1

What To Eat
ANT 301 Nutrition and Health Final Exam Kiki Sabater

A BLISSFUL IGNORANCE? It all used to seem so simple. Healthy eating meant eating French vanilla yogurt with fruit in the morning, my packed ham and mustard sandwich with an apple for lunch at school, and my mothers balanced home cooking for dinner with the occasional cookie or ice cream indulgence on weekends. Healthy eating was a matter of course in my world, or at least it seemed that way. My parents encouraged staying far from the sugary fruit roll-ups my schoolmates devoured ad nauseum during snack time while Lunchables was a world synonymous to chemistry set should I ever dare to request one of my own. Prior to my journey into independent living far form the restrictions of my parents pantry and structured meal times, I had given little thought as to the reality of the relative health of the food I was eating. And why should I have? It seems unreason able to doubt that the food I put into my mouth should be anything less than good for me. While the sushi I bought at my local Sainsburys my first year at school in Scotland might have some questionable fake crab, why would I ever think twice about the grapes I purchased as a post-sushi snack? What would ever lead me to believe that the fiber filled fruit I could devour by the handful were doused in carcinogenic pesticides that could destroy my delicate organ systems (Action Network North America, 2009)? Why would I think twice that they werent organic, or locally grown? They were fruit, and therefore, they must be good for me. It wasnt until I became aware of a crippling gluten allergy that had been plaguing me for years that accompanied lactose-intolerance I tried so desperately to ignore that I became aware of the effect the food that was supposed to be nourishing

3 was having on me. Upon further research, with a broad, diverse pool of readings from nutritionists, food critics, anthropologists, food scientists and historians, the apparent absence of health in the foods available to the civilized person is striking and has become a reality I, nor the educated consumer, can ignore.

THINGS ARE NOT WHAT THEY SEEM: WHAT NOT TO EAT In a world where food is mass produced, cultivated in fields sprayed with Roundup to kill pesky pests, with a food system that uses one crop to feed its livestock, preserve its foods, and feed its people, healthy eating becomes a daunting task (Kenner, 2010). What is ostensibly nourishing and healthy is instead prodded and poked,

manipulated by the fingers of science and marketing into a product that cheap, tasty, and often addictive (Moss, 2013). When it comes to deciding what to eat, being able to first determine what not to eat greatly narrows the consumers pool of choices; and in making initial steps towards healthier eating, the consumers first step can be to avoid processed foods. Packaged is often synonymous with processed, even with the simplest of food products. Thanks to the emergence of monoculture in farming practices, what was once a considered a nourishing meal of traditional meat, potatoes, and string beans at the corner deli is instead a plate of preservatives, pesticides, and most prominently, corn (Pollan, 2006). The advent of the ability to manufacture foods, thanks to an overabundance of nitrogen fertilized corn (Pollan, 2006), similarly invites a slew of ingredients not found in any kitchen cupboard into the mouth of the consumer (Kenner,2010). The multigrain crackers the consumer selects instead of a candy bar are better only in a degree of

4 relativity; both are made of genetically modified corn based ingredients, filled with sugar, soybean oil, and countless preservatives (Critser, 2003) to keep them safe from the trucks from the factory to the supermarket shelves where they will sit for what can be weeks if not months, only to sit potentially for longer in the back of the consumers pantry (Nestle, 2006). While these ingredients in moderation are not entirely damaging to health consuming them in moderation has become a near impossibility in the world of packaged foods. While the consumer can accept that regular fast food consumption is evil somehow he fails to see that daily sugar laden fruit yogurts or hydrogenated oil filled salad dressings are just as perilous to his health (Pollan, 2006). The artery clogging saturated, hydrogenated fats pale in their health effects only to the diabesity inducing toxic amounts of sugars jammed into the very same food products (Lieberman, 2008). In order to give scientifically engineered bland cheap corn into a flavorful, delicious, mouthwatering snack cake, it is pumped with palm, sunflower, and soybean oils to give it a soft, rich texture that is made palatable by the high fructose corn syrup used to make it just the right amount of sweet to make you crave the next one (Moss, 2013). This process is no different from those used to create your favorite brand name salad dressings, granola bars, or white breads (Critser, 2003). These additives are useful to the producer to ensure product consistency, enjoyability, and shelf life, though are not beneficial to the health of the consumer; rather, they are toxic (Taubes, 2011). While some food brands have been successful in reducing the amounts of additives in their products, mostly due to FDA restrictions and mandates with respect to trans fats (and soon hydrogenated oils), sugar restrictions are

5 currently non-existent. When food shopping, the conscious consumer should not avoid packaged foods at all costs, rather they should be wary of packaged foods that are simultaneously overly processed; while jarred almond butter can be a healthy choice, it becomes immediately less so when its ingredients also include hydrogenated palm oil, sugar, and maltodextrin.

SO I WONT BUY PROCESSED FOODS: WHATS LEFT? In a perfect world, or namely, in a Paleolithic version of our world, eating an unprocessed, plant-based diet is both fully nutritious and satisfying (Eaton, 2002). I focus my suggested diet choices primarily on a plant-based diet for my own health, and promote it for others because of the potentiality for nutritional fulfillment entirely from plant sources. Paleolithic man was able to eat a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, and limited amounts of nuts and grains that provided him with a nearly complete and balanced nutritional profile (Eaton, 2002). In eating dark, leafy greens and seasonably and geographically available fruits he was not limited by the dominance of one or two subsistence crops like the agriculturalists that followed him (Goodman, 1989). This shift, though, from nomadic hunter-gatherers to rooted civilizations who cultivated and domesticated their food sources created what would become a global shift in human food consumption (Bryant, 1985). Thus, were the modern consumer to attempt to make a shift back to his Paleolithic roots, he would run into some serious nutritional deficiencies. Modern subsistence on a fruit and vegetable diet would be far from equivalent from that of his Paleolithic ancestors (Milton, 2002). The important distinction to understand is the nutritional value

6 of these foods with respect to the differences in wild versus cultivated plants. An ear of genetically modified corn grown tightly packed next to acres of more corn, sprayed with pesticides that kill not only the nutritious bugs on the plant that is already fighting for nutrients in the overplanted, nutrient leached soil is hardly nutritionally comparable to a wild ear of corn fertilized by animal manure instead of nitrogen that has the benefit of space and time to grow (Bryant, 1985), (Milton, 2002). With respect to modern production of fruits and vegetables, conventionally cultivated produce is more often than not genetically modified, meaning that it has been altered either with gene replacement from other plants or altered to produce a desired ripening, anti-pest, or pesticide resistant attribute (Cummings, 2009). This results in a genetic crossover of plants that are in no way related in species, making consumption of conventionally grown produce dangerous for those of us with serious food allergies (Cummings, 2009). Beyond the implications of potential allergens, we are unknowingly subjected to a market flooded with produce that is just as processed and engineered as the packaged foods on the next aisle over; a processing that is equally dangerous to the processed food additives found in boxed cookies. With genetic engineering and modification, we are buying fruits, vegetables, legumes and nuts that are antibiotic resistant, nutritionally lacking, carcinogenic, and pesticide coated (Weber, 2009). While I do focus on the potentialities for enjoying a healthy plant based diet, I would like to note the potentiality for a healthy diet that includes meat, fish, and dairy products in moderation. While I personally avoid these food sources because of frightening production and domestication techniques used by conventional producers, there is room for occasional, careful consumption of organic beef, chicken, fish (not

7 farmed) and dairy (Milton, 2002). The reasons I do not openly promote large consumption of animal products is due to both the feed with which these animals are provided, namely in the form of corn that they are not designed to digest, as well as overcrowded, unclean mass domestication and growing techniques that threatens the potential for health benefits in their consumption (Kenner, 2010). Additionally, habitual overconsumption of protein (which is the main component of these foods) is not beneficial for human health, even at the amounts of small daily meat or dairy consumption (Lieberman, 2008). Similarly, the consumer should look to make moderate their consumption of grains and to avoid overly processed and refined versions of them. White flour, white rice, white pastas, cakes, cookies, etc., made from bleached, refined flours are nutrient lacking and not beneficial to health (Gueyenet, n.d.). While they may provide a source of calories and fast carbohydrate energy, they are devoid of the fiber or vitamins from the husks of whole grain brown or black rice, or the ever favorite, complete-protein quinoa. However, grains, like animal proteins are not necessary to the human diet to ensure nutritional needs are met; all of the requirements for proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins and minerals can be found in a fruit, vegetable, and nut based diet (Gueyenet, n.d.). Furthermore, production techniques for grains in the current global food system are often flawed, much like fruit and vegetable production, though the toxin contamination levels are higher. Most recently, traces of arsenic have been found in brown rice and brown rice syrup in the form of an alternative sweetener (Berman, 2012). Grain consumption should perhaps then be kept moderate and occasional, much like animal proteins and dairy products.

8 WHAT TO EAT: THE CONSUMERS BEST BET At this point, the consumer throws his hands up, defeated, thinking he might as well get that Big Mac and super-sized Coke since it appears that nothing is safe for consumption. While it may be the case that the food system in the U.S. as well as those worldwide are highly flawed, the consumer is not entirely devoid of healthy food options; the organic market is often his best choice for safely and ethically produced foods. Organic, especially Certified Organic in the U.S. ensures no use of dangerous pesticides, genetic engineering, or chemical fertilizers (Hirshberg, 2009). While this alternative fails to address the issues of nutrient density of cultivated foods, it is a greatly favorable alternative to most conventional produce. Additionally, it is important to note that organic designation is not synonymous with healthy; sugar, corn, and saturated and refined oils can all be produced organically . The major issues that organics present, however, are those that also plague conventionally produced foods; those of large carbon footprints and issues of sustainability. The ability to mass-produce food has created a potentiality for irresponsible food production that is a plague both to the consumers health and the health of our planet (Pesticide Action Network North America, 2009). Decimating the earths natural resources by producing beyond our natural means with the use of chemical fertilizers and genetic modification, we are not only destroying the nutritional value of our food, we are killing our planet (Kenner, 2010). Additionally, transporting foods across the country, and often across the planet produces an issue of gas emissions that contribute to the global warming crisis (Nestle, 2006). The consumers best, most health

9 and environmentally friendly choice, then, is to purchase locally produced, organic foods whenever possible.

WHY SHOULD I CARE? The effects of the food we eat extend even beyond the consequences of our consumption habits on our personal health; it becomes a community, national health issue as well as a huge environmental concern. With more than 40 million obese American adults and 14 million obese American children, obesity is an American epidemic that has its growing roots in the overly-processed-sugar-and-fat-dense readily available and affordable foods (Moss, 2013). Children grow up drinking Cocoa-Cola purchased at their school vending machines where potato chips are the obvious accompaniment. Major soda companies pay schools for product promotion while physical education becomes a things of the past as school budget cuts demand money to be used elsewhere (Blanding, 2010). Diabetes and metabolic syndrome plague the nations lower socioeconomic classes who can afford nothing more than the processed and fast food options that are filled with toxic sugar and artery clogging fats, creating a national health care crisis (Woods Johnson Foundation, 2009). Buying organic or buying local does more than keep the consumer and healthier. Responsible consumption sends a message to the major food producers in the U.S. and to those worldwide, demanding more food that is legitimately nutritious and safe for all consumers as well as the planet (Salatin, 2009). Environmentally, animal domestication for consumption is a major contributor to global warming in the form of methane emissions from livestock production (Kenner, 2010). Its effects are accompanied by the carbon footprint left from transportation of

10 these products as well as fruits and vegetables miles from their growing origins (Nestle, 2006). Similarly, mass monoculture destroys acre upon acre of land, leaching and eroding the earths topsoil while conventional production techniques pollute water systems with toxic pesticides and chemical fertilizers (Bryant, 1985). The way we eat affects not only our health, but also the health of our planet, making a shift to responsible, sustainable production an absolute necessity. While the research shows the painful reality of the flawed food system of the nation and world in which we live, it also gives alternatives for more favorable consumption practices as well as suggestions for future improvements. When deciding what to eat, the modern consumer must be much more savvy than he might have been forced to be 50 years ago. Thanks to government subsidies and the introduction of chemical fertilizers, packaging, processing, genetic engineering and the perils of mass production have reshaped the way calories are available, thus making the modern individual that much more responsible for his eating choices (Critser, 2003). Healthy food is no longer what is most available for human consumption, even when attempting to subsist on mostly fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Instead, the consumer must be willing to fight the good fight in the supermarket, reading ingredient lists and nutrition labels, purchasing organic and local food as much as is available for their own health, the health of others, and the health of our planet. On my honor, I have not received, nor given, nor witnessed any unauthorized assistance on this work

Kristina G. Sabater

11

References Cited

Berman, J. (2012). Scientists Find Arsenic in Baby Formula Sweetener. Voice of America News, . , Online. Blanding, M. (2010). The Battle For Schools. The Coke machine: the dirty truth behind the world's favorite soft drink (pp. 89-117). New York: Avery. Bryant, C. A. (1985). The Cultural feast: an introduction to food and society. St. Paul: West Pub. Co.. Critser, G. (2003). Fat land: how Americans became the fattest people in the world. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.. Cummings, R. (2009). Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops: Why We Need a Global Moratorium. Food, Inc.: how industrial food is making us sicker, fatter and poorer -- and what you can do about it (pp. 79-89). New York: PublicAffairs. Eaton, S. B., Eaton III, S. B., & Codain, L. (2002). Evolution, Diet, and Health. Human diet its origin and evolution (pp. 7-17). Westport, Conn.: Bergin & Garvey. Kenner, R. (Director). (2010). Food, inc [Documentary]. USA: CTV International [ed.] :. Goodman, A. H., & Armelagos, G. J. (1989). Disease and Death at Dr.Dickinson's Mounds. Applying anthropology: an introductory reader (pp. 58-62). Mountain View, Calif.: Mayfield Pub. Co.. Gueyenet, S. (n.d.). Whole Health Source. Grains and Human Evolution. Retrieved December 11, 2013, from http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/grains-and-humanevolution.html

12

Hirshberg, G. (2009). Organics-- Healthy Food and So Much More. Food, Inc.: how industrial food is making us sicker, fatter and poorer -- and what you can do about it (pp. 47-59). New York: PublicAffairs. Lieberman, L. S., Smith, E. O., McKenna, J. J., & Trevathan, W. (2008). Diabesity and Darwinian Medicine. Evolutionary medicine and health: new perspectives (pp. 72-95). New York: Oxford University Press. Milton, K., Teaford, M. F., & Ungar, P. S. (2002). Hunter Gatherer Diets: Wild Foods Signal Relief from Diseases of Affluece. Human diet its origin and evolution (pp. 111-120). Westport, Conn.: Bergin & Garvey. Moss, M. (2013, March 20). The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food. The New York Times, p. Online. Nestle, M. (2006). The Produce Section. What to eat (pp. 24-66). New York: North Point Press. Action Network North America. (2009). FIelds of Poison. Food, Inc.: how industrial food is making us sicker, fatter and poorer -- and what you can do about it (pp. 143-148). New York: PublicAffairs. Pollan, M. (2006, June 4). Mass Natural. The New York Times, Online, n.a.. Pollan, M. (2006). The Omnivore's Dilemma. NY: Penguin Group. Woods Johnson Foundation., & Weber, K. (2009). Childhood Obesity. Food, Inc.: how industrial food is making us sicker, fatter and poorer -- and what you can do about it (pp. 259-261). New York: PublicAffairs. Salatin, J., & Weber, K. (2009). Declare Your Independence. Food, Inc.: how industrial food is making us sicker, fatter and poorer -- and what you can do about it (pp.

13

189-196). New York: PublicAffairs. Taubes, G. (2011, April 13). Is Sugar Toxic?. The New York Times, p. Online. Weber, K. (2009). Food, Inc.: how industrial food is making us sicker, fatter and poorer - and what you can do about it. New York: PublicAffairs.