No wonder we're all confused

Well, dear reader, I'm officially a blogger and I plan to use this space to talk about what really matters when it comes to food, nutrition and health.


It's safe to say that North Americans are more confused than ever about healthy eating. Despite eight years of post-secondary education and 21 years working in the field of nutrition, I, too, can get confused. If the dietitian is confused, God help us!

It’s no wonder people work themselves into a lather about what to eat. Conflicting nutrition studies appear in the media everyday. One week you learn that a particular food or nutrient will cure all your ailments then the following month you find out eating too much of that food could make your toes fall off.

Eating should be an act that adds pleasure to your daily life. Like sex and music, eating should make your belly button go up and down. But unfortunately for many, this doesn’t happen. Food and eating only evoke guilt and anxiety. Is this bread made with genetically engineered wheat? Does this cheese contain too much saturated fat? What kind of pesticides are on these strawberries? The questions and worries can be endless.

There are several reasons why people feel lost when it comes to knowing what to eat, but I believe one of the major causes for the confusion relates to our society entering into the Age of Nutritionism.

This paradigm has been written about since 2002 by a handful of social theorists, historians, academic nutritionists and journalists such as Michael Pollan. In his book, In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto (The Penguin Group, 2008), Pollan describes nutritionism as an ideology that is not a scientific subject like nutrition.

He further explains that nutritionism has done the North American public a great disservice by convincing us that food is essentially a sum of its nutrient parts. It's the nutrient, not the food, that matters and since nutrients are invisible and difficult to comprehend we need expert advice to decide what to eat.

According to Pollan, nutritionism assumes that nutrients in food should be categorized as healthy and unhealthy—as “good” versus “bad.” And because nutrients are what matter, there is no qualitative distinction between unprocessed and nutrient-fortified processed foods.

The ideology conveys the message that the sole purpose of eating is to promote and maintain physical health. Biology trumps other meanings attached to food such as pleasure, community, family, spirituality, social values and cultural identity.

Pollan is right when he says that food industry marketers, government policy makers, nutrition scientists, journalists, and health care providers (including dietitians) have all played a part in cultivating this ideology and contributing to the public’s bewilderment.

The problem with nutritionism is that we've lose sight of the big picture about food and eating and become bogged down with scientific details. Details that, for the most part, do nothing to improve our health and prevent illness or disease. 


We start doubting our own knowledge and judgment and feel obligated to eat scientifically, obsessing about numbers or the “golden child” nutrient of the moment. Sadly, we get distracted from what’s important.


A column I recently wrote for the Vancouver Courier, right here, is a good example of how our obsession with sugar has made us lose sight of the fact that chocolate milk is just as high in nutrients as plain, unflavoured milk and, in moderation, helps kids of all ages meet their daily nutritional needs. 

In a nutshell, my mission for this blog is to give you a no nonsense guide to eating and living well. I'd loved to hear your thoughts along the way.


adapted from a column originally published in the Vancouver Courier, June 12, 2009