There’s a certain dietary arrogance about the way we eat today. We turn up our noses at the traditional cultures and customs long associated with food, in favour of fast-paced, easy-come nutrition, personal vanity, cutting-edge advertising, extreme dieting dictums and modern convenience. Yet the dramatic and steady incline in the prevalence of contemporary lifestyle diseases (heart disease, obesity, stroke, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, many forms of cancer, various mental imbalances etc) would suggest that we’re more disillusioned about what and how to eat than ever before.
From an evolutionary perspective, modern agriculture and associated foods represent but the tiniest tip of the proverbial iceberg, and what is a far cry from our hunter-gatherer origins. Yet the changes in our dietary patterns over the last hundred years or so represents the most dynamic shift in nutrition the human race has experienced thus far, and with it a myriad of health implications for which we are genetically ill-equipped.
Without doubt, the most basic strategy anyone can implement for better health is to adopt a diet of real ‘foods’, yet today it is vastly unclear as to what constitutes a ‘food’, and what might be better described as a ‘food stuff’. Confused? Let me explain…
What was available for us to eat say, circa 1900, pretty much all fell under the umbrella of real ‘food’. At this time, almost everyone was a locavore (small farms were distributed across even the most developed nations, early urban areas included), there was no snack food, no mass-produced frozen food, products like margarine hadn’t been dreamt up and there were no restaurant chains – people for the most part cooked and ate at home. There were no named vitamins, no RDI’s, no health claims, no marketing, no national brands. Nobody claimed to be anything or put a label upon what kind of diet they adhered to. Fats, carbohydrates, proteins – they weren’t good or bad. They were just ‘food’. There was no philosophy to do with eating; people just ate.
From around the 1930’s, with the development of resources such as better roadways and refrigerated trucks, fresh food was able to travel further. Large-scale agricultural hubs developed while suburbanised agriculture and family farms died out. The amount of food being produced in these concentrated hubs increased as farmers strove to squeeze out as much yield as possible with little consideration for the land, and the surplus of food became too much to ship fresh. The solution was found in the form of canned and frozen strategies, both of which were heavily marketed. Meat was everywhere (while the world’s human population doubled between 1950 and 2000, meat consumption went up five fold), but the new generations of livestock were not fed their natural diet of grass (note: a hugely important switch that has had disastrous consequences for both cattle and human health). Rather, they were fed corn and soy in extreme amounts, along with noxious cocktails of drugs to keep them alive on this new and unfamiliar diet. With the collaboration between agribusiness and government, soy, corn, cattle and chicken became industry dominants.
Without doubt, the most basic strategy anyone can implement for better health is to adopt a diet of real ‘foods’, yet today it is vastly unclear as to what constitutes a ‘food’, and what might be better described as a ‘food stuff’. Confused? Let me explain…
What was available for us to eat say, circa 1900, pretty much all fell under the umbrella of real ‘food’. At this time, almost everyone was a locavore (small farms were distributed across even the most developed nations, early urban areas included), there was no snack food, no mass-produced frozen food, products like margarine hadn’t been dreamt up and there were no restaurant chains – people for the most part cooked and ate at home. There were no named vitamins, no RDI’s, no health claims, no marketing, no national brands. Nobody claimed to be anything or put a label upon what kind of diet they adhered to. Fats, carbohydrates, proteins – they weren’t good or bad. They were just ‘food’. There was no philosophy to do with eating; people just ate.
From around the 1930’s, with the development of resources such as better roadways and refrigerated trucks, fresh food was able to travel further. Large-scale agricultural hubs developed while suburbanised agriculture and family farms died out. The amount of food being produced in these concentrated hubs increased as farmers strove to squeeze out as much yield as possible with little consideration for the land, and the surplus of food became too much to ship fresh. The solution was found in the form of canned and frozen strategies, both of which were heavily marketed. Meat was everywhere (while the world’s human population doubled between 1950 and 2000, meat consumption went up five fold), but the new generations of livestock were not fed their natural diet of grass (note: a hugely important switch that has had disastrous consequences for both cattle and human health). Rather, they were fed corn and soy in extreme amounts, along with noxious cocktails of drugs to keep them alive on this new and unfamiliar diet. With the collaboration between agribusiness and government, soy, corn, cattle and chicken became industry dominants.
Fast track to today and you’ve suddenly got half a globe full of consumers hooked on convenience: fast-food, pre-packaged items, canned and frozen food. Soy and corn are found in one form or another in pretty much every ‘food product’ you can get your hands on. Plus, these items are industrially produced. Our whole culture of eating has changed. Foods are now hailed as ‘good’ or demonised as ‘bad’, and most people will tell you that they eat some way or another, be it ‘low-carb’, ‘low-fat’, ‘high-protein’, ‘vegan’, ‘vegetarian’, ‘flexitarian’, etc. With the labels on our food came the rise of labels given to our eating habits.
Here I think we have to point out the difference between what now constitutes a ‘food’ and what can be classed as a ‘food product’. Food grows and dies; it shouldn’t be created and manufactured. There is not much ‘food’ to be found at your local supermarket, apart from perhaps that sitting quietly in the produce section. However there are ‘food products’ masquerading as food to be found in abundance, often emblazoned with various health claims and promises.
“Once, food was all you could eat, but today there are lots of other edible foodlike substances in the supermarket. These novel products of food science often come in packages festooned with health claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if you’re concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it’s not really food, and food is what you want to eat.” ~ Michael Pollan, Unhappy Meals
Of course, most people with some interest in whole foods and health will know this already. What really irks me is the trap of the ‘health foods’, ie those with labels touting multitudes of nutritional benefits. Arguably, real food doesn’t need a label, nor outlandish health claims. Kelloggs can boast about its brand-new high-fibre, low-fat, heart healthy cereal, but in reality you’re better just reaching for the silently humble sweet potato. Health claims have become compromised and highly misleading – keep in mind that the official parties giving these food products their tick of approval are paid by food makers for their endorsement.
I think it’s wonderful that there seems to be a rise again in the selection of foods that are organic, free-range, pastured, local, unprocessed, ethical and the like. However, there are still issues with making choices by one or more of these labels because of how our whole food system now functions. Can farm-raised salmon be classified as ‘organic’ when it is not fed its natural diet? Even when the feed is certified organic? And the fish are packed tightly into pens swimming in their own filth? Plus, this salmon then travels great distances, usually packed in Styrofoam, to where is will later be consumed. Is this really organic in spirit, or just in letter?
Here I think we have to point out the difference between what now constitutes a ‘food’ and what can be classed as a ‘food product’. Food grows and dies; it shouldn’t be created and manufactured. There is not much ‘food’ to be found at your local supermarket, apart from perhaps that sitting quietly in the produce section. However there are ‘food products’ masquerading as food to be found in abundance, often emblazoned with various health claims and promises.
“Once, food was all you could eat, but today there are lots of other edible foodlike substances in the supermarket. These novel products of food science often come in packages festooned with health claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if you’re concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it’s not really food, and food is what you want to eat.” ~ Michael Pollan, Unhappy Meals
Of course, most people with some interest in whole foods and health will know this already. What really irks me is the trap of the ‘health foods’, ie those with labels touting multitudes of nutritional benefits. Arguably, real food doesn’t need a label, nor outlandish health claims. Kelloggs can boast about its brand-new high-fibre, low-fat, heart healthy cereal, but in reality you’re better just reaching for the silently humble sweet potato. Health claims have become compromised and highly misleading – keep in mind that the official parties giving these food products their tick of approval are paid by food makers for their endorsement.
I think it’s wonderful that there seems to be a rise again in the selection of foods that are organic, free-range, pastured, local, unprocessed, ethical and the like. However, there are still issues with making choices by one or more of these labels because of how our whole food system now functions. Can farm-raised salmon be classified as ‘organic’ when it is not fed its natural diet? Even when the feed is certified organic? And the fish are packed tightly into pens swimming in their own filth? Plus, this salmon then travels great distances, usually packed in Styrofoam, to where is will later be consumed. Is this really organic in spirit, or just in letter?
The way we eat should be about cultivating our relationship with the natural world, and this cannot possibly be the case when we are eating food products manufactured in such a way as are industrial plastics. Even the most ‘natural’ foods today are often genetically modified organisms, raised with the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Agricultural practices do not farm by way of nature, they are not sustainable in the long-run, and have resulted in much of even our real ‘food’ retaining little of its potential nutritional value as soil quality overall has been diminished (quite possibly for good at the rate we are going).
It’s tricky to know how to do right when food culture has become so far flung from what would benefit both our own health and that of the natural world. Some would argue that without modern food processing methods, not all people would have access to food (and of course not all people are fed adequately). Sadly, many of the simpler, more sustainable ways to preserve food, farm locally and more naturally have lost out to industrialization of agriculture, money-driven production and marketing of food, and populations conditioned to think that food should first and foremost be fast and cheap.
Eat simply and socially, avoid packages and blatant health claims, eat locally as much as possible as well as seasonally, spend more time in the kitchen and put a little love into the meals you cook (and cook!). Acknowledge where our food has come from and how it was raised, tune out the dieting clichés, health fads and food pyramid-ist dictums and go by what feels right for the body as much as possible. Bear in mind that all calories were not created equal, and a wholefood is more than the sum of its parts. Above all, enjoy real food.
Food for thought, no?
It’s tricky to know how to do right when food culture has become so far flung from what would benefit both our own health and that of the natural world. Some would argue that without modern food processing methods, not all people would have access to food (and of course not all people are fed adequately). Sadly, many of the simpler, more sustainable ways to preserve food, farm locally and more naturally have lost out to industrialization of agriculture, money-driven production and marketing of food, and populations conditioned to think that food should first and foremost be fast and cheap.
Eat simply and socially, avoid packages and blatant health claims, eat locally as much as possible as well as seasonally, spend more time in the kitchen and put a little love into the meals you cook (and cook!). Acknowledge where our food has come from and how it was raised, tune out the dieting clichés, health fads and food pyramid-ist dictums and go by what feels right for the body as much as possible. Bear in mind that all calories were not created equal, and a wholefood is more than the sum of its parts. Above all, enjoy real food.
Food for thought, no?
