We did a lot of work with both the science and the culture of the US industrial agricultural system with regards to our current corn-based food system. I'd like to look a little bit further into the rhetoric used to present to us (read: market) the myraid food-stuffs that like the aisles of our massive grocery stores. Michael Pollan preaches the importance of "whole foods" in a healthy diet because of their propensity to be nutrient-rich (not just calorie-rich) and devoid of chemical additives and preservatives. One of Pollan's food-rules is something to the effect of "if it has more than 5 ingredients and/or a 3rd grader can't pronounce them, don't eat it." Pollan's rhetoric appeals to a romantic nostalgia for the simplicity and purity of a natural diet. He is quick to point out that America has no real national food tradition, which (unfortunately) has left a huge opportunity for food to be sold to us rather than taught to us.
We are a nation that thrives on fads. Everyone wants what is newest and trendiest and to not keep up is akin to being socially left behind. The Walkman became the Discman became the iPod became the iPhone, and at each step along the way, obsolescence claimed another victim. The difference with the rhetoric of food scientists and marketers is that their products aren't evolving in a linear progression of improvement. Food doesn't need to get faster, smaller or sleeker. It does, however, need to fall within the paramaters of whatever food trend is currently dominating the culinary discourse of America. We saw a HUGE shift in the way Americans ate when the Atikins diet and low-carb craze swept the country. Like Brown and Herndl argue about the writers for the John Birch Society, Dr. Atkins had to have known that telling people that they could eat as much meat and butter as they wanted so long as they avoided the carbohydrates found in sugars or grains (no FRUIT!!!) was not healthy for them. What Atkins and his low-carb cohorts also knew is that Americans love nothing more than a quick fix. As fashion models were getting skinnier and the country was getting fatter, a low-carb diet offered Americans the chance to have their steak and eat it, too.
We shop for labels, not foods: low calorie, no trans fat, no saturated fat, low-carb, low sodium, heart-healthy, sugar free, light, “lite,” antioxidant rich, Omega 3s, vitamin fortified, electrolytes and high-fiber. All of these qualities can be attributed to the same old corn-based junk that we’ve been eating for decades by chemically restructuring a few things within the “food” and slapping a new label on it. Even the protein based Atkins diet didn’t really disturb the industrial agricultural system, as the animals that came to replace carbohydrates were also produced using feed corn. I guess that the rhetoric of food labels could also be called the rhetoric of healthy eating. Pollan’s food rules and nostalgic/simplistic approach to eating simultaneously engages the rhetoric of diet trends, food scientists and marketing. Though he can often come across as pretentious, his “from the farm to the table” approach to explaining our current agricultural system sheds light on how incomplete our knowledge of what we are and should be eating truly is.
You raise a very good point regarding the diet rhetoric of America. I am always amazed at how PhDs and “doctors,” all who have received extensive education in nutrition, human anatomy, and physiology could completely neglect their years of knowledge in order to sell a quick-fix diet solution, many of them which are harmful to a person’s health. Dr. Atkins must have known that carbohydrates are essential to support our bodies’ movement, since it is the nutrient most readily available for energy production. He must have also known that carbohydrates store water, and that most of the weight “lost” from his low-carb regimen is due to the loss of water. It still baffles me how an educated professional can work to convince his fellow citizens to deprive their bodies of water: the source of life? The Atkins diet seems to have lost its momentum.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, Americans are hungry for another diet fix as they browse the extensive “diet and healthy living” section of the bookstore.
Dr. Oz, or “America’s doctor,” is a physician that has gained the trust of America’s favorite talk show host Opera, and has consequently earned the trust of American audiences. I would like to point out that he is a cardiologist. Nonetheless, he writes columns in popular consumer platforms and promotes his popular “Dr. Oz’s 90-day diet plan.” This undermines the authority of registered nutritionists who specialize in this subject, as well as neglects his knowledge that weight management plans do not last 90 days, but throughout one’s entire lifetime. He knows that this is nonsense. But it is nonsense that sells. Consumers know that previous diet fixes have failed them. Yet they are bound by habitus, their disposition to find the latest trend backed by the trendiest “doctor.” A change in rhetoric is clearly needed to stop the progression of obesity and the cycle of fad dieting. I honestly do not know how, since it seems that raw knowledge by itself isn’t enough to keep professionals or even educated consumers’ hunger for the next best “diet breakthrough.”
I think you hit upon such a phase that has taken over America with obesity also being such a problem. The fact that there are constantly new diets and the ones that really work, and workouts, and the way to live a healthy life, and most of the time all of these different ideas having contradicting ideals, things, rules to follow etc. I think that the knowledge that all of these nutritionists, and dieticians, and personal trainers have sometimes is all of what works best for the individual and that can change and be different for many. I think that the whole label, and calorie ordeal that use to be even more of a fixation for a lot of those who struggle with eating disorders and such is a huge rhetoric in society that is complete Bologna.
ReplyDeleteYour read of the (non) facts is clear (and Jeehye confirms it), but how does it WORK on us? Can't be a clearer case of acting against our rational knowledge.
ReplyDelete