Jasna Kostic
English 1020
Jared Grogan
February 24, 2013
Nutritionism and Oranicism
Michael Pollan’s message is “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants” (unhappy meals), he states that if a person is worried about what they should be eating, they then should be avoiding products that make health claims. Pollan develops his claim by using a series of problems regarding food. Pollan explains what he means when he says eat food by saying “A little meat won’t kill you, though it’s better approached as a side dish than as a main. And you’re much better off eating whole fresh foods than processed food products. That’s what I mean by the recommendation to eat food” (unhappy meals). Throughout the article, Pollan uses nutritionism as a term to describe food related trends that have occurred over time. Moreover, he goes on to point that continuing in the direction of nutritionism will only deteriorate the well being of all humans.
Pollan begins his evaluation of the “Rise of Nutritionism” by examining the effect that nutritionism has on us. He does this by explaining how a political mix-up has enabled companies to claim that their product is healthy. The political mix-up Pollan is referring to is where George McGovern, who contradicted himself on the issues of a certain nutrient. He publically proclaimed that the nutrient was unhealthy to only propose an opposite opinion shortly after being confronted for his earlier statements. Throughout the examples, case studies and explanations, Pollan paints a picture of how nutritionism is good for the marketers and food companies but that it is bad for human beings. A claim is made that we, as human beings, are happy to receive the news that we should eat more of one thing instead of another. Pollan states that we do not cut down on the nutrient being deemed unhealthy; we actually pile on more of the nutrients that we are told is good, but keep the same amount of the bad as we used to eat.
Michael Pollan asks the question why this is occurring, and gives us the answer, bad science. A nutritionist from the New York University, Marion Nestle is quoted in the essay as saying “The problem with nutrient-by-nutrient nutrition science, is that it takes the nutrient out of the context of food, the food out of the context of diet and the diet out of the context of lifestyle.” (Pollan, 2007) a nutrient alone is not food, it is just that a nutrient. A nutrient may not cure cancer by it self but with the help of another nutrient found it that fruit/ vegetable it might be able to do wonderful things for the human body. Pollan also points out that humans have evolved differently, and that we are not all the same (2007), foods are not processed by everyone’s digestive systems the same way, and for that reason people cannot eat the same things. He states that looking at studies of diets is not credible, for example the Mediterranean diet study is based on people who lived in the 50’s on an island when more physical activity was present. Also some diet studies are done on certain groups of people who do not drink or smoke, who do not eat meat or who are smarter or even more affluent. (Pollan, 2007)
What is the Western Diet? Pollan describes it as a diet high in processed food and meat, with added fat and sugar, but with something missing and that is vegetables whole grains and fruit. Pollan states that scientists have tried to do a good deed by studying nutriets but have actually made the situation worse. He also says that we need to go back to thinking about food as a chain system and to remember that if one thing in the chain system is affected by something and is not doing well, then everything else in the chain system will suffer as well. Pollan gives a 9 step process to how we should change our eating habits in order to be happy, healthy individuals and to go back to the way things were. This 9 step process includes eating the products/ food our grandmothers would consider as food, paying more for a quality product, eating mainly vegetables and fruits, going to the farmers market and cooking for our selves. (Pollan, 2007)
Given my general agreement with Michael Pollan on the matters of nutritionism, I think that there is a comparable problem, and this problem is Organicism. As Pollan explains, American’s are quick to believe a box label, and the new trend of organic food is on the rise. Stores are appearing all over America and Canada with “organic” labels and price tags that can make one cringe. The process by which food is accepted and labelled as organic is mediocre at best. Imported organic food is treated differently and the regulations of organic products are the ones of the products country of origin. All in all people are being misguided and deceived by marketing experts. Organic food is good only, and only if you know where it is coming from.
The United States National Organic Programs (2012) defines organic as:
Labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural product has been produced through approved methods that integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used.
While this is the definition is shared amongst many nations, there are products that are on the market that do not meet the standards mentioned in the above definition. Despite the fact, the United States allows for these products to enter and be sold in the USA. For example, the regulation of organic food in Canada is weak. As National Post (2011) has pointed out, companies that claim their products are organic simply need to a certification from the Canada Food Inspection Agency. However, Canada’s legislation does not require laboratory testing to ensure that the food is farmed without chemicals such as pesticides. Without the laboratory testing requirement and the use of Agencies, the public is left to rely on “the honour system” of the Agencies. (Humphreys, 2011) The United States has created an agreement with Canada, along with other countries, that does not require further testing or the implementation of the USA regulations if the product will be sold on the US market.
An incident occurred with the XL Foods meat processing company in Brooks, Alberta, a company that does not specialize in organic products. The incident resulted in over 1,500 beef products being recalled not only in all of Canada but in 40 State in USA and also in Puerto Rico due to E. Coli (CBC, 2012). This incident occurred in the same country that does not require testing for their organic products and has an agreement with USA that Canada’s regulations will be implemented for the produce being sold on the US market. If an incident like this can occur, there is absolutely no guarantee that what is being sold on the market as organic, grown or produced in Canada, is actually organic and that prohibited chemicals have not been used to speed up the process of growth.
The demand for organic food has increased, like Pollan said if American’s are being told that something is good for them they will listen and try to get a hold of it. With the demand increasing the cost has increased, and of course mass production results in an overlook in the quality of the product. Fox News reports that organic products cost 20 up to 100 percent more than non-organic products (2012). If such products are as good for us as they are hyped up to be then why are they so costly? Is it all a scheme by marketers to put more money in their pocket by misleading the public especially with all of the flaws in the regulation system? The Organic Farming Research Foundation states that organic produce costs more due to the health environmental costs, demand in labour and the intensive management in chemicals (2012).
Are there more vitamins in an organic fruit than in a non organic fruit? Stanford University scientists have claimed that their research has shown that no, there are not more vitamins or nutrients in an organic produce. Is there less of a chance for organic food to be contaminated with bacteria such as E. Coli? The same scientists concluded that the answer was no, chances are the same for both organic and non organic products to be contaminated. Organic meat products are no exception, the scientists founds the same results for these products as well (NY Times, 2012). If there is not much of or any difference in vitamin and nutrient levels are we being persuaded by marketers to spend more money on products that do not contain pesticides? The FDA has set a limit for pesticides that is under the level of being harmful to human beings (NY Times, 2012). Without many other benefits other than fewer traces of pesticides it does not seem to be worth the extra 20 to 100 increase in price.
Organic food is only good if you know where it comes from, many organic products that are not produce and are pre-packaged are actually owned by big chain companies. For example Naked Juice, at $3.29 for a 500ml bottle at Whole Foods or even Walmart is actually owned Pepsi, Kashii is a brand who’s commercials pride them selves on being organic and selecting only the best ingredients, is owned by Kellogg (Readers Digest). There is uneasiness about Pepsi owning a product that claims to be organic when once a year Pepsi comes out with special edition drinks “containing real sugar”. This could be a case of appeal, to put it in perspective, imagine a luxury car that has the same engine and all mechanical work as a lower end car but with a more polished shell and a higher price tag, essentially they are the same car but one has a prettier package. An example of such cars is the 2007 models Toyota Camry and the Lexus ES, with the Lexus ES holding a higher price tag of course. The same concept can be applied to food, how can we be so sure that this product is actually organic and that it does not contain some of the same chemicals and preserving ingredients that the brands regular products contain?
Is organic a hundred percent organic? No unless it has a 100% organic sticker or label on the product then it is not. According to the USDA, any item labelled as organic only needs to be 95% organic, with some ingredients not required to be organic as they are difficult to acquire the organic way (Readers Digest). This means that the granola bar, with the big organic label, may not actually be 100% organic, and the company does not have to tell their consumers this. There does not need to be a statement anywhere stating that it is only 95% organic, and that it may contain some of the same chemicals that a regular granola bar contains.
Overall nutritionism, according to Michael Pollan is a marketing scheme that has created many nutrients as miracle workers and many as dangers to the human body. Food like products are taking over the US markets and actual food is being forgotten, scientists who wanted us to understand how food works better, have actually made a mistake and are not helping the society. Products that make health claims are the ones that we should stay away from and we should stay away from such product, and change our eating habits to include mostly fruit and vegetables. Oranicism goes hand in had with nutritionism as the trend is on the rise, but the manufacturing and production of organic products has many faults that need to be worked on. With the regulation systems being so lenient in countries such as Canada, who is by no means a third world country, the promise of 100% organic food is not available. The creation of organic products by big chain companies seems sketchy and is questionable, and the 5% of ingredients that do not need to be organic but a product can be labelled as organic raises eyebrows and questions like how synthesized or non organic are these ingredients.
Citations/ References
1. Chang, K. (2012, Sep 04). Stanford scientists cast doubt on advantages of organic meat and produce. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html?_r=0
2. Usda.gov. (2012, November 28). Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop
3. The Daily Meal. (2012, March 11). Fox news. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/03/11/10-reasons-organic-food-is-so-expensive/
4. CBC Canada. (2012, October 2). Food safety cooking temperature chart. [0]. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/10/02/meat-recall-expanded-xl-foods.html
5. Blumberg, P. (n.d.). 13+ Things You Didn't Know About Organic Food. Reader’s Digest. Retrieved from http://www.rd.com/slideshows/13-things-you-didnt-know-about-organic-food/#slideshow=slide19
6. US: New study: Emerging issues in the U.S. organic industry. (2012). Organic World. Retrieved from http://www.organic-world.net/news-organic-world.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=85&cHash=e76e1601d05a9c8965e9ecce84a093a1
7. Humphreys, A. (2011, November 24). Canada’s organic food certification system like ‘an extortion racket. National Post. Retrieved from http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/24/canadas-organic-food-certification-system-little-more-than-an-extortion-racket-report-says/
8. Pollan, M. (2007, January 28). Unhappy Meals. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www&_r=0