When reading Michael Pollan’s rules in In Defense of Food, it raised a lot of questions for me. I’d actually read this piece several times, but the one rule that got me thinking about consumer knowledge was the one about health claims. The classic reference to low-fat or fat free products comes to mind. But his reference to margarine lead me to consider trendier foods such as coconut oil or quinoa. I understand the difference between these foods and the lack of scientific proof behind the margarine claim of the 50’s but they too have been glorified and praised in the media as well as celebrities who cite their health benefits. They can be hyped up to mythical proportions, but who is the real authority on these matters? When these foods are trending, it can be difficult to find any hard hitting scientific evidence from a reliable source, they start popping up in tons of food blogs and online recipes. Of course, Pollan insists that consumers use common sense when it comes to buying food, but is that all there is to nutrition education? Particularly in this day and age when information is swarming: what is good information and in what context is this information true? These foods also have a lot to do with a topic that Pollan discusses later which is cultural food and how the context of these foods is important.
On another note, I was at the store the other day picking up some snacks for work. I wasn’t thinking and grabbed a container of generic looking peanuts at random. It wasn’t until this morning that I realized there were a number of other ingredients listed on the back, including “corn syrup solids”, which had also been listed on the back of the non-dairy creamer I was inspecting at work this morning. This goes back to Pollan’s policy on the extensive/unpronounceable ingredient list, but I really just wanted to highlight the absurdity and complication that has been brought to such a simple food. I prefer it if I did not have to read on the back of my legumes container: “may contain milk”. This experience, however, did make me think about how these seemingly extraneous ingredients found their way into my grocery bag. As Petrini talking about in Slow Food Nation, flavor and manipulation of “natural” foods in their original form can be very telling of the current cultural climate. As of now, a good portion of the U.S. population is in favor of “artificial” that trumps all other responsibilities. I wonder where we began to cross the line from “natural” into “artificial” flavor (considering that everything is essentially natural). But mostly I’m wondering if the MSG on my peanuts is really necessary.
Hi Cornelia,
Your title “Food in Context” really brought me into thinking about the healthy diets. Because based on my observations and experiences, I have been found that it is a critical issue for both consumers and food industries to stay reasonable and obey the rule of the nature. Because foods are the energy for our lives, and we should learn to use our energies wisely and live harmony with the mother nature.
From my own perspective, food in context can be interpreted in three different aspects. The first is that the food itself should remain intact and original. This is being said, without taking certain scientific-based “good nutrients” transplant to another food. Otherwise, I would not consider them as food, because they are the food products belong to the home called “laboratory”. Real foods should come from nature. Real foods are simple rather than being second-handed or even multi-handed through the process of manufactories. Second, food in context should also consider the health condition, or rather seeing each individual’s body as a context. Because everyone has different preferences and situations, in order to make informed food choices consumers should be aware of their own situations rather than following the marketing health claims. There is no doubt that health claims are big part of the problem in our current food business model. I always feel myself struggle with understanding the health messages and how they relate to my own situation. However, I think what I can do is to use my mind and observe my thoughts before I make decisions. Finally, food in context also takes into account the “real context”. This means the environment we grow foods as well as the setting we consume foods.
I too have found myself with similar thoughts and concerns around modern day health food crazes. As we move to a generation with an increased focus on food and food production, there will undoubtedly be conflicts due to the nature of capitalism. That being said, I also think that the validity behind products like coconut oil and other popular products can’t be written off altogether. From a nutrition perspective, science can tell a lot about the health effects of a product by a simple analysis of its components. However, like you mentioned in your margarine example, there is also a lot that cannot and will never be known for certain. It’s this uncertainty that makes common sense with food so difficult-especially for those who don’t have access to the most up to date research.
Your comments on reading ingredient lists reminded me of another one of Michael Pollan’s works called “Food Rules” where he offers very straightforward rules to food. For example, one rule talks about not eating things that your grandmother wouldn’t recognize. Another rule states that, for the most part, we shouldn’t consume anything with more than 5 ingredients (with some exceptions). While Pollan does make some pretty big assumptions on “common sense” in ‘In Defense of Food’, I’ve found that some of his other works offer more tangible food advice.
Similar to Erin and Cornelia above, I too hold very skeptical views towards modern day health foods. Take the mentioned coconut oil as an example, although it might be true that coconut oil can improve blood cholesterol levels, it is unbelievable how people are taking these health foods to an extreme. I know someone who mixes 2 teaspoons of coconut oil into their bowl of rice just because they believe it is a superfood. No matter how strong scientific evidence is, I don’t believe that eating oil is good for you. I am sure time will be the best evidence of this because in 10 years, we will be able to see whether the claimed effects of these health foods stand true.
Responding to Cornelia’s concern on why so many unnecessary ingredients are added into even the most simple food, to put it in one sentence, I think it is to meet new needs that have arose and never existed in the past. Our need to keep things longer leads to more preservatives added to food. Similarly, our standards towards the outward appearance of food also leads to the use of more food coloring and flavorings because who would buy something that doesn’t look appealing?