[Exploring Life] Nutritionism is an ideology that promotes the belief that essential nutrients in food can be identified and taken in recommended quantities in order to maintain or improve health as well as decrease the probability of disease. The beliefs, aims and ideas behind nutritionism are promoted by science, industry and government health organizations. However, the beliefs about nutrition that have been promoted over time have been subject to constant revision and contradiction.
Nutritionism and Confusion-ism
Nutritional science is an inexact science that assumes whole food can be reduced to its “essential” components. Industry, feeding off of the constant changes in science, is quick to market the latest nutritional orthodoxy on their own food products. Government food agencies are equally quick to promote the latest food pyramid and scientific assumptions in policies that affect what we consume.[1] All three of the groups thrive on constant change and constantly repositioning themselves as solutions to problems that they may in fact be responsible for.
Various kinds of expertise that lay claim to dietary and nutritional insight have grown at exponential rates and compete for our attention in the marketplace. The confusion that has been created is near chaotic and easily overwhelms even the most dedicated consumer. How can we seek common sense in the midst of confused and often myopic waves of expert advice?
To understand the essence of nutritionism places us directly in the chaotic growth of information. All marketing originates in the propagation of confusion, doubt, uncertainty, anxiety, and biased perspectives. Marketing is a methodology that is designed to create victims through the manipulation of information. A confused, worried, doubtful, uncertain or anxious consumer is also an ideal consumer to offer apparent solutions to. Aside from the fact that most marketing and advertising treat people as if they are inept, they intentionally perpetuate confusion and chaos in the marketplace often wrapped in the illusion of promise and hope.
The source of confusion often presents itself in the form of a solution or desirable state. All solutions first require a problem, and it is the marketers primary objective to manufacture a problem to which a solution can be offered. The problem itself may be real or apparent. The intent of the marketer may be sincere or merely material. Health and well being provides fertile ground for manufacturing problems and solutions since it strikes a universal concern.
For example, leading people to believe that certain nutrients will improve health and offer protection from disease has been the foundation of nutritional science, food production and government policy for many years. However, the advice and products being offered have constantly shifted ground and in some cases what was once celebrated as a positive health benefit, in the fullness of time, revealed itself to be detrimental. In this circumstance the marketing strategy has been to sweep away the now detrimental advice and product offerings and replace them with the new nutritional religion of the day.
The perpetuation of confusion and information overload is the essence of marketing and consumerism.
The Myopic Assumption of Nutritional Science
It is obvious to say that science is not in itself bad. However, bad science does exist. In order to determine the utility of a scientific approach it is necessary to understand the assumptions it rests on. The basic premise of nutritional science is that the right nutrients can be isolated and identified, and if people take these nutrients in prescribed quantities that will be healthier and less prone to disease. Though the intent is obviously good, the assumption is bad and misguided. Since nutritional scientists work from a foundation of reductionism by being singly focused on reducing food to its component parts (nutrients), they ignore nutrition as a complex system of interaction that extends throughout the food chain, the environment and our lifestyle.[1]
For example, sunlight is a natural source of vitamin D. Sunscreen blocks the ultraviolet rays that cause the skin to produce it. Over-exposure to sunlight may increase the probability of skin cancer. Under-exposure to sunlight may result in a vitamin D deficiency. The American Pediatric Association has recently doubled the recommended daily intake of vitamin D as a supplement:
“New evidence [also] supports a potential role for vitamin D in maintaining innate immunity and preventing diseases such as diabetes and cancer,” the new policy reads.
The policy increases the recommended vitamin D intake for children and adolescents from 200 IU to 400 IU per day.
“The recommendation is going to be essentially a supplement for every child and adolescent in the United States,” said co-author Frank R. Greer, a University of Wisconsin pediatrician.[2]
This is the kind of recommendation is a marketers dream. Further complicating the issue is confusion about whether or not sunscreen actually promotes skin cancer rather than preventing it. Han Larson concludes that “The saga of sunscreens and skin cancer is far from over. Research is continuing and new findings are being published at an accelerated pace. But until we know the whole story, it would seem prudent to take precautions based on what we do know.”[3] The problem here is that “what we do know” is incomplete and potentially misguided, so it may not in fact “be prudent” to “take precautions” since they may exacerbate the problem.
It is a glaringly obvious reality that nutrients exist in relationship to one another and have a vast range of interactive properties that permeate the food chain, the environment and our lifestyles. To isolate “good” nutrients and propose that a recommended collection of them can be taken in pill or powder form is a at best myopic. Detrimental health effects often reveal themselves slowly over an extended period of time. [4]
The Interplay of Incompetence
Nutritional science is closely linked to government policy and quickly brings to mind the notion of a food pyramid. The fundamental failure of government policy is its inability to be formulated in ways that are free from the influence of industry. The food pyramid is an inept tool in promoting knowledge about food and dietary choices. Michele Simon, a public health attorney in the U.S. writes:
The very name MyPyramid tells us the government is squarely placing all responsibility for eating right with you and me. Never mind those pesky government subsidies and tax breaks to big agribusiness and food manufacturers that make unhealthy food so cheap and ubiquitous…
Now that the pyramid has been completely hijacked by the food industry and promises to be as useless an educational tool as it ever was, it’s time to hang up the effort altogether. Just think of all the money government could save in addition to $2.5 million if it really wanted to improve America’s eating habits: no more paying for expensive PR firms, corporate welfare, high healthcare costs, or fitness bimbos.[5]
Until governments assume a leadership role in food and food production their policies and advice will remain inept and misguided. Food corporations exist for profit. The quality of food, or edible food substance, they produce is by default a secondary consideration.
Summary
The benefit of nutritional science is in its ability to reveal and communicate information and advice about food that promotes health and well being. The notion of isolating nutrients and promoting one over another is short-sighted and potentially harmful. Nutritional science will benefit people to the extent it can reveal the complex interplay of nutrients. However, nutritional science should be integrated with environmental science since this is the basic source of our food. Both history and anthropology are required to reveal the impact of nutrition across time and culture. In other words, the true study of nutrition is one that is inherently interdisciplinary.
Footnotes
1. The conflict of opinions and perspectives surrounding nutrition and nutritionism is extensive. A good example of the contradictions found within the scientific community alone can be found at Prof Patrick Holford makes a basic error about antioxidant side effects.
2. From New Guidelines Double the Recommended Amount of Vitamin D
3. Larson, Hans. Sunscreens and Skin Cancer.
4. A good overview of the main issues of nutritionism is Pollan Blasts Low-Carb Bread, Not So Healthy Chips: Book Review.
5. MyPyramid Inc. by Michele Simon
