune to this trend, has used discoveries in nutrition science to sell more products by using questionable claims or taking advantage of inconclusive (and confusing) scientific evidence. However, that supermarkets are full of unnecessary processed foods does not mean that food should never be processed or that non-processed foods are inherently better, as Pollan implies throughout his book.

Pollan believes that as far as food is concerned we have strayed way off course and that we should return to a path of pure and natural food. He recommends “not to eat anything that your great-grandmother would not approve of” (in this book grandma is often called on to support an argument). But this is meaningless advice. The challenge for nutrition science, just as for nuclear physics, genetics, and science in general, is not to bury our discoveries and dream about a simpler past but to apply new knowledge in a positive way to improve our lives. Pollan believes that the only way we can resolve food related problems such as obesity is to ignore discovery and reinstate an idyllic food paradise that never existed. He may be lucky enough to have a great grandmother who is alive and well enough to go with him to the supermarket, but the truth is that our great grandmothers had 15 years less life expectancy than we do know, and this advance came about in part thanks to (initially confusing) scientific discoveries, including in the area of nutrition. In spite of the contradictory nature of discovery in progress, advances in the science of nutrition have greatly enhanced our ability to provide a better, stable food supply to the population. Pollan believes the opposite: that the lack of change in a pattern of diet is proof of its quality. This is naive at best. Traditional dietary practices have plenty of examples that are detrimental to health. Regretfully, grandma’s dietary advice sometimes can be wrong.

Pollan starts his book with sound advice: “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.” He may not like it, but this is the same advice given for decades by scientists whom he puts in the nutritionism camp. The 1995 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend that “most of your calories should come from fruits, vegetables, and grains.” The 2000 guidelines state: “Build your eating pattern from a variety of plant foods.” All these guidelines emphasise control of energy intake and maintaining body weight, and the most recent include guidance on portion size. There is no question, however, that following these simple recommendations in the current food environment is a daunting task. Pollan’s book emphasises the respect for natural foods and for the act of eating as an important social and cultural part of our daily life. I could not agree more. But these goals may be elusive for most people unless we as a society also demand fundamental changes in the production, marketing, and regulation of our food.

Pollan recommends “not to eat anything that your great-grandmother would not approve of.” But this is meaningless advice