Just eat better junk food?

Updated 7.13.2013; reformatted 9.7.2015

In Food science we trust?

A long sophistic piece in the Atlantic that argues we should embrace highly processed foods— so long as they've been engineered to taste great with fewer calories. And the author introduces a new pejorative, "Pollanites," for those (as I do) who argue that the answer to obesity is to eat real food, not overly refined and processed foods. The kindest description for Pollanites would be elitist.

Rather than exhorting people to eat real food and avoid processed junk, we should be exhorting and supporting the food industry to re-engineer our food into lower calorie, tasty junk.

This isn't to say that I disagree with the contention that Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman aren't full of themselves. But that doesn't mean that they are wrong. And if the fast food industry would change that WOULD have a huge effect. But you aren't going to get me to agree that it isn't better to take control of what goes into your mouth. And to do that, you need to eat whole foods or foods that you mostly process yourself.

The other point I'd mention is that a lot restaurant food is processed. You want to know what's really in your meal? Then you have to make yourself from unprocessed ingredients. Thus most of his examples (to me) are commentary on processed food. And so-called "wholesome" food can be processed as well.

I get his point that if junk food purveyors offered better quality junk then people might be smaller. I guess in the end my question is, would the junk food industry be attempting to create better lower calorie option absent the efforts of Pollan, Bittman and other foodies? I think the answer to that question is no.

Fast food isn't going away, and it's profits aren't going to be hurt by the efforts and intentions of a couple of foodies. For years Americans were told to eat low fat and didn't. For years Americans have been told to avoid junk and fast food, and both industries have never been larger. Can companies like McDonald's play a role? Of course they can, and will so long as it proves profitable. Companies exist to produce profit for their owners or shareholders. I don't say that to demonize them, I say that to acknowledge reality.

I will also say this. The food technologies are presented in the article as a fait accomplis— that food scientist meddling with additives will result in good tasting food. But we've been down this route previously too— what tastes like lemon to a chemist in the lab may not taste like lemon to me, especially if I'm used to eating actual lemons.

It's always a choice. I can support the creation of better choices for those who hand the control of their food to third parties, but the first and best choice for me will always be taking control of what goes into my mouth. And the only way to truly do that is to cook and eat real food. Your choice might be different, your valuation of the time and effort required to realize my choice might be different, and that's fine.

Problem carbs?

And what is the deal with the constant mention of "problem carbs?" What exactly is a problem carb? So he disses Pollan's position against "nutritionism" (defined as adding nutrients back into foods, as opposed to eating real food that contains the nutrients) and then goes on to lament "problem carbs" and the fact that rather than a chemical soup, MsD's chief chef has actually considered (the HORROR) using plain fat in some products. Neither fat nor carbs is the problem. Total calorie intake is. That's it. If existing junk food was sold in smaller packets, and people would eat less, because 1 package = 1 serving. Yes, it would cost more, and yes that means poor people will eat less of it. But isn't getting people to eat less the point?

Some of what he describes as a positive is just ... horrible. I tend to avoid processed foods, because I like to control what goes into my mouth. But I get that lost of people don't want to cook at all. Still Food scientists don't have a great track record, and I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

On the other hand, I agree that the knee jerk dismissal of fast food efforts to lower calorie counts is equally wrong. McDonalds has an egg white McMuffin now, which saves about 50 calories over the original, and they've started upping the fiber content of their buns. Burger King has a new whopper that saves 100 calories. Those aren't huge numbers, but you don't need giant deficits to lose weight. You need to move more and eat a bit less. But I still won't go to McDonald's for breakfast, it's too easy and much cheaper to make my own at home. Does that make me a Pollanite? I say, go ahead and have your egg white McMuffin,if that's what you want, and good health to you, but I'll pass. More for you, and we both get what we want.

I do get what I think he's trying to say, the perfect is the enemy of the good. But I don't think the answer is to pretend that a "best" doesn't exist. I am not fan of more regulation, though he claims to be. Transparency is what I think is needed. Put the calorie counts on the web for people to see and decide for themselves. Put the fancy chemical names on the packages and see if consumers give a hoot.

And here's a Well Blog piece in the New York Times (which sadly and unforgivingly doesn't include a link to the study being discussed) that gives a good suggestion as to why simply re-engineering junk food probably won't work. If it still activates the brain's reward center and drives people to overeat ... profits remain, and so does obesity for most people.

Dr. David Katz weighs in about the better junk food thesis. He's not a fan, because he doesn't think "junk"should be a type of food in the first place.

Disclaimer