Beware the Malnutrition of Affluence
Jan. 9th, 2007 10:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
joshwritingBy Professor John Yudkin
Department of Nutrition, Queen Elizabeth College, London, UK
(The essay below was written in response to a request to examine the future path of food and nutrition. It is a tad dry. And a lot of it seems obvious. I think it is worth the read, anyway. If nothing else, skim to the bolded segment and last paragraph.)
*****
One thing is certain about the food of the future. In spite of the almost universal belief that we shall sooner or later be eating pills, we shall in fact have to eat the sorts of foods which need a plate, knife, fork, and spoon. The amount of protein, fat, and carbohydrate which our bodies need every day, with its mineral elements and vitamins, even if pure and dry, weighs something like one pound. This would make up a hundred or so quite large pills, and I doubt whether this is quite what people have in mind when they imagine food in this form.
On the contrary, what is becoming more and more clear is that people will only eat food which is palatable to them – food which is pleasant to look at, to smell, to taste, and to chew. And indeed it is within this context that, before (then), we shall have deliberately to make changes in our food if we are to escape considerable hazard to our health. For the food manufacturer, with all the resources of science and technology, is increasingly able to make attractive foods, with tastes, colours, and textures which we find increasingly irresistible, but which may be nutritionally useless or even undesirable.
The qualities which attract us to our food are normally found together with its nutritional qualities, but are not identical with them. The texture and taste of meat has little to do with its protein or B vitamin, nor the texture and taste of fruit with its Vitamin C and its mineral elements. Left to ourselves, we are today eating large and increasing amounts of sugar, mostly in a range of highly attractive manufactured foods. Tomorrow, we may be eating savoury foods with perhaps an even greater attractiveness than meat, but with none of its nutritional qualities.
We cannot blame the food manufacturer for making our foods very attractive, since that is what we ask him to do. It follows that we cannot rest on the policy of caveat emptor, for this means only that we shall be given what we want, not necessarily what we need. It is this ability of the food manufacturers to separate our wants from our needs which must lead in due course to some legislation concerning the nutritional value of our foods. It will have to be more subtle than simply ensuring that our foods shall be processed in such a way as to conserve its nutrients as well as possible. It will have to take into account the fact that the existence of highly palatable new foods not only leads us to eat these foods, but tends to push other and perhaps more desirable foods out of our diets. Unless we devise legislation which prevents this sort of distortion of our diet, we shall increasingly run the risk of the malnutrition of affluence. There is already evidence that this ability of the food manufacturer to separate palatability from nutritional value contributes not only to the large number of people who are overweight, but also to diseases such as diabetes and coronary thrombosis.
On the other hand, the activities of the food manufacturers will be vastly increased in the direction of food preservation. Improvement in economic status, dependent upon increasing wealth, improvement in agricultural and processing techniques, and simple methods of birth control may enable a much greater proportion of mankind to share the increased food supplies. The present situation whereby only a small proportion of the world’s peoples, in the wealthier countries, can have a wide range of foods at any time of the year, and from virtually any part of the world, will spread to most countries. There will also be fewer regional differences in the sorts of food which people eat, as well as a decrease in difference in quantity.
One consequence of the tremendous advances in agricultural methods and food technology, which have contributed so much to improving our food supplies, is that our foods have become more uniform. Sometimes, they have also decreased in flavour, as have for example broiler chickens. With rising wages, the cost of providing ‘old fashioned’ foods, such as free-range poultry, will rise. At first, this will no doubt mean that the cost of such foods will be prohibitive for almost everyone. By (then), however, when our real incomes are likely to have increased greatly, there will be a sizeable proportion of the population in the affluent countries who can afford to indulge their preference for the much costlier foods produced for taste rather than cheapness.
But, as we have seen, the increase of food availability will not automatically ensure good nutrition. By (then), it is probable that we shall have enough information about the factors which determine food choice to ensure that we know how to bridge the gap between wide food availability and appropriate consumption.
In the presently impoverished countries of the world, we shall have to solve two dietary problems: how to persuade people to eat what is good for them, and how to prevent them from eating what is bad for them. In other words, the first problem is to persuade people accustomed to eating a narrow range of nutritionally poor food to widen their choice so as to include the nutritionally more desirable foods, especially those rich in protein. We will need, for this purpose, information about what determines food habits and how people can be influenced to eat unaccustomed food – information which, at present, we have hardly begun to seek.
The second problem is to prevent the malnutrition of poverty from slipping directly into the malnutrition of affluence. As I have indicated, the latter will probably require some form of legislation, since it is difficult to see how any form of persuasion can overcome our inbred seeking after palatability in our food.
The kicker is that this was written in 1964.
The problem is not that we did not know what was going to happen. As ever, the problem is a lack of willingness to address what we did know was going to happen.
Department of Nutrition, Queen Elizabeth College, London, UK
(The essay below was written in response to a request to examine the future path of food and nutrition. It is a tad dry. And a lot of it seems obvious. I think it is worth the read, anyway. If nothing else, skim to the bolded segment and last paragraph.)
*****
One thing is certain about the food of the future. In spite of the almost universal belief that we shall sooner or later be eating pills, we shall in fact have to eat the sorts of foods which need a plate, knife, fork, and spoon. The amount of protein, fat, and carbohydrate which our bodies need every day, with its mineral elements and vitamins, even if pure and dry, weighs something like one pound. This would make up a hundred or so quite large pills, and I doubt whether this is quite what people have in mind when they imagine food in this form.
On the contrary, what is becoming more and more clear is that people will only eat food which is palatable to them – food which is pleasant to look at, to smell, to taste, and to chew. And indeed it is within this context that, before (then), we shall have deliberately to make changes in our food if we are to escape considerable hazard to our health. For the food manufacturer, with all the resources of science and technology, is increasingly able to make attractive foods, with tastes, colours, and textures which we find increasingly irresistible, but which may be nutritionally useless or even undesirable.
The qualities which attract us to our food are normally found together with its nutritional qualities, but are not identical with them. The texture and taste of meat has little to do with its protein or B vitamin, nor the texture and taste of fruit with its Vitamin C and its mineral elements. Left to ourselves, we are today eating large and increasing amounts of sugar, mostly in a range of highly attractive manufactured foods. Tomorrow, we may be eating savoury foods with perhaps an even greater attractiveness than meat, but with none of its nutritional qualities.
We cannot blame the food manufacturer for making our foods very attractive, since that is what we ask him to do. It follows that we cannot rest on the policy of caveat emptor, for this means only that we shall be given what we want, not necessarily what we need. It is this ability of the food manufacturers to separate our wants from our needs which must lead in due course to some legislation concerning the nutritional value of our foods. It will have to be more subtle than simply ensuring that our foods shall be processed in such a way as to conserve its nutrients as well as possible. It will have to take into account the fact that the existence of highly palatable new foods not only leads us to eat these foods, but tends to push other and perhaps more desirable foods out of our diets. Unless we devise legislation which prevents this sort of distortion of our diet, we shall increasingly run the risk of the malnutrition of affluence. There is already evidence that this ability of the food manufacturer to separate palatability from nutritional value contributes not only to the large number of people who are overweight, but also to diseases such as diabetes and coronary thrombosis.
On the other hand, the activities of the food manufacturers will be vastly increased in the direction of food preservation. Improvement in economic status, dependent upon increasing wealth, improvement in agricultural and processing techniques, and simple methods of birth control may enable a much greater proportion of mankind to share the increased food supplies. The present situation whereby only a small proportion of the world’s peoples, in the wealthier countries, can have a wide range of foods at any time of the year, and from virtually any part of the world, will spread to most countries. There will also be fewer regional differences in the sorts of food which people eat, as well as a decrease in difference in quantity.
One consequence of the tremendous advances in agricultural methods and food technology, which have contributed so much to improving our food supplies, is that our foods have become more uniform. Sometimes, they have also decreased in flavour, as have for example broiler chickens. With rising wages, the cost of providing ‘old fashioned’ foods, such as free-range poultry, will rise. At first, this will no doubt mean that the cost of such foods will be prohibitive for almost everyone. By (then), however, when our real incomes are likely to have increased greatly, there will be a sizeable proportion of the population in the affluent countries who can afford to indulge their preference for the much costlier foods produced for taste rather than cheapness.
But, as we have seen, the increase of food availability will not automatically ensure good nutrition. By (then), it is probable that we shall have enough information about the factors which determine food choice to ensure that we know how to bridge the gap between wide food availability and appropriate consumption.
In the presently impoverished countries of the world, we shall have to solve two dietary problems: how to persuade people to eat what is good for them, and how to prevent them from eating what is bad for them. In other words, the first problem is to persuade people accustomed to eating a narrow range of nutritionally poor food to widen their choice so as to include the nutritionally more desirable foods, especially those rich in protein. We will need, for this purpose, information about what determines food habits and how people can be influenced to eat unaccustomed food – information which, at present, we have hardly begun to seek.
The second problem is to prevent the malnutrition of poverty from slipping directly into the malnutrition of affluence. As I have indicated, the latter will probably require some form of legislation, since it is difficult to see how any form of persuasion can overcome our inbred seeking after palatability in our food.
The kicker is that this was written in 1964.
The problem is not that we did not know what was going to happen. As ever, the problem is a lack of willingness to address what we did know was going to happen.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 03:59 am (UTC)You can't legislate morality
Date: 2007-01-10 04:18 am (UTC)What we need is better information about the food choices presented to us, and to better understand the main reason we don't let children drink antifreeze: Not all things that taste good are food.
It may taste good, but McDonald's is not food.
Re: You can't legislate morality
Date: 2007-01-10 04:34 am (UTC)I take that to mean that one cannot force by legislation that which is not considered morally right.
Child molestation, bigamy, the drinking age, raping of married women, elimination by the courts of the laws on sodomy...
Desegregation. Emancipation.
We can and do legislate morality. It is hard work, not simple work. But one of the ways we win such battles is by starting them a long time in advance. This was a battle we could have won had the powers that be simply believed.
The dairy lobby and meat lobby are not the major culprits, though I will grant that lobbies may well be.
But I will leave you with two thoughts:
Trans fats in New York City.
Rare hamburgers in most national chain restaurants.
Re: You can't legislate morality
Date: 2007-01-10 05:01 am (UTC)all of which continue to happen despite being illegal.
elimination by the courts of the laws on sodomy
Yup. You can't legislate morality, so we struck those laws from the books.
Desegregation. Emancipation.
Slavery, Segregation, Discrimination. Yup, they'll still find ways to act around the law. It's only through the power of conversation and education that we've been able to make actual headway.
Trans fats in New York City.
Yup. Not food. Won't stop people from eating it. Nor should the law try to stop them. If you want to toke up on trans fats or cannabis, that's your right.
Rare hamburgers in most national chain restaurants.
Yup. And if you want a rare hamburger, that's your right.
If it's too dangerous for most people to eat, it should have a warning label. If it's too dangerous for anyone to eat, it should be labeled as poison.
Re: You can't legislate morality
Date: 2007-01-10 05:18 am (UTC)And you missed the point on the retraction of laws/presence of laws.
If your argument is "they still happen, even though they are against the law" then why bother with laws at all? Murder still happens, too.
But less of it happens than if it were not illegal. We legislate morality and it has an effect on behavior. It is not as strong as if the people bought it to start with, but over time, more often than not, behaviors change.
Title IX is another example of this.
"It's only through the power of conversation and education that we've been able to make actual headway."
Had we only talked about them, and not legislated against them, less would have happened, and less would have happened quickly.
"Yup, they'll still find ways to act around the law."
The incidences of slavery in this country are diminishingly small. You present it as if it were a presence that was more than a pimple on what it was.
Legislation alone is ineffective. But talking without legislation gets us pretty much nowhere, too. And all too often, the two together still fail.
Legislation is still a powerful lever.
Seat belts had to be in the cars before they could become habits of use for most, before the advertising could be effective.
re: then why bother with laws at all?
Date: 2007-01-10 02:12 pm (UTC)1) Provide regulation where a clear, consistent, universal guideline is necessary. Laws of this kind include election laws, traffic laws, plumbing and power regulations, and taxes.
2) Prevent the unacceptable. Child Molestation, Rape, Slavery, these are all unacceptable. They cannot be allowed to happen. EVER. The same cannot be said for Big Macs.
Re: then why bother with laws at all?
Date: 2007-01-10 09:56 pm (UTC)At one point, slavery was acceptable. Then we legislated against it. It was still acceptable in many people's eyes. Years of education helped, but what helped even more were the years passing with its being deemed unacceptable by the government.
The passage of the laws in that instance and women's suffrage and other such scenarios were ahead of the acceptance of the moral issue by a large bulk of the country.
You list plumbing. Is this, perhaps, a reference to the content of pipes? Is lead in pipes or in paint something that should not be covered by laws? How are they different from the food issue? How is the EPA different?
Income tax is something that was considered immoral. Election laws, depending on which ones, are another.
Is desegregation in group 1 or in group 2? At what point does statutory rape come in? Is "age of consent" covered?
Legislation of morality has been a tenet of this government since its founding. Perhaps you would like to argue that it should not be, but that becomes a different question altogether.
Re: then why bother with laws at all?
Date: 2007-01-11 06:16 am (UTC)He suggests, among other things, child molestation as an example of a moral issue on which legislation is effective; you respond that it "continue[s] to happen despite being illegal."
He asks what the point of passing laws is then, and you respond that laws prevent, among other things, child molestation.
I find I cannot reconcile these two assertions in any way consistent with good-faith discussion.
Help me out here?
Re: then why bother with laws at all?
Date: 2007-01-11 12:55 pm (UTC)Re: then why bother with laws at all?
Date: 2007-01-11 03:53 pm (UTC)I see, now, I think.
When you say we can't legislate morality you mean that we can't, by means of law, change people's moral beliefs in any kind of wholesale way -- we may be able to change their behavior to bring them in line with our moral beliefs, but that's not the same thing.
Did I get that right? If so, I agree as far as it goes.
That said, I'll also add that there's an important indirect effect whereby laws change public behavior, public behavior changes habit, and habit changes belief. Often this process takes generations, but it's powerful. Moral beliefs are not immune to the effects of law.
Re: You can't legislate morality
Date: 2007-01-10 05:03 am (UTC)In general, I'm not a great believer in passing laws to do this, though I'm willing to go along in cases where people's bad habits affect someone other than them. (Which, in the case of health, they mostly do.)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 02:48 am (UTC)