Food industry, journalists, and government (oh my!)

Simple Living Book Club » In Defense of Food, by Michael Pollan » Part I: The Age of Nutritionism

Food industry, journalists, and government (oh my!)

(13 posts)

Tsh
Lead Reader
Thinking Reader

"But while nutritionism has its roots in a scientific approach to food, it's important to remember that it is not a science but an ideology, and that the food industry, journalism, and government bear just as much responsibility for its conquest of our minds and diets." -pg. 80

In your opinion, who's to blame the most? The government? The scientists and food industry? Journalists?

SimpleMom.net
SimpleLivingMedia.com
"If we did all the things we are capable of doing, we would astonish ourselves." -Thomas Edison

Posted 4 months ago #
Nedrocks
Member
Reader

To me, no one element is the most to blame. The government has not done enough to correct past actions that are now showing to be detrimental, such as the ongoing subsidy of corn. The food industry is a misnomer since very little of industrialized food-stuff involves actual food. It seems to have more in common with the chemical industry than food.

Posted 4 months ago #
cscott
Member
Thinking Reader

I think there's plenty of blame to go around, but unfortunately, the government endorsement and advocacy of junk science seems to have had the largest impact. The government is the bully pulpit, not so much scientists, the food industry or journalists.

Posted 4 months ago #
nancybo
Member
Reader

It all goes hand in hand. "But if food and eating stand in need of a defense, from whom or what, do they need defending? From nutrition science on one side and from the food industry on the other - and from the needless complications around eating that together they have fostered. " -p.7 The food industry wanting to make money, the nutritionists attempting to help us find our way to health and we, the followers trying our best to navigate the muddy waters of low-fat cheese and cookies.

Posted 4 months ago #
kcoleman
Member
Reader

I think it is obvious that the food industry and the government are worthy of blame. But I believe that even more so the American people ought to be ashamed of themselves! Since when do we in America want the State to be our mommy and tell us how to run our lives? Why do Americans feel the need to have an expert opinion before they make a choice so simple as what to eat for dinner? We want to be able to blame it on someone else when we get fat or are diagnosed with heart disease.

I believe that there is certainly a place for scientific exploration and discovery, but historically this has been a result of the curiosity of individuals, not the need for a big company to support its product or a big government to support the laws it passes. People need to start doing research for themselves and start holding companies, legislators, and health care providers accountable. People need to take their health back into their own hands.

Posted 4 months ago #
FruggieHippie
Member
Thinking Reader

@Nedrocks, "It seems to have more in common with the chemical industry than food. " - very well put!

I also think it all goes hand in hand. The food industry needs to sell their products. We live in a culture that highly values scientific findings and report. They enlist scientist to show that their "food-like substance", or "imitation" like Pollan calls them, as good for you, heck why not even better than the real thing. Eventually that catches on through journalist reports and press release.

This makes me think of the formula revolution back in the '50s(ish): now we have formula for babies, which we know exactly what is in it, nutrients and all. Why breastfeed, if you can control the nutrients with formula? We have no idea what is in breastmilk, and if we don't know what's in it, then it can't be good. (slight omission of the fact that it was perfectly good enough for millions of year before that).

I agree with @kcoleman, that there is a place for scientific exploration and discovery. But it should remain for the sake of curiosity, not to dictate how everyone should or shouldn't eat based on the latest fad (which history have often proved wrong a few years later)

Posted 4 months ago #
JenT
Member
Thinking Reader

I guess I think the "scientific" part is kind of key here. For the last half century we have been trained/taught that empirical evidence is best and so much of what is written on labels appears to be "official" and "scientific" and we feel like that is good. And a handful of carrots doesn't have that reassuring label.... (or as mentioned above, breastmilk!) Laying the blame is tough here. Yeah, government, industry, media, but you could make the list longer....what about your grade 7 science teacher who taught you about the value of making a hypothesis and scientific method? Okay, I am being a bit ridiculous, but my point is that the whole "worship" of science is so ingrained in our society in this day and age that we feel good when it can be applied to our eating habits.

Posted 4 months ago #
loreejo
Member
Reader

I think it's mostly perpetuated by journalism! The scientific findings, irregardless of soundness of study, get the headlines. The more controversial, the louder bang for the buck. "Eggs are bad." "Nooooo, eggs are goood!" etc. Headlines are advertisement too. The different food industries conduct studies to perpetuate findings that make people want to eat their foods. I guess it's all of them really. "Science" --> "Headlines" --> "Sales"

Posted 4 months ago #
FruggieHippie
Member
Thinking Reader

So true. I'm always wary when I see a new finding - I like to look into it further, if it's something I find interesting, or see who conducted the study. If Nestlé conducts a study to decide if their formula is better (for example), then that would raise a flag for me!
(sorry for all the breastfeeding examples - I guess that's a fairly current thing for me, with my oldest only 2 and currently pregnant ;-) )

Some people around me are very headline oriented, and often comes to me and announces the latest study. Unfortunately, I can't get excited with them - I'm either sceptic, or knew it already. But then I'm accused of having a know-it-all attitude *sigh* Leaving the mainstream is never easy :)

Posted 4 months ago #
gidget
Member
Reader

If I had to pick one, I'd say government, because as Annie Leonard says in "The Story of Stuff," they are the ones who are supposed to be protecting us and looking out for our best interest.
It's so sad because the general public will believe whatever the FDA and other regulatory agencies tell us is safe and healthy. My mom, for example, a baby boomer, has a very hard time believing that they might not actually have the people in the best interest, but rather their wallets.

Posted 3 months ago #
lindsaye
Member
Reader

I agree with cscott that "the government endorsement and advocacy of junk science seems to have had the largest impact"---we are conditioned to trust the government from very early in life, and I can't imagine a situation where a child in a public school would question the Department of Agriculture's food pyramid, for example. I think (hope) we are teaching our kids that you can't believe everything you read/hear and that this healthy skepticism extends to matters of food.

Posted 3 months ago #
MomOf4
Member
Reader

I think the blame falls on all of the above, with primary blame on the consumer. It should not take a rocket scientist to know that no matter how low-fat, low- carb, etc Apple Jacks (or any sugar laden cereal) are, that they simply are not good for you or your kids. I am simply amazed when I see what kids eat for lunch at school and amazed at the number of overweight children. It makes me sad.

I am enjoying this book, thank you for the discussion.

It is difficult to navigate through what is good and what is not - The puzzle pieces are always changing.

Posted 3 months ago #
FruggieHippie
Member
Thinking Reader

I agree with @MomOf4 - ultimately, it does fall back on the consumer, and on our buying power. What you mentioned, about the low-fat, low-carb etc., makes me think of the whole idea behind these - sure, it's low something, but to be low in something, it has to be high in something else, or else it would taste terrible. Low-fat yogourt is notoriously high in sugar. And those at only 50 cal... they are high in sugar substitute, which are not really that much better! It's better to eat full fat yogourt less often (although according to Pollan and his deconstruction of the low-fat fad - which I found VERY interesting to read, actually!) than eat lots of low fat, high fake sugar yogourt.

Another example: I felt like a Starbucks Frappucino today, because it's hot and nice and I like a treat now and then ;-) I could have taken a) the normal Caramel Frappucino, or b) Light Caramel Frappucino, with only 150 per Grande (as per their sign). Sure... but then I can aspartame or Splenda or what not. It's better to get the regular one, occasionally (because it's still full of crap lol), than the light one, that's full of MORE crap.

Posted 3 months ago #