Nutritionism, a food ideology described in Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food, is an inaccessible notion of food justice that isolates middle and lower-class consumers. Pollan describes nutritionism as a relatively revolutionary new way of thinking about eating food, especially as this reductionist approach translates meals into scientifically calculated intake. Pollan even says nutritionism “might be the best thing ever to happen to the food industry,” which—considering the homogenized American culture it perpetuates—is especially concerning as consumers are commodified to benefit food businesses. Oh, how the priorities of the modern food chain have turned. Pollan is critical of nutritionism because of its role in reformulating industrial food supply, but I critique nutritionism for enforcing such strict societal guidelines for eating. These societal expectations, or “foodisms,” pressure consumers to conform to seemingly science-based mantras such as: carbs will make you fat, probiotics make your gut healthy, saturated fats are the devil, etc. There could be some truth to these, but it’s impractical to expect everyone to conform to these high-maintenance diet practices. Nutritionism isn’t revolutionary if its practices are not accessible to the common consumer. Certain factors limit a regular consumer’s choice in the food they eat, such as affordability and convenience of the food product, the consumer’s location and proximity to food resources, their cultural and dietary needs, and their cooking knowledge. As American consumers, these factors all play a role in why we eat what we eat, but I can’t argue that eating in accordance with nutritionism is necessarily better when the ideology itself does not account for varying degrees of (in)accessibility.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post about nutritionism, its inaccessibility, and the ever-changing tide of food ideologies in modernity. I wrote something similar for my first blog post because I felt so disheartened by the obvious betrayal at hand. And as you stated, consumers are commodified for a producer’s benefit, which is entirely unjust. As we unpacked Pollan’s novel, it became evident that the new wave of “healthy” eating we have [un]consciously submitted to has only gained popularity for the sake of profitability. The “science” behind nutritionism ultimately endorses a life ruled by the beauty of convenience and numerical fulfillment. The days of simplicity and bare bones eating, the substantive nature of what food was once, has long since passed. Of course, there is a desire to conform to these new standards of eating, yet they are inaccessible to a large population due to poverty. On that note of poverty and affordability, I think it is important to circle back to some of our recent lectures and readings (particularly The Color of Food and Nation Built on Slavery) to identify the source of this impoverished cycle. Truth be told, those who cannot afford the upkeep of the latest food fads happen to be pawns in the manufacturing and distribution of said “food stuffs”. This unfortunate truth emphasizes my favorite point in your post: “Nutritionism isn’t revolutionary if its practices are not accessible to the common consumer.” The pervasiveness of food insecurity is disturbing enough without the mention of the accessibility of healthy food. My question to you now is in which ways can we alter the ideology of nutritionism so that it isn’t so discriminatory? Overall, this was an excellent post, and I would hope to hear further insight about a solution for nutritionism.
As a class I’d say we have a common understanding of the pitfalls of nutritionism, but your post above makes me question if we must critique scientific expertise at large. The “science-based foodisms” at the foundation of nutritionism are legitimate science; as we have explored in class the discovery and understanding of macronutrients and vitamins may be reductionist, but these nutritional building blocks lay the foundation for biotech innovations necessary for combating malnutrition and world hunger. Golden rice GMOs depend on our scientific understanding of beta-carotene and our expertise on the essential functions vitamin A provides to the body.
By nature, expertise is often behind class gateways such as higher education, but a lack of accessibility is not effectively addressed by dismissing the science at large. Fully informed nutritionism, though impractical for individuals you highlighted, is essential for addressing the question of how to meet the physical needs of malnourished people globally.
I think there is simultaneously the legitimate science of understanding what makes up our food, and separately a western food culture that advocates those parts are all that matters to a complete diet. While we can certainly agree there are problems with fad dieting, especially at high costs, there is a fine line between critiquing the classist social forces of “healthy living” versus the vital scientific work behind it. Scientific knowledge of how we can best utilize food to meet human physical needs is essential, especially facing global yield shortages, climate change, and the consistent threat of global food insecurity.
Sara, thank you for sharing your perspective on the inaccessibility of nutritionism. It’s interesting to try to understand this somewhat specific critique. I find it very important to acknowledge privilege and simply our very own privilege to be even discussing this topic. Though I do agree with you in regard to certain lifestyles being tied with certain diets and the societal implications of diets, I do believe the inaccessibility of nutritionism is not what should be critiqued- instead the entire political sphere in which our food is shaped from. Nutritionism is a product of systematic layers of history and I believe it is not the cause of the inaccessibility of food yet, a perpetuating factor to the issues. It is also important to acknowledge how the word “nutritionism” itself has changed over time. When Pollan defines it as “revolutionary” he could be mentioning the boom of nutritionism and the increase in stabilizers, and preservative innovations. It could mean the mass production of food by enriched flours and corn. In that case, it was revolutionary because it had never been done before. Does that mean it should be looked back on positively? Not necessarily, however we must look at the larger picture of how our food system is functioning as a means of profit and cheap labor. The connotation and societal norms around the word “nutritionism” should be looked at, but not blamed on.
Hey Sara! I absolutely agree with your take on nutritionism. It’s so strange to think how anyone who grew up in Western society is trained to reduce food down to its macronutrients and to look for particular elements when they shop at the grocery store. I certainly grew up thinking that there was a formula for healthy eating. I also agree with your rejection of nutritionism as “revolutionary.” The term implies that this particular concept was groundbreaking. I would disagree with that notion. Western food culture is intertwined with the Western invention of liberal capitalism. Food as fuel for the industrial workforce and the categorization of food is by no means new, and I would argue that this sort of reductionist perception and lack of deep connection with food is centuries old, at least. Additionally, I find Pollan’s critique of American nutritionism grossly inadequate. He does not give nearly enough attention to the way that race, class, and forced assimilation compound the issues of food injustice.
Great post, Sara!