Micheal Pollan defines nutritionism in his article "Unhappy Meals" as an unchallenged ideology that judges food solely on its nutrients. In other words, it's an ideology that assumes the only purpose of consuming food is for its nutritional value.
He describes this nutrition-based ideology as one that has developed gradually over time. Instead of traditional "breakfast cereal" at the grocery store, our attention has slowly been drawn to terms such as "fibers" and "cholesterol." Pollan argues that since most people know nothing about these nutrients themselves, we are forced to rely on nutritional scientists to tell us what's good or bad. Pollan compares these scientists to priests in a religion. Only, instead of interpreting the will of a deity, they translate terms like fiber and cholesterol to the general public. They tout or decry the effectiveness of new and restrictive diets.
Pollan argues these nutritional experts do more harm than good because our collective understanding of nutritional science is incomplete. One day, a new study says that a low-fat diet will prevent breast cancer. The next day, a newer study says that it won't. As proponents of nutritionism, nutritionists lead people to focus on the nutrients in food, not the food itself. One inherent problem with this focus, Pollan argues, is that we don't know if the isolated nutrient is healthy within itself or only healthy within the actual food. Food manufacturers will add trending miracle nutrients to their food products and claim the benefit of the miracle without knowing for sure.
Pollan clearly opposes nutritionism and states that a food's value is "more than the sum of its parts." Diet and culture are two major factors that nutritionism does not account for. What works for one person within the context of their diet and lifestyle might not even be healthy for another. As a result, his advice is simple: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." In other words, stick to whole foods and don't overeat.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html
Michael Pollan defines the term differently from the prevailing consensus. According to his conversation with Amy Goodman, the current definition of nutritionism is as follows:
1)Food is essentially made up of a collection of nutrients. Since we can't taste nutrients, we must trust experts to tell us what to consume.
2)An assumption of nutritionism is that all the nutrients we consume are measurable. Michael Pollan states that this is a dubious assumption.
3)The main purpose of eating, according to the experts, is to maintain proper physical health. All other reasons for eating (such as for personal enjoyment or as part of a bonding activity during a social gathering) are ignored in the obsessive concern with the nutrient content of food.
This is how Michael Pollan defines nutritionism:
1) Good nutrition is about consuming unprocessed, natural foods such as whole grain breads and raw fruits and vegetables.
2) One of the best ways to eat well is to purchase more local farm products. Michael Pollan asserts that local produce is going to be more nutritious because it is fresher and hasn't endured long transit periods from the producer to the consumer.
3) Growing food without chemicals may not be as efficient as the global model, but it can be more sustainable. Foods are more nutritious if they are grown without the use of harmful pesticides and not genetically modified.
4) The healthiest and most nutritious diets are traditional diets such as the Mediterranean diet or the Japanese diet, where the emphasis is on unprocessed and natural foods.
So, to Michael Pollan, nutritionism should be an ideology that proposes a whole foods diet, sustained by produce from local farmers.
https://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/13/in_defense_of_food_author_journalist
No comments:
Post a Comment