In Defense of Food

Home > Nonfiction > In Defense of Food > Page 3
In Defense of Food Page 3

by Michael Pollan


  Le­ave asi­de for now the vir­tu­es, if any, of a low-me­at and/or low-fat di­et, qu­es­ti­ons to which I will re­turn, and fo­cus for a mo­ment on lan­gu­age. For with the­se subt­le chan­ges in wor­ding a who­le way of thin­king abo­ut fo­od and he­alth un­der­went a mo­men­to­us shift. First, no­ti­ce that the stark mes­sa­ge to “eat less” of a par­ti­cu­lar fo­od-in this ca­se me­at-had be­en de­ep-si­xed; don’t lo­ok for it ever aga­in in any of­fi­ci­al U.S. go­vern­ment di­etary pro­no­un­ce­ment. Say what you will abo­ut this or that fo­od, you are not al­lo­wed of­fi­ci­al­ly to tell pe­op­le to eat less of it or the in­dustry in qu­es­ti­on will ha­ve you for lunch. But the­re is a path aro­und this im­mo­vab­le obs­tac­le, and it was McGo­vern’s staf­fers who bla­zed it: Spe­ak no mo­re of fo­ods, only nut­ri­ents. No­ti­ce how in the re­vi­sed gu­ide­li­nes, dis­tinc­ti­ons bet­we­en en­ti­ti­es as dif­fe­rent as be­ef and chic­ken and fish ha­ve col­lap­sed. The­se three ve­ne­rab­le fo­ods, each rep­re­sen­ting not just a dif­fe­rent spe­ci­es but an en­ti­rely dif­fe­rent ta­xo­no­mic class, are now lum­ped to­get­her as me­re de­li­very systems for a sing­le nut­ri­ent. No­ti­ce too how the new lan­gu­age exo­ne­ra­tes the fo­ods them­sel­ves. Now the culp­rit is an obs­cu­re, in­vi­sib­le, tas­te­less-and po­li­ti­cal­ly un­con­nec­ted-subs­tan­ce that may or may not lurk in them cal­led sa­tu­ra­ted fat.

  The lin­gu­is­tic ca­pi­tu­la­ti­on did not­hing to res­cue McGo­vern from his blun­der. In the very next elec­ti­on, in 1980, the be­ef lobby suc­ce­eded in rus­ti­ca­ting the three-term se­na­tor, sen­ding an un­mis­ta­kab­le war­ning to an­yo­ne who wo­uld chal­len­ge the Ame­ri­can di­et, and in par­ti­cu­lar the big chunk of ani­mal pro­te­in squ­at­ting in the mid­dle of its pla­te. Hen­ce­forth, go­vern­ment di­etary gu­ide­li­nes wo­uld shun pla­in talk abo­ut who­le fo­ods, each of which has its tra­de as­so­ci­ati­on on Ca­pi­tol Hill, but wo­uld ins­te­ad ar­ri­ve dres­sed in sci­en­ti­fic eup­he­mism and spe­aking of nut­ri­ents, en­ti­ti­es that few Ame­ri­cans (inclu­ding, as we wo­uld find out, Ame­ri­can nut­ri­ti­on sci­en­tists) re­al­ly un­ders­to­od but that, with the no­tab­le ex­cep­ti­on of suc­ro­se, lack po­wer­ful lob­bi­es in Was­hin­g­ton.*

  The les­son of the McGo­vern fi­as­co was qu­ickly ab­sor­bed by all who wo­uld pro­no­un­ce on the Ame­ri­can di­et. When a few ye­ars la­ter the Na­ti­onal Aca­demy of Sci­en­ces lo­oked in­to the qu­es­ti­on of di­et and can­cer, it was ca­re­ful to fra­me its re­com­men­da­ti­ons nut­ri­ent by nut­ri­ent rat­her than fo­od by fo­od, to avo­id of­fen­ding any po­wer­ful in­te­rests. We now know the aca­demy’s pa­nel of thir­te­en sci­en­tists adop­ted this ap­pro­ach over the obj­ec­ti­ons of at le­ast two of its mem­bers who ar­gu­ed that most of the ava­ilab­le sci­en­ce po­in­ted to­ward conc­lu­si­ons abo­ut fo­ods, not nut­ri­ents. Ac­cor­ding to T. Co­lin Camp­bell, a Cor­nell nut­ri­ti­onal bi­oc­he­mist who ser­ved on the pa­nel, all of the hu­man po­pu­la­ti­on stu­di­es lin­king di­etary fat to can­cer ac­tu­al­ly sho­wed that the gro­ups with hig­her can­cer ra­tes con­su­med not just mo­re fats, but al­so mo­re ani­mal fo­ods and fe­wer plant fo­ods as well. “This me­ant that the­se can­cers co­uld just as easily be ca­used by ani­mal pro­te­in, di­etary cho­les­te­rol, so­met­hing el­se exc­lu­si­vely fo­und in ani­mal-ba­sed fo­ods, or a lack of plant-ba­sed fo­ods,” Camp­bell wro­te ye­ars la­ter. The ar­gu­ment fell on de­af ears.

  In the ca­se of the “go­od fo­ods” too, nut­ri­ents al­so car­ri­ed the day: The lan­gu­age of the fi­nal re­port high­ligh­ted the be­ne­fits of the an­ti­oxi­dants in ve­ge­tab­les rat­her than the ve­ge­tab­les them­sel­ves. Jo­an Gus­sow, a Co­lum­bia Uni­ver­sity nut­ri­ti­onist who ser­ved on the pa­nel, ar­gu­ed aga­inst the fo­cus on nut­ri­ents rat­her than who­le fo­ods. “The re­al­ly im­por­tant mes­sa­ge in the epi­de­mi­ology, which is all we had to go on, was that so­me ve­ge­tab­les and cit­rus fru­its se­emed to be pro­tec­ti­ve aga­inst can­cer. But tho­se sec­ti­ons of the re­port we­re writ­ten as tho­ugh it was the vi­ta­min C in the cit­rus or the be­ta-ca­ro­te­ne in the ve­ge­tab­les that was res­pon­sib­le for the ef­fect. I kept chan­ging the lan­gu­age to talk abo­ut ‘fo­ods that con­ta­in vi­ta­min C’ and ‘fo­ods that con­ta­in ca­ro­te­nes.’ Be­ca­use how do you know it’s not one of the ot­her things in the car­rots or the broc­co­li? The­re are hund­reds of ca­ro­te­nes. But the bi­oc­he­mists had the­ir ans­wer: ‘You can’t do a tri­al on broc­co­li.’”

  So the nut­ri­ents won out over the fo­ods. The pa­nel’s re­sort to sci­en­ti­fic re­duc­ti­onism had the con­si­de­rab­le vir­tue of be­ing both po­li­ti­cal­ly ex­pe­di­ent (in the ca­se of me­at and da­iry) and, to the­se sci­en­ti­fic he­irs of Jus­tus von Li­ebig, in­tel­lec­tu­al­ly sympat­he­tic. With each of its chap­ters fo­cu­sed on a sing­le nut­ri­ent, the fi­nal draft of the Na­ti­onal Aca­demy of Sci­en­ces re­port, Di­et, Nut­ri­ti­on and Can­cer, fra­med its re­com­men­da­ti­ons in terms of sa­tu­ra­ted fats and an­ti­oxi­dants rat­her than be­ef and broc­co­li.

  In do­ing so, the 1982 Na­ti­onal Aca­demy of Sci­en­ces re­port hel­ped co­dify the of­fi­ci­al new di­etary lan­gu­age, the one we all still spe­ak. In­dustry and me­dia so­on fol­lo­wed su­it, and terms li­ke pol­yun­sa­tu­ra­ted, cho­les­te­rol, mo­no­un­sa­tu­ra­ted, car­bohyd­ra­te, fi­ber, polyp­he­nols, ami­no acids, fla­vo­nols, ca­ro­te­no­ids, an­ti­oxi­dants, pro­bi­otics, and phytoc­he­mi­cals so­on co­lo­ni­zed much of the cul­tu­ral spa­ce pre­vi­o­usly oc­cu­pi­ed by the tan­gib­le ma­te­ri­al for­merly known as fo­od.

  The Age of Nut­ri­ti­onism had ar­ri­ved.

  TWO - NUTRITIONISM DEFINED

  T he term isn’t mi­ne. It was co­ined by an Aust­ra­li­an so­ci­olo­gist of sci­en­ce by the na­me of Gyorgy Scri­nis, and as ne­ar as I can de­ter­mi­ne first ap­pe­ared in a 2002 es­say tit­led “Sorry Mar­ge” pub­lis­hed in an Aust­ra­li­an qu­ar­terly cal­led Me­anj­in. “Sorry Mar­ge” lo­oked at mar­ga­ri­ne as the ul­ti­ma­te nut­ri­ti­onist pro­duct, ab­le to shift its iden­tity (no cho­les­te­rol! one ye­ar, no trans fats! the next) de­pen­ding on the pre­va­iling winds of di­etary opi­ni­on. But Scri­nis had big­ger ga­me in his sights than spre­adab­le ve­ge­tab­le oil. He sug­ges­ted that we lo­ok past the va­ri­o­us nut­ri­ti­onal cla­ims swir­ling aro­und mar­ga­ri­ne and but­ter and con­si­der the un­derl­ying mes­sa­ge of the de­ba­te it­self: “na­mely, that we sho­uld un­ders­tand and en­ga­ge with fo­od and our bo­di­es in terms of the­ir nut­ri­ti­onal and che­mi­cal cons­ti­tu­ents and re­qu­ire­ments-the as­sump­ti­on be­ing that this is all we ne­ed to un­ders­tand.” This re­duc­ti­onist way of thin­king abo­ut fo­od had be­en po­in­ted out and cri­ti­ci­zed be­fo­re (no­tably by the Ca­na­di­an his­to­ri­an Har­vey Le­vens­te­in, the Bri­tish nut­ri­ti­onist Ge­of­frey Can­non, and the Ame­ri­can nut­ri­ti­onists Jo­an Gus­sow and Ma­ri­on Nest­le), but it had ne­ver be­fo­re be­en gi­ven a pro­per na­me: “nut­ri­ti­onism.” Pro­per na­mes ha­ve a way of ma­king vi­sib­le things we don’t easily see or simply ta­ke for gran­ted.

  The first thing to un­ders­tand abo­ut nut­ri­ti­onism is that it is not the sa­me thing as nut­ri­ti­on. As the “-ism” sug­gests, it is not a sci­en­ti­fic su­bj­ect but an ide­ology. Ide­olo­gi­es are ways of or­ga­ni­zing lar­ge swaths of li­fe and ex­pe­ri­en­ce un­der a set of sha­red but une­xa­mi­ned as­sump­ti­ons. This qu­ality ma­kes an ide­ology par­ti­cu­larly hard to see, at le­ast whi­le it’s still exer­ting its hold on yo­ur cul�
�tu­re. A re­ig­ning ide­ology is a lit­tle li­ke the we­at­her-all per­va­si­ve and so vir­tu­al­ly im­pos­sib­le to es­ca­pe. Still, we can try.

  In the ca­se of nut­ri­ti­onism, the wi­dely sha­red but une­xa­mi­ned as­sump­ti­on is that the key to un­ders­tan­ding fo­od is in­de­ed the nut­ri­ent. Put anot­her way: Fo­ods are es­sen­ti­al­ly the sum of the­ir nut­ri­ent parts. From this ba­sic pre­mi­se flow se­ve­ral ot­hers.

  Sin­ce nut­ri­ents, as com­pa­red with fo­ods, are in­vi­sib­le and the­re­fo­re slightly myste­ri­o­us, it falls to the sci­en­tists (and to the jo­ur­na­lists thro­ugh whom the sci­en­tists re­ach the pub­lic) to exp­la­in the hid­den re­ality of fo­ods to us. In form this is a qu­asi­re­li­gi­o­us idea, sug­ges­ting the vi­sib­le world is not the one that re­al­ly mat­ters, which imp­li­es the ne­ed for a pri­est­ho­od. For to en­ter a world whe­re yo­ur di­etary sal­va­ti­on de­pends on un­se­en nut­ri­ents, you ne­ed plenty of ex­pert help.

  But ex­pert help to do what exactly? This brings us to anot­her une­xa­mi­ned as­sump­ti­on of nut­ri­ti­onism: that the who­le po­int of eating is to ma­in­ta­in and pro­mo­te bo­dily he­alth. Hip­poc­ra­tes’ fa­mo­us inj­unc­ti­on to “let fo­od be thy me­di­ci­ne” is ri­tu­al­ly in­vo­ked to sup­port this no­ti­on. I’ll le­ave the pre­mi­se alo­ne for now, ex­cept to po­int out that it is not sha­red by all cul­tu­res and, furt­her, that the ex­pe­ri­en­ce of the­se ot­her cul­tu­res sug­gests that, pa­ra­do­xi­cal­ly, re­gar­ding fo­od as be­ing abo­ut things ot­her than bo­dily he­alth-li­ke ple­asu­re, say, or so­ci­ality or iden­tity-ma­kes pe­op­le no less he­althy; in­de­ed, the­re’s so­me re­ason to be­li­eve it may ma­ke them mo­re he­althy. This is what we usu­al­ly ha­ve in mind when we spe­ak of the French pa­ra­dox. So the­re is at le­ast a qu­es­ti­on as to whet­her the ide­ology of nut­ri­ti­onism is ac­tu­al­ly any go­od for you.

  It fol­lows from the pre­mi­se that fo­od is fo­re­most abo­ut pro­mo­ting physi­cal he­alth that the nut­ri­ents in fo­od sho­uld be di­vi­ded in­to the he­althy ones and the un­he­althy ones-go­od nut­ri­ents and bad. This has be­en a hal­lmark of nut­ri­ti­onist thin­king from the days of Li­ebig, for whom it wasn’t eno­ugh to iden­tify the nut­ri­ents; he al­so had to pick fa­vo­ri­tes, and nut­ri­ti­onists ha­ve be­en do­ing so ever sin­ce. Li­ebig cla­imed that pro­te­in was the “mas­ter nut­ri­ent” in ani­mal nut­ri­ti­on, be­ca­use he be­li­eved it dro­ve growth. In­de­ed, he li­ke­ned the ro­le of pro­te­in in ani­mals to that of nit­ro­gen in plants: Pro­te­in (which con­ta­ins nit­ro­gen) comp­ri­sed the es­sen­ti­al hu­man fer­ti­li­zer. Li­ebig’s ele­va­ti­on of pro­te­in do­mi­na­ted nut­ri­ti­onist thin­king for de­ca­des as pub­lic he­alth aut­ho­ri­ti­es wor­ked to ex­pand ac­cess to and pro­duc­ti­on of the mas­ter nut­ri­ent (espe­ci­al­ly in the form of ani­mal pro­te­in), with the go­al of gro­wing big­ger, and the­re­fo­re (it was as­su­med) he­alt­hi­er, pe­op­le. (A high pri­ority for Wes­tern go­vern­ments figh­ting im­pe­ri­al wars.) To a con­si­de­rab­le ex­tent we still ha­ve a fo­od system or­ga­ni­zed aro­und the pro­mo­ti­on of pro­te­in as the mas­ter nut­ri­ent. It has gi­ven us, among ot­her things, vast amo­unts of che­ap me­at and milk, which ha­ve in turn gi­ven us much, much big­ger pe­op­le. Whet­her they are he­alt­hi­er too is anot­her qu­es­ti­on.

  It se­ems to be a ru­le of nut­ri­ti­onism that for every go­od nut­ri­ent, the­re must be a bad nut­ri­ent to ser­ve as its fo­il, the lat­ter a fo­cus for our fo­od fe­ars and the for­mer for our ent­hu­si­asms. A back­lash aga­inst pro­te­in aro­se in Ame­ri­ca at the turn of the last cen­tury as di­et gu­rus li­ke John Har­vey Kel­logg and Ho­ra­ce Fletc­her (abo­ut whom mo­re la­ter) ra­iled aga­inst the de­le­te­ri­o­us ef­fects of pro­te­in on di­ges­ti­on (it sup­po­sedly led to the pro­li­fe­ra­ti­on of to­xic bac­te­ria in the gut) and pro­mo­ted the cle­aner, mo­re who­le­so­me car­bohyd­ra­te in its pla­ce. The le­gacy of that re­va­lu­ati­on is the bre­ak­fast ce­re­al, the stra­te­gic obj­ec­ti­ve of which was to deth­ro­ne ani­mal pro­te­in at the mor­ning me­al.

  Ever sin­ce, the his­tory of mo­dern nut­ri­ti­onism has be­en a his­tory of mac­ro­nut­ri­ents at war: pro­te­in aga­inst carbs; carbs aga­inst pro­te­ins, and then fats; fats aga­inst carbs. Be­gin­ning with Li­ebig, in each age nut­ri­ti­onism has or­ga­ni­zed most of its ener­gi­es aro­und an im­pe­ri­al nut­ri­ent: pro­te­in in the ni­ne­te­enth cen­tury, fat in the twen­ti­eth, and, it stands to re­ason, car­bohyd­ra­tes will oc­cupy our at­ten­ti­on in the twenty-first. Me­anw­hi­le, in the sha­dow of the­se ti­ta­nic strug­gles, smal­ler ci­vil wars ha­ve ra­ged wit­hin the spraw­ling em­pi­res of the big three: re­fi­ned car­bohyd­ra­tes ver­sus fi­ber; ani­mal pro­te­in ver­sus plant pro­te­in; sa­tu­ra­ted fats ver­sus pol­yun­sa­tu­ra­ted fats; and then, de­ep down wit­hin the pro­vin­ce of the pol­yun­sa­tu­ra­tes, ome­ga-3 fatty acids ver­sus ome­ga-6s. Li­ke so many ide­olo­gi­es, nut­ri­ti­onism at bot­tom hin­ges on a form of du­alism, so that at all ti­mes the­re must be an evil nut­ri­ent for ad­he­rents to ex­co­ri­ate and a sa­vi­or nut­ri­ent for them to sanc­tify. At the mo­ment, trans fats are per­for­ming ad­mi­rably in the for­mer ro­le, ome­ga-3 fatty acids in the lat­ter. It go­es wit­ho­ut sa­ying that such a Ma­nic­ha­e­an vi­ew of nut­ri­ti­on is bo­und to pro­mo­te fo­od fads and pho­bi­as and lar­ge ab­rupt swings of the nut­ri­ti­onal pen­du­lum.

  Anot­her po­ten­ti­al­ly se­ri­o­us we­ak­ness of nut­ri­ti­onist ide­ology is that, fo­cu­sed so re­lent­les­sly as it is on the nut­ri­ents it can me­asu­re, it has tro­ub­le dis­cer­ning qu­ali­ta­ti­ve dis­tinc­ti­ons among fo­ods. So fish, be­ef, and chic­ken thro­ugh the nut­ri­ti­onist’s lens be­co­me me­re de­li­very systems for var­ying qu­an­ti­ti­es of dif­fe­rent fats and pro­te­ins and wha­te­ver ot­her nut­ri­ents hap­pen to be on the­ir sco­pe. Milk thro­ugh this lens is re­du­ced to a sus­pen­si­on of pro­te­in, lac­to­se, fats, and cal­ci­um in wa­ter, when it is en­ti­rely pos­sib­le that the be­ne­fits, or for that mat­ter the ha­zards, of drin­king milk owe to en­ti­rely ot­her fac­tors (growth hor­mo­nes?) or re­la­ti­ons­hips bet­we­en fac­tors (fat-so­lub­le vi­ta­mins and sa­tu­ra­ted fat?) that ha­ve be­en over­lo­oked. Milk re­ma­ins a fo­od of humb­ling comp­le­xity, to jud­ge by the long, sorry sa­ga of ef­forts to si­mu­la­te it. The en­ti­re his­tory of baby for­mu­la has be­en the his­tory of one over­lo­oked nut­ri­ent af­ter anot­her: Li­ebig mis­sed the vi­ta­mins and ami­no acids, and his suc­ces­sors mis­sed the ome­ga-3s, and still to this day ba­bi­es fed on the most “nut­ri­ti­onal­ly comp­le­te” for­mu­la fa­il to do as well as ba­bi­es fed hu­man milk. Even mo­re than mar­ga­ri­ne, in­fant for­mu­la stands as the ul­ti­ma­te test pro­duct of nut­ri­ti­onism and a fa­ir in­dex of its hub­ris.

  This brings us to one of the most tro­ub­ling fe­atu­res of nut­ri­ti­onism, tho­ugh it is a fe­atu­re cer­ta­inly not tro­ub­ling to all. When the emp­ha­sis is on qu­an­tif­ying the nut­ri­ents con­ta­ined in fo­ods (or, to be pre­ci­se, the re­cog­ni­zed nut­ri­ents in fo­ods), any qu­ali­ta­ti­ve dis­tinc­ti­on bet­we­en who­le fo­ods and pro­ces­sed fo­ods is apt to di­sap­pe­ar. “[If] fo­ods are un­ders­to­od only in terms of the va­ri­o­us qu­an­ti­ti­es of nut­ri­ents they con­ta­in,” Gyorgy Scri­nis wro­te, then “even pro­ces­sed fo­ods may be con­si­de­red to be ‘he­alt­hi­er’ for you than who­le fo­ods if they con­ta­in the ap­prop­ri­ate qu­an­ti­ti­es of so­me nut­ri­ents.”

  How con­ve­ni­ent.

  THREE - NUTRITIONIS
M COMES TO MARKET

  N o idea co­uld be mo­re sympat­he­tic to ma­nu­fac­tu­rers of pro­ces­sed fo­ods, which su­rely exp­la­ins why they ha­ve be­en so happy to jump on the nut­ri­ti­onism band­wa­gon. In­de­ed, nut­ri­ti­onism sup­pli­es the ul­ti­ma­te jus­ti­fi­ca­ti­on for pro­ces­sing fo­od by impl­ying that with a judi­ci­o­us ap­pli­ca­ti­on of fo­od sci­en­ce, fa­ke fo­ods can be ma­de even mo­re nut­ri­ti­o­us than the re­al thing. This of co­ur­se is the story of mar­ga­ri­ne, the first im­por­tant synthe­tic fo­od to slip in­to our di­et. Mar­ga­ri­ne star­ted out in the ni­ne­te­enth cen­tury as a che­ap and in­fe­ri­or subs­ti­tu­te for but­ter, but with the emer­gen­ce of the li­pid hypot­he­sis in the 1950s, ma­nu­fac­tu­rers qu­ickly fi­gu­red out that the­ir pro­duct, with so­me tin­ke­ring, co­uld be mar­ke­ted as bet­ter-smar­ter!-than but­ter: but­ter with the bad nut­ri­ents re­mo­ved (cho­les­te­rol and sa­tu­ra­ted fats) and rep­la­ced with go­od nut­ri­ents (pol­yun­sa­tu­ra­ted fats and then vi­ta­mins). Every ti­me mar­ga­ri­ne was fo­und wan­ting, the wan­ted nut­ri­ent co­uld simply be ad­ded (Vi­ta­min D? Got it now. Vi­ta­min A? Su­re, no prob­lem). But of co­ur­se mar­ga­ri­ne, be­ing the pro­duct not of na­tu­re but of hu­man in­ge­nu­ity, co­uld ne­ver be any smar­ter than the nut­ri­ti­onists dic­ta­ting its re­ci­pe, and the nut­ri­ti­onists tur­ned out to be not ne­arly as smart as they tho­ught. The fo­od sci­en­tists’ in­ge­ni­o­us met­hod for ma­king he­althy ve­ge­tab­le oil so­lid at ro­om tem­pe­ra­tu­re-by blas­ting it with hydro­gen-tur­ned out to pro­du­ce un­he­althy trans fats, fats that we now know are mo­re dan­ge­ro­us than the sa­tu­ra­ted fats they we­re de­sig­ned to rep­la­ce. Yet the be­a­uty of a pro­ces­sed fo­od li­ke mar­ga­ri­ne is that it can be end­les­sly re­en­gi­ne­ered to over­co­me even the most em­bar­ras­sing abo­ut-fa­ce in nut­ri­ti­onal thin­king-inclu­ding the re­al win­cer that its ma­in ing­re­di­ent might ca­use he­art at­tacks and can­cer. So now the trans fats are go­ne, and mar­ga­ri­ne marc­hes on, un­fa­zed and ap­pa­rently un­kil­lab­le. Too bad the sa­me can­not be sa­id of an unk­nown num­ber of mar­ga­ri­ne eaters.

 

‹ Prev