The truth about nutritionists
Feb. 11th, 2007 08:51 amSan Francisco appears to be rather fun! Back tomorrow.
For those who enjoyed the NYT "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants" article, here's the wonderful Ben Goldacre of Bad Science writing about why 'nutritionism' isn't just nonsense, it's right-wing nonsense.
For those who enjoyed the NYT "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants" article, here's the wonderful Ben Goldacre of Bad Science writing about why 'nutritionism' isn't just nonsense, it's right-wing nonsense.
Re: I don't buy your assertion
Date: 2007-02-11 09:54 pm (UTC)I remember when I was dirt poor and someone was lecturing me on why I needed to eat organic. Dollar per dollar I couldn't get enough calories to do organic, and that's when beans and rice was about all I could afford. I was arguing with this person on a talk radio show and they were so arrogant about how my poverty didn't excuse me from my obligation to buy this really expensive food! I really felt malnutrition cancelled out the benefits of eating food produced better. This certainly is a poverty issue, that you can't eat organic when you're poor, but I'm really not seeing a poverty-nutrition-health connection (other than inability to afford good medical care) in Ben Goldacre's essay. There's only about one paragraph where he talks about what the stories ought to be but saying it's all about the entertainment industry is pretty silly. (Media whores are what they are and while he criticizes them rightly it's really a problem in any field.)
So I stand by saying I'm not seeing him making an argument that bad nutrition is right-wing nonsense, and I'm also not getting how it's about deprivation and social exclusion in a first-world society. Maybe this is just because I'm American (not that I'll usually fall back on this but we don't have the kind of class thing going on there is in the UK), but I also know that rich people can afford to eat really bad food that kills them, and poor people who aren't in third world countries can eat very simple foods that are cheap and take care of their health needs quite nicely. I feel pretty confident about this being true since I grew up dirt poor. (I also note in Seattle they have a program in a very poor neighborhood to teach people how to plan good meals, doubtlessly looking at nutrition issues to do this; so perhaps I see thing in an overy rosy view.)
On the other hand, I find this article (here for anyone without an NYT account) - about (of all people) the South Beach Diet's doctor's program for keeping people from having heart attacks - makes it clear that prevention is just too expensive for most insurers (how most health care is paid for in the US) to bother to pay for it, and as near as I can tell the NHS seems mostly interested in giving you some pills and getting you out the door, but this doesn't seem to be about not-poor or poor. No one I know has enough money to pay a fancy doctor like this guy to have a special program created to get their health on track - to me it seems like the kind of thing only available to the super rich. So this indeed is a failing of the health systems of both of these countries, that they are more interested in cheap care than in the making the investment it takes to care for people over decades.
PS: Hope I'm not rambling too much. Pardon me while I run off to find some pineapple.
Re: I don't buy your assertion
Date: 2007-02-12 09:11 am (UTC)It seems obvious to me that the study of nutrition per se is not a bad thing, but the constant bullying by quacks like "Dr" Gillian is part of an ever growing right wing trend towards blaming the unhealthy for being unhealthy eg"if they just ate right they would not get cancer" bollocks type arguments. The next step is tom justify not providingn health care because all illness is self inflicted.
I think that is indicated in the article.
Of course "poor people" can eat well in this country, but there are many reasons why people from all income brackets sabotage themselves healthwise. Personally I would argue that many of these reasons are related to living under terminally fucked up global capitalism.
This is a bit of a ramble, but just one more thing. A voluntary sector advice organisation (I think it was NACAB ?)in the UK had always advised "poor people" to buy fresh veg, whole grains, cook from scratch etc as part of their debt advice strategy. They stopped doing this in the 90's as various studies showed that it is actually ch4eaper to buy and eat processed filling rubbish - filling the kids up on white bread and marg with sugar sprinkles is much cheaper than giving them fresh fruit for example. Not better for you, of course, but cheaper.
Re: I don't buy your assertion
Date: 2007-02-12 11:38 am (UTC)Re: I don't buy your assertion
Date: 2007-02-12 12:04 pm (UTC)