Thesis. True. Good to see.
but then the usual on celiac disease, an international map.
http://www.drschaer-institute.com/us/professional-articles/a-global-map-...
note that for reasons unknown the rate of the actual disease is going up fast. Why?
Those who have the disease go from alone of misery to normal functioning when they get out the gluten even when they want to eat bread daily.
2
Dr. Carroll has funding from Pfizer a subsidiary of Monsanto so he doesn't mention any health problems from pesticide laden GMO food.
13
Thanks but I'll stay plant based with a little fish.
91
We confuse the need to eat clean with the need to eat just enough. Americans have food-related health problems because they eat too much.
119
Who pays this guy, General Mills? I guarantee you, if you do have gluten sensitivity, as I do, you would rather take a B-vitamin than eat anything containing gluten. He suffers from the delusion that all of us are just following a fad - very far from true.
96
Yes, fads exist in food consumption and producers may capitalize on our collective nutritional fears. Yes, this article is still irresponsible. Americans could benefit from pounding less sodium. Eating “clean” just means treating your body with respect. Any push for healthier eating habits should probably be embraced, especially by this publication.
48
(What should be) common sense plus science = relax, eat in moderation, enjoy your food.
59
Suggestion: go live in a poor country where processed foods simply are not affordable, and fertilizer is a somewhat pricy additive for your garden at home. There, you will mostly certainly find people struggling to get food on the table -- but when it gets there, it is hands down qualitatively fresher and more healthy than the "regular" diet of so many Americans. Case in point: our obesity epidemic, as well as the spike in sugar consumption since WWII which possibly is a causative prerequisite to heart disease and cancer.
53
Food in the USA is frequently over salted or over sweetened. This is on purpose. We have been programmed to eat an overly salty food such as pizza and off set all that salt with a sweet soda. We have distanced ourselves from the actual taste of food. Companies claim that when they reduce salt in a product, sales go down. So they pack on the salt----all very strange since salt shakers are not scarce!
Right now I am overcome with a salty taste in my mouth. I try to avoid salt and clean out my system, but it is hard. For me, low salt products still taste too salty.
Many American citizens have elevated blood pressure, so why should most foods be so salty? Only government intervention seems effective to counter this negative trend. I would like to buy more foods that are not so salty. My preference does not stop others from using their salt shakers!
26
I try to eat vegan often because it seems to lower my high cholesterol. I also eat organic for a couple reasons. But when I make my organic vegan black beans and brown rice, I make sure to use a teaspoon of msg because then the meal tastes delicious. A few "smoke" drops help too.
14
The food group to truly fear and reduce consumption is dairy and beef. This has nothing to do with personal health but everything to do with the health of the planet.
Dairy cows and beef cattle emit large amounts of the greenhouse gas methane, which is 25X more powerful than carbon dioxide at creating global warming. People are unaware that most of the methane comes out the front end as belches, not the back end.
One reason we don't have carbon pricing is the beef and dairy lobby and the fact that their methane-emitting products would be priced 25X higher than CO2 emitting products. Everyone is afraid to take on the dairy lobby. But consumers can help save the planet, and make a real difference now.
Stop or reduce the consumption of dairy milk, whey drinks and cheese products. Reduce the amount of beef you eat. Eat goat and other non-dairy cheeses. FYI, I'm not a fanatic: I still love and eat dairy products but I consume less.
Reducing beef and dairy consumption and the subsequent reduction methane emission will deliver benefits almost right away. Unlike CO2, methane dissipates in 10 years. Therefore, the dairy products you don't consume today will have a positive impact slowing climate change very soon. This is one thing we can all do right now to deliver a climate change benefit in our lifetimes.
Now, that's something we can all celebrate with a glass of champagne, goat cheese and warm bread!
58
Great article. Great NYT Picks comments, on both sides.
Aging boomers may be the last generation to suffer the food woes and other ills that came with being a child of the '50s and '60s. Fast food, TV dinners, etc., etc.
I see my nieces and nephews, ages 37-51, eating healthfully, exercising as a way of life, deliberately seeking, and finding work-life balance. And THEIR children (ages 2-18)? They are super healthy, due to modern medical advances from birth -- plus their parents' knowledge and example. This youngest generation will lead terrifically healthy and productive long lives.
In other words, this too shall pass.
(And the French ... they have always known the secret to eating -- and living -- well.)
34
Regarding GMO foods, I have a different reason for choosing not to eat them. They may increase production of food products. They may reduce the use of pesticides. They may have several benefits. But, given all that, it makes the farmer dependent on the corporations that create, then patent, the seeds that are used in producing that food. In many cases, seed stock cannot be taken from the GM plant, and even if it can, the farmer who does so is liable to be sued and fined for doing so. This creates unconscionable monopolistic control over our food system and supply. So I choose foods that are naturally grown.
73
When I started counting how much sodium I normally consumed, it was around 6,000 mg, far above the "sweet spot". Frankly, I believe in mindfulness more than ignorance. Yes, scaring people about food is bad. But no, that doesn't mean it's okay for my 15 year old to scarf down a box of cookies during a half-hour cartoon.
Moderation and mindfulness are what I believe. I don't think "highly processed" is necessarily bad, but I think if two of your three meals each day is from a fast food joint or diner, or a can or box, that's probably bad.
I eat a LOT more vegetables than I used to, and I'm slowly losing weight. My cholesterol is actually not too good, but my triglycerides sunk quite a bit. I feel better, and my colon is happy when I either don't eat cookies or cakes or I eat a ton more fiber to make up for the white flour.
From reading the comments, there are certainly a lot of diletants who believe that "all meat is bad" but aren't sure why, and "all salt is bad" but don't realize too little sodium can kill you - just as too much water can.
I think it's best to try to improve our diets, and pay attention to what we eat.
People think that NOW things are worse somehow, like there weren't fat people in the past, like there weren't sick people in the past, like kids with a gluten or peanut allergy wouldn't sicken or just die from "unknown causes". People used to die, a lot. Just because the NYT didn't talk about it doesn't mean it didn't happen...
20
I'm unimpressed by appeals to Scientific Authority, such as that presented in this article, which borders on intellectual intimidation. If I eat wheat and it makes me feel bad, I'll avoid it -- no matter whether or not some Learned Person has blessed me with a diagnosis of this or that disease.
There's tons of evidence of how covert industry funding distorts scientific research. In the past, tobacco-industry-funded scientists published research suggesting that second-hand smoke was harmless; that has now been debunked. There's a lot of evidence about how research funded by Big Pharma distorts clinical trial results. The oil industry has done its part in suppressing research about climate change. Which makes me wonder about the supposed harmlessness of MSG. I don't have the time to dig into the funding sources behind those studies, so I'm going to go with how my body feels when I eat MSG.
(By the way, were all of the AAAS scientists polled in the 2015 Pew poll food scientists? Because, while I'm sure they are all brilliant people, I don't know that I'd put a lot of weight on the opinions of an astronomer or a nuclear physicist about food and nutrition.)
34
I'm one of those who avoids genetically modified foods. It isn't that I think that the genetic modification itself is dangerous. It is that manufacturers have genetically engineered crops to be immune from herbicides. Such "modified" crops can then be endlessly sprayed with roundup during their growing life. The weeds among the crop die away and the resistant crop goes on to become our food--our bathed regularly in poison food. I don't suggest that the practice be barred. I just demand that such foods be labeled. People like Mr. Carroll can buy and consume them if they wish. People like me will be able to avoid them.
48
You kind of forgot to mention that Mono Sodium Glutimate is additive to salt as far as a problem for those with high blood pressure. That is the primary reason to avoid it.
German studies have found that Nitrites and Nitrates in excess as they are used to preserve food can cause stomach cancers. this is probably because the levels used to repress bacteria also repress cells inside the stomach.
Scientific American once said that it wasn't gluten that was causing problems but pest resistant crops were. Remember, from the plant's perspective, were are pests too.
Beef is fine but Bovine Growth Hormones are not. Wonder why young girls are maturing early these days? Wonder why France won't import US meat? Don't forget that using antibiotics instead of BGH just creates superbugs.
14
"Most Americans don't seem to care what scientists think" Well, there's your real problem in a nutshell.
30
Much of the science is clear that cholesterol raising meat, dairy, eggs and trans fats and sugar are bad for people. The author focuses on a few fringe issues like gluten, salt and MSG to come to the conclusion that it's perfectly healthy to eat whatever your little heart desires for as long as you want with no consequences. Sorry but the AMA and numerous large studies disagree. In fact these studies show that many life threatening conditions can be reversed or at least be controlled once the patient changes to a healthy diet.
25
I'm a scientist, and I refereed articles submitted to top journals. May I be permitted some skepticismwithout being lumped in with the "anti-science" crowd?
My beef is with the way Dr. Carroll talks about genetically modified organisms (GMOs). I'm aware that genetic modification has been practiced since prehistory, for example, by cross-breeding. Probably most of what we eat is the product of such genetic modification which occurred slowly and were vetted over time.
Note the word "slowly.".
GMO controversies these days are often about: the pace at which such organisms are being brought into commerce; whether the direct effects and side effects of individual GMO products are being adequately assessed; and whether corporate profit interests infect processes of evaluating and approving individual GMOs. Corporate misfeasances, malfeasances, and influence are well enough known that they have undermined public confidence in product integrity.
This is not necessarily about science per se, of course. It's concern about the potential for *corruption* of science where corporate interests and the public interest intersect. Not all skeptics and doubters are anti-science knuckle-draggers. Dr. Carroll should exhibit more respect for the responsible laity, and address their doubts respectfully.
48
You are dead wrong about MSG. I've had 4 seizures precipitated by MSG.
31
All this food insanity a mirror of our society in general: high anxiety and a society of dichotomy.
The affluent are always chasing the coolest trend, spending loads of money. The food industry, the real culprit here, is only too happy to oblige them. As they chase health they are totally duped. Those less well off are too busy between multiple jobs and making ends meet to care. In this case, the food industry is only too happy to cater to their needs for fast, easy and cheap. They keep them coming back by loading processed food (garbage) with SUGAR and SALT. The food industry needs to be held accountable like cigarette manufacturers were. Never has society been so divided.
By the way, being invited for a dinner is an honor and a privilege. It is totally egotistical to expect your host/hostess to cater to you. Eat what you can and if you can’t, eat before you go. Just shut up about it and say thank you.
27
Everything in moderation. Eat whatever you want.
25
Clearly, the past decades' surges in diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, cancers, obesity, kidney diseases, etc. are all imaginary: just fake news! This editorial is the perfect application for the Trump administration's next Surgeon General.
29
I'm taking this article with more than a grain of salt. While I'm not a nutritionist by any stretch, a lot of the stuff here sounds wrong. This guy sounds like an apologist for the pig food industry corporate moneymaking machine. who funds whatever bogus studies he might do.
27
Sigh. Is this article for real? Is it April Fools day in November? I wish I would break down everything that is wrong with this article but it would take me a week or two. Clearly written by someone with lots of GMO's and toxins and RoundUP coursing through their veins.
40
Yes, let's continue to eat unconsciously because that's working so well. The truth is, the most important thing you can do to improve your health is to be attentive to what you put in your mouth. If you eat processed food, you just don't know what's in it. So, you have to use quality raw ingredients, learn how to cook, and educate yourself about what, when and how much to eat. Stop thinking of food as entertainment and start thinking of it as fuel. The good news is that good food tastes good and is satisfying.
31
Let's not forget that regular exercise effectively negates some "dirty" food consumption. However, fit humans tend to be more in tune to the foods that facilitate peak performance throughout the day which can vary from person to person. I don't perceive such people as paranoid or scared. Just conscientious.
11
Many years ago, I was put on a healthy diet. I am, and have been, the healthiest person in my doctor's office, panels perfect, weight great, fit, strong, blah, blah. Yes, at first it took a few weeks to become accustomed to a gallon of water/day, all raw foods, fasting every Monday, but my mind is far beyond stressing, and my body loves it. This article is dangerous and no more than a gimmick for publicity and a plus for the pharmaceutical industry. Let me add that after about 4 years, I craved my lifetime favorite food, salami. I put a slice in my mouth and gagged it up. It made my mouth greasy. I could smell chemicals. I'm saying that taste is acquired, and like all aspects of refined living can and must be taught. This article is also upsetting, because we're in a severe diabetes crisis. We're obese, which not only causes illness, but death. The poor are being taken advantage of by having their bad eating pushed by manufacturers of junk.
41
I am curious whether the author receives grants from Monsanto. Me thinks so.
The standard American diet is scary. Read the packaging and try to decipher the ingredients. Better yet -- stay off all processed foods for 3 weeks, and then determine how you feel. Migraines; aches and pains will mysteriously vanish as many readers have noted with a diet change that mimics our ancestors who ate foods not doctored by Monsanto.
Most scientists are owned by Monsanto. So of course, not to be trusted.
Change your diet and notice how you feel. If you prize your health, you will no longer adhere to the standard American diet.
40
" If there’s one thing you should cut from your diet, it’s fear."
(I will be pilloried for this...)
Americans seem to have a lot more fear in their diets , guts and minds than most other people I have met...and it does them no good at all and causes more harm than they realise. They should try and have less fear (real or imagined) in their lives for a better, happier , healthy life!
10
I have to take issue with this commentary. The problem with all of our health science right now is that it's based on statistics. Researchers use animals to study effects of foods, drugs, and chemicals. That is ludicrous when you consider that substances affect people differently, even people from the same family. So how can you base your decision on what worked (or didn't) in animals? What science should be doing instead is to study effects using DNA so that your doctor could accurately tell you if something is a problem for you or not. Right now it's a statistical guessing game. I don't know about anybody else, but when I hear a commercial saying that a drug might help me but might kill me and to "ask your doctor" if xxx is right for you, it makes me mad. How would my doctor know? Science is doing the public a disservice.
4
Yes, GMOs are safe.
But most Americans eat too much. They eat too little fruit and vegetables and too much sodium, high-fructose corn syrup, saturated fats, cholesterol, ...
8
One problem is that people always look at diet as the source of their problems.
sometimes it is, many times it isn't. another is americans don't cook. pointing at one enemy in the kitchen is the quick fix people are looking for. Americans should start cook, eat less garbage, and not expect this will make them super humans.
Truth is I've never been in the u.s, but my brother told me once that he and a friend were arguing about which of two vegetables were more healthy and an american friend told another, "can you imagine arguing which vegetable is more healthy then the other?".
Another thing he told me, he told a girl that a canned orange juice was not healthy, and she said:"sure it is, it's vitamin c". now I'm sure many americans are more educated about food, but it shows that processed foods became the norm there, when it should be the other way around. no way to eat healthy if you don't cook.
12
Here's the deal: I limit fats and don't eat red meat or cheese more than a couple times a year because of high cholesterol. Then I was diagnosed with "pre-diabetes" and the doctor insisted I lose weight (wearing a size L is "obese" now) and limit carbs. That leaves vegetables and egg whites. Yum. Now I hear that the research on cholesterol is inconclusive, and friends are gorging on eggs and steak in the name of Paleo. I'm thoroughly confused and very hungry. Just this week a deadly neurotoxin was found in our local supply of crab. It's time to declare life a pre-existing condition for death, and maybe eat like we enjoy it.
9
Just last week there was an article in the NYT about toxic pesticides that are being de-regulated. There are several fruits and veg. that I try to buy organic grown to reduce exposure to toxic residues. There are also well documented data about heavy metals in some fish and even chocolate. While a lot of the fads and in particular the hysterical fear of GM foods is pure junk science (as the article points out GM food is the best hope to feed the expanding human population). However there is some very sound science to support limiting cured and highly processed food intake as well as refined sugar and excess fat. Just as people who think about their health avoid smoking and try to exercise a bit, using good judgement about diet makes sense if you don’t want to end up diabetic or mordibly obese. I find that staying as healthy as possible improves the quality of life and I don’t do it out of fear but enthusiastically embrace it - bacon, wine, chocolate, sushi and all in moderation.
1
So glad I didn't give up coffee when it "caused" cancer. And dairy because it makes cholesterol go up. And sugar because it might make me morbidly obese. But I have given up alcohol because I do believe it is linked to cancer and I really do not need it to be happy or have a good time. Finding a great bottle of wine is harder than it's worth. It also, turns out, was the source of the acid reflux that had plagued me for decades. Go figure. That was not on anybody's radar. So I muddle along loving pork,and steak, and creamed spinach, and loaded baked potatoes, and biscuits made with lard, and so far I'm in good health. And when I'm not anymore it will be because really, I am old, and ain't life great. Especially the food part.
7
Dr. Carroll, I don't care how sure you are of your sources; I get blinding headaches (centered in my occipital and temporal regions) if I ingest food that contains MSG. Same reaction from artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose. I do my best to avoid these substances, but sometimes they are hidden. Food sensitivities are real, and "science" needs to research and document the incidence of health-compromising reactions to substances commonly used in foodstuffs sold to our population.
20
This is great article for the industry I'm in, healthcare. It's like the cardiologist that also owns a PIG FARM.
I follow responsible physicians who actually save lives by reversing disease without medication via FOOD. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. A whole food, plant based diet is the most healthy lifestyle for person, society and planet, period.
This country is in SERIOUS problems with heart disease, cancer, diabetes, to name a few. These conditions will cost the country BILLIONS. These conditions can be prevented and REVERSED via a WHOLE FOOD, PLANT BASED DIET.
27
The author assumes that one avoiding gluten will eat a gluten-free bagel in lieu of a wheat bagel. Yet many health sources suggest that ALL processed refined flours be avoided. How about replacing the wheat bagel with real, whole food like vegetables, legumes, seeds, nuts? Many of us avoid gluten in order to avoid refined flours entirely. Old fashioned food isn’t scary, and it’s tasty. The advent of processed foods correlates to the rise in chronic disease and obesity. And dairy consumption grew precipitously during the 20th century thanks to an aggressive dairy industry. Not scary to get back to the way people have been eating for thousands of years, and it’s plenty delicious.
15
I have never given up eggs, whole milk, real butter, I hate gluten-free anything, eat a bit of salt on my veggies, even, gasp! ingest occasional bits of beef. I was with you till you get to modified foods. We know that some of these that have pesticides built into the genes are killing vital pollinators, and we really don't have enough evidence to swear they will not eventually harm us. Scientists told us DDT was safe, remember? Or was that before your time. I ate my share of DDT, and 35 years later (after millions of birds had been killed by it), I had DDT stored in my mammary glands, giving my infant daughter jaundice. Much later, we were told that teflon was "inert and wouldn't get into food," and guess what? They were wrong. Teflon heated just a bit above normal temperatures is not inert and it seems now that it might cause cancer in addition to stinking up the kitchen and killing your parakeet. So GMOs are okay? Even if it turns out, 100 years from now, that we are not harmed by GMOs, the pollinators will be. Who wants to kill more honeybees? Who, come to that, is going to do the honeybee's job if the honeybee has been poisoned?
26
If food is so toxic, why do Americans live longer than ever before?
6
But Americans don't live longer than ever before. They did until a couple of decades ago, but now life expectancy is falling in the U.S.
11
Not true! Our longevity has shortened in recent years.
8
To say that a molecule is simply one with an added atom or molecule is a ridiculous argument to make for food safety. For instance, hydrogen peroxide is simply a water molecule with an added oxygen atom.and water is viral to life. Hence hydrogen peroxide is perfectly OK, right?
it makes me wonder about the writer's thought process and science. And I usually like his columns with some disagreements
24
"The hullabaloo... echoes the panic over MSG .. or monosodium glutamate, is nothing more than a single sodium atom added to glutamic acid — an amino acid that is a key part of the mechanism by which our cells create energy. Without it, all oxygen-dependent life as we know it would die."
Carbon monoxide is a simple molecule composed of the two absolutely essential elemental constituents of hemoglobin-based life. Enjoy in moderation!
20
I read this with interest until I got to the end and realized it was to promoter GMOs.
Almost all of the studies of the safety and efficacy of GMOs are done by universities that depend on their support of Monsanto and their ilk. e.g. if there is concern about long term effects of GMOs short term studies are done.
Similarly with the pesticides and herbicides. Read "E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/us/politics/epa-insecticide-chlorpyri...
We are in serious jeopardy!!
17
I'm disheartened that this is written by pediatrician. He must be supported by Kraft. Look at the ingredients of a Box of Kraft mac and cheese. It's a favorite food of many children, salt, sugar, and things that belong in a chemistry lab, not the kitchen. Sure once or twice a year no big deal. But ask a working couple how often that is served in their house and you'll see it's a staple. Otherwise it's pizza. Takeout pizza is a fancy word for salty bread. I don't care if you don't like liberals it doesn't matter in the end. Eat a regular diet of industrial made food and you will be sick. I started eating no sugar and almost no processed food which significantly lowered my salt intake. We eat out once or twice a month. I feel, look, and sleep 100% better. Processed food is not good for you, no matter your politics.
26
How about all the people who think plastic bottled water is superior and better for their health than tap water. Unless you are living in an area equivalent to Detroit (without quantitative and quantitative assays on water quality, I don"t know the higher limit before tap water is bad for humans. That's why we have town health departments monitoring our tap water supply), you have given into the fears from mass marketing who finally got around to profiting from setting up at false market needs.
I once let a relative give me a two dollar water of bottled "special healthy" water to give to my terminally ill brother on his death bed. I kept my self from telling her the stupidity in her action.
Harold Edelstein, PhD
7
Yes food is a wonderful source of pleasure and we shouldn't fear it. Yet, the vast majority of Americans have diets that will make them sick before their time. The cleanest thing you can do is eat a whole foods plant based diet - more vegetables.
This article misses that point. It focuses on the smaller squabbles and misses the main point that most Americans eat poorly and will feel better, look better ad probably live longer if they shift.
Annie Kay MS RDN
12
I note that the author is a pediatrician. The MD is an excellent generalist degree in human biology, with an emphasis on diagnosis and treatment of disease. However, a typical medical school curriculum covers about a week or so of basic nutrition, using material written by PhD's in nutrition. So I'm curious what qualifications the author has, beyond his MD, to write authoritatively about food and nutrition. If the Times solicits philosophers to write about ethics, and astronomers to cover what a new pulsar is up to, why not ask someone in the correct field to consider the impact of what we eat?
35
The problem with GMO foods is that it leads to corporate ownership of seeds and genes, not that the current GMO foods are dangerous to eat.
16
Well-reasoned argument until the "shark is jumped" at GMOs. GMO concerns are not the same as gluten or fat or carbs. GMO concerns are not about what a strawberry with a trout gene does to the consumer of that "Franken-food", but rather what potential harm may be done to the ecosystems in which that food is produced -- damage to the environment is the concern not any individual waistline. The author muddies the water with his Monsanto-esque conflation.
12
"Gluten sensitivity (the catchall disorder that leads many Americans to abstain from gluten) is not well defined, and most people who self-diagnose don’t meet the criteria."
Er, what then are the -ill-defined?- criteria they fail to meet?
4
Think what you like, but the American/ Western diet causes much of the heart disease, diabetes, obesity and cancer that inflict our society.
11
Wow, this article sounds like the NRA telling us that guns don't shoot people. America has a serious problem with obesity and a myriad of diseases related to food. I am not advocating that anyone should fall for the pseudo-science promoted by the food industrial complex to sell ever more processed junk under the banner of "gluten free". But we should not all relax and pretend that the garbage sold to us by very powerful, sophisticated mega-corporations is healthful.
My solution is to eat the perimeter of the supermarket. I stick with whole foods, dairy, meats that are not processed, and grains, nuts, or legumes from the bulk section. If your great grandmother would not have recognized it as food, it is likely not something your body is evolved to properly handle - and that is something I am very afraid of consuming.
17
That's such a simplistic answer that I don't really think helps anyone. There are a variety of foods my great-grandmothers were not familiar with, this doesn't mean they are not good to eat. Here in my area of the country, flour tortillas are made much the same as they were made by their great-grandmothers. No one can say too many of those are good for you.
3
This column is a very good example of the problem that he's trying to highlight. His discussion of salt is right on. His discussion of MSG is naive at best. Moreover, the statement that "food should be a cause for pleasure, not panic" is an incredibly oversimplified statement. Maybe the problem to be highlighted is that when columns in the media dumb down complex issues, they will always spawn as many misunderstandings and they illuminate.
11
Eat to live a healthy life, not for "comfort", "joy" or" pleasure"!
5
I have had numerous allergies thoughout my entire 75 and a half years. Of those allergies, only two--shrimp and lobster--are food related. If somebody experiences unpleasant symptoms after eating something, it makes sense to avoid that food for a while. Then try it again and see how you feel. If your doctor suggests that you eat less sugar, salt or fat--and gives you sensible reasons--consider taking his/her advice. Otherwise, stop worrying and enjoy life.
8
This column is not so much about eating clean as it is about avoiding fad diet trends. These two concepts are not the same thing at all and really shouldn't be confused for each other. We may not need to avoid specific foods or nutrients mentioned in this column, but we can all benefit from a healthy diet that nourishes our bodies. The Standard American Diet (SAD) shows that at least in the US, we don't really have an epidemic of people fretting about bad food:
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/standard-american-diet/
2
Is it any wonder that consumers are afraid of food, after years of lies and misinformation from Big Ag and the food industry? We’ve been fed everything from dangerous pesticides to dangerous levels of corn syrup and other sugars.
As for MSG, what studies show is irrelevant to me. MSG gives me a piercing headache and I’m glad it’s used less. I think most people would agree that when a food makes us sick, we don’t want to eat it. I have great respect for scientific studies, but they can’t change that.
10
Everyone is not the same and can tolerate different items. I'm 69 and the only thing I avoid is fast food. Don't particularly like it. Most of the food I consume I cook myself. I'm an omnivore and when I occasionally bake a loaf of bread I "add" gluten to improve the texture. I have no health issues and consume red meat, poultry, and fish. I recently purchased a deep-fat fryer and enjoy making my own French fries. I get all the vitamins I need from the foods I eat and take no supplements. I'm pretty strong and do physically demanding construction work on the property that I own. I also love to bicycle and swim. I have medical insurance but stopped going to the doctor a couple of years ago for routine physicals. Didn't see the point. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
1
The concern about GMO's isn't the genetic modification necessarily -- it's that they modify the food to be resistant to herbicides and then dump on the herbicides. The concern in the herbicides. Not sure the science supports the safety of this approach.
12
The author himself is overlooking some science, albeit relatively new research. There is some evidence that gluten can contribute to the development and ongoing pathology of Hashimoto's thyroiditis. The inflammatory processes that lead to Hashimoto's are similar to those that lead to celiac disease. And there may be other similar links between gluten consumption and autoimmune disease.
For example:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00384-015-2370-z
9
I stopped eating manufactured food years ago. I eat nothing with added sugar. I eat nothing that contains ingredients I can’t pronounce. My family members do the opposite. I am 69. I’ll report back in 51 years if I or they made the better choices.
3
I'm all for fresh, healthy food. But I'm really tired of people who won't eat gluten, etc., for no good reason.
8
And what about organic? My wife regards non-organic fruits and vegetables as poisonous. Ditto for many meats. I don't worry about that: a strawberry is a strawberry. I'd rather not eat one that been sprayed with some insecticide, yes, but even the soil's full of chemicals these days. So is there some distinct benefit from eating foods that cost twice as much?
2
As a 30 year practicing physician with a special interest and advanced degrees in clinical nutrition, I can only shake my head in disbelief and wonder.
Simply put, our bodies need to eat a clean nutritious diet to function properly; this is biochemistry and physiology 101.
How would your cars react if contaminated gasoline was used?
Lastly, for what it's worth, my nutritional training during 4 years of med school and 4 years of residency amounted to almost nothing. What are Dr. Carroll's credentials besides being a pediatrician?
23
Well put. Medical students learn a lot of things in med school, but proper nutrition for their patients isn't one of them.
12
Hmmmm . . . it's not so hard to eat "clean." I simply head to the produce section and load up on organic fruit and vegetables, along with a bit of dairy, whole grain pastas, and meat (also organic, if available). The local Meijer where I shop has definitely gotten the message that there is a demand for clean food, and they offer a wide selection at very reasonable prices.
We don't know the long-term effects of eating GMO foods, but we certainly DO know that they have been sprayed with glyphosate (the main reason for their development), and that glyphosate is increasingly being linked with various diseases. Sadly, it is now found in many human urine samples, and even in rain. So I'm happy to pay a bit extra for "clean" food and at the same time support farmers who actually care about the quality of the food they provide.
10
Citations please. I've never read an article that had anything even close to proof that glyphosate has been linked with anything.
Enter "Adverse health effects of glyphosate" into your search engine and you will get dozens of links to scholarly articles that talk about links to such diseases as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and many other human health problems.
I was in excellent health and had a good diet; active, very little processed food, whole grains, produce, etc. When I was 58 I was rear-ended. The trauma gave me arthritis. I was paralyzed till a naturapathic diet took down the inflammation, and then it was years of exercise to regain the muscle I lost to live normally again.
I am now allergic to foods I was not allergic to when I was young. I can feel my joints begin to ache when I eat them. (The anti-inflammatory diet took away my hot flashes, too; and cleared up a few other minor problems besides.)
The trauma of the auto accident triggered an arthritis that was so extreme I was in a wheel chair and I could not touch my fingers of one hand together. Even chewing hurt. The specialist told me diet would never work and wanted me to go on expensive and toxic meds. He was flat-out wrong. The naturapath was precise. She said; stick to this for 8 to 10 weeks and the inflammation will go away. That's what happened.
I think we are subject to so many toxins these days a trauma can tip some of our systems over the edge. It happened to me. Who knows whether your health is on the edge of failing, or not, until it actually happens? Maybe a dash more of toxic food could do it, too. My allopathic doctors think I am a miracle. I intend to go back packing this summer, at 65, for the first time in 7 years.
8
While I think the author is largely correct, there are legitimate concerns about GMOs, not necessarily about whether they are safe to eat but whether they are safe for the planet, not to mention all the commercial and legal implications. We simply don't know what will happen in any ecosystem when a foreign gene is distributed into a natural environment.
Legally, the institution that introduces a new gene or modifies an existing one "owns" the modified organism even though 99.999% of that organism existed before that institution was founded. When that gene distributes itself (via pollination or escaped animals) into the wild or into someone else's livestock, does the originating institution now own all of those individuals that carry the gene and thus fall under the definition of the organism that they "own"? Monsanto certainly thinks so, and sued farmers whose crops were previously free of their modifications but became contaminated through natural systems of reproduction.
We can't blindly accept GMOs simply because they don't pose a real health risk to those who eat them - there are many more implications that are of real concern.
10
All food is "organic". Chemical fertilizers are actually better than fermented cow dung; nobody is analyzing the useful content of the latter. The only issue with manufactured fertilizer is that it is applied in excess of need and the runoff contaminates streams.
Whole Foods sells foods at higher prices on a myth: That “organically farmed” produce is in some way better, safer. That’s a straight-forward lie. They exploit consumer fears they themselves created and promoted.
I recall an incident of e. coli contaminated spinach "organically farmed" in California in 2006. Seems no one could identify the source; it was even suggest that wild boar feces might have caused it.
"Organically farmed" meant that it was fertilized with processed cow dung -- processing that supposedly raises the temperature sufficiently to render the result safe. Well, animal dung often contains e. coli, and the processing method raises the temperature gradually -- which creates a more heat-resistant strain of e coli, needing even higher temperatures to finish the job, and that cycle continues, ending well below the temperature need to kill the most resistant strains it creates! But not one news report suggested that organic fertilizer as the e. coli source; it would harm the image of organically farmed produce being desirable and worth higher prices
I'll go with foods fertilized by chemicals manufactured in nice clean factories, thank you. And save money in the process.
4
This is cherry-picking at its finest--compared to how many outbreaks of E. coli from non-organically grown produce? I'd argue that if those cows making the dung had eaten grass instead of grain pellets, they wouldn't have gotten the "bad" E. coli in the first place as their digestive tract would have the normal microflora adapted for millenia before the factory farms showed up. And while chemical fertilizer does provide N, P and K for the plants that allow them to grow big and green, there are also micronutrients (other elements) that are leached from the soil, resulting in produce lacking these nutrients (e.g. magnesium). This in turn leads to deficiencies in humans.
5
Your argument categorically dismisses enviromental damage—consider the algae blooms in Lake Erie and the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico—never mind the impact on any local biome. No farmer should be applying dung directly to the plants. I think you need to learn a lot more about oganic farming and its methods.
Faith in corporations isn't the solution. When your only concern is price, you are engaged in a race to the bottom. Other countries don't live that way and we need to learn from them. We can do better.
9
I don't want to engage in the argument about gluten or other particular dietary items. However, I do want to point out a problem with all the "it works for me, it must be right" kinds of arguments. The placebo effect is known to be very strong, and thus the only kinds of experiments that would yield true information about the specific issues with a dietary item, would be a double-blind investigation. It is very difficult to find any scientific evidence on this point, since most people pay attention to what they are eating, thus opening the study to bias. Similarly a researcher who knows the assignment of subjects will bias the results. Finally there is the issue that some allergies are susceptible to desensitization, and some are not. Thus a study of the effects of gluten after a subject has stopped eating gluten for years, is not really a good subject for the study. If people think omitting gluten makes them feel better, by all means continue omitting it. But please don't believe that your experience is the equal of legitimate scientific inquiry.
3
As a mathematician I'm happy to see some numerical sense in a food essay. A 100% increase in risk means nothing in itself. If the risk was 0.1%, it goes up to a still minuscule 0.2%. If it was 20%, it goes up to 40% and that's important. Doctors and medical researchers and popular writers seem to be allergic to specifying the actual risk so their typical warnings are almost meaningless. Thanks, Aaron Carroll.
7
And yet here we are, with yet another clickbait article obsessing about our obsession with food.
4
The main problem with GMOs is apparently not the genetically modified food itself but the massive use of pesticides and herbicides that accompany the use of GMO seeds. These poisons kill birds, bees and other organisms and they build up in our soil and water.
Similarly the main problem with red meat is not so much eating it as the fact that raising so many food animals using the methods we use is also poisoning the environment. We may not die from eating GMO soybeans or hamburgers, but we degrade the planet for all life that follows us.
16
Food is a social mordant. A significant part of cultural identity has been based on shared food culture. Historically, those eating a common menu felt they shared a measure of experience and worldview. As science and global exposure has introduced a kind of food relativism, people struggle to make sense of dietary options and incorporate changes. There seems to be a tangible pushback from those who feel a personal affront that some in their community might break from previously shared food culture.
I'll tell you what would reduce stress... Rather than finding the dietary peccadilloes of others to be an obstacle and object of discomfort, why not embrace the creativity that comes with parameters. As any designer or architect will relate, it is often the constraints of a project that lead to the most creative, interesting outcomes. The same holds true for food.
The good doctor conflates confusion with fear and unintentionally discourages people from being proactive or adventurous about food. Because food is big business in an environment replete with corporate lobbying and de-regulation, people have every right to scrutinize what is delivered to the grocery and ending up on their table. If my cousin feels better on a gluten-free diet, fine by me. If my husband can successfully lose and maintain weight-loss on a ketogenic diet, I am supportive. The MORE I think about food options and constraints, the more varied, creative, tasty, healthy and pleasurable our diet has become.
8
I am a general internist and adhere to evidence-based medicine, and I respectfully disagree with Dr. Carroll. Sir William Osler is often quoted as having said, "Listen to your patient, he is giving you the diagnosis." Year after year more patients are complaining of GI distress. We call it "irritable bowel" or tell people it is all in their heads and they shouldn't "fear" food. I know. I forgot about Dr. Osler's admonishment too. Until GI distress after eating my favorite foods as I approached 40. Was I just getting old? Stress? IBS? Was I now one of the crazy gluten-sensitive folks? I had already gone lactose-free out of desperation. Oddly enough, when I visited Europe and ate incredibly richly--pasta and gelato in Italy daily, I felt fine. Great. No gas and in and out of the bathroom in a minute instead of 30. Was it more walking? More fruit? Must be. Came back to the U.S. Ate more fruit and walked more, but the easy GI days were over. Until the next summer, when I was back in Europe. What was it? I started reading ingredient lists. In Europe, dairy products and breads are made with simple ingredients. In the U.S., the breads and dairy were full of additives to make them smoother and have a long shelf life. So, I decided to eat cleanly upon my return and guess what? No more GI symptoms here either. Yes, I am only one person, but I'm a believer and I'm now listening to my patients.
32
Also, I believe that North American wheat is heavily genetically modified, thus carrying antigens that European wheat lack. Those antigens may be causing the gluten intolerance that is more prevalent on this side of the pond, and would be consistent with your experience.
5
I get the message that life's too short and we shouldn't worry too much about food.
But, just based on personal observations, Americans do look fatter, larger and more out of shape than Europeans. This isn't scientific, and there are obviously lots of exceptions, but the general public really do seem larger/fatter in the US than, say, Switzerland or Germany.
Living standards are equal, so what explains the differences? Compared to other places, the Americans have relatively lax regulations when it comes to food, love their processed foods and sugars, throw in all sorts of chemicals and preservatives, and are more open minded to experimenting with genetic modification.
Is food the cause? I don't know enough and it's not my field of expertise. But I am a bit annoyed on the lack of good studies and guidance from the science community on what constitutes healthy food and tired of all the so called experts and special interests contradicting each other.
8
These dietary advice deals do not talk about how individual we all are. At 62 I can eat practically anything and stay slim and healthy - guess what - I have this genetic gift. Plus I do not overeat, I just am not attracted to that as a vice. Other people my age process food completely differently and get fat or overeat or do not get nutrients. Diets and eating habits are best designed for the individual.
10
I'm a retired physician. I counseled my patients, puzzled by the changing patterns in recommendations about foods in our diet, that it was hard to beat "moderation in all things" as guidance. Of course, known (not perceived) information, as diabetes, food allergies, food intolerances, etc. needed to be respected. In my practice experience, dietary guidelines for peptic ulcer disease, irritable colon, chronic constipation, elevated cholesterol---to name just a few---changed dramatically, mostly in the direction of a more liberal diet. Many remain hooked on really out-dated advice, fueled by "fake news" in the media, friends, and an endless of source and variety of opinions from "others".
5
My husband began eating a (as much as is possible) grain-free and sugar-free diet due to a poor lipid profile. In just over a month triglycerides fell from 229 to 86 mg/dL, HDL rose 4 mg/dL and he lost 10 pounds, all with no hunger. His GERD sx are approx. 80% improved. And, his walking pace dropped 1 minute per mile. A "clean" convert.
20
What the writer doesn't mention is that our bodies change over time. What was digestible and enjoyable in our 20s isn't necessarily so in our 40s, 50s, and so on. As a child I enjoyed ice cream, as a young adult, coffee and baked goods. Since then my body has changed, and can no longer tolerate, caffeine, casein, gluten, etc. Unless I choose to be miserable for days, I listen to my body and heed its messages.
30
My being a vegan for 75 years is not about health, although I am perfectly fit and healthy, but it is about compassion and love for animals and the Earth.
34
John:
Check your teeth. We are omnivores.
2
Self-restraint, frugal, moderation, observant, tenderly, delicately, trusted, honest, loving, kind; these are words which can be used to support and describe a healthy life; diet included.
When was the last time we heard the words frugal, self-restraint or trusted in this sound-byte culture, without some measure of disdain?
The people who value and practice what these words describe are here. Unfortunately they are drowned out by people in grave distress screaming that their "free speech" has been prevented or by people with unhealthy levels of wealth which allows them to overwhelm honest, kinder and wiser voices from being heard. Genuine debate about all concerns including GMO's has been hijacked by misleading false equivalents as in this article (fats and salts as equivalent to GMO's) or suppressed via false "science" and ignoring genuine science.
4
The Chinese ,the world over including Asian-Americans add MSG to their cooking for the real Chinese flavor. It may be absent from regular grocery stores but for those who want the authentic taste of Chinese food they just have to make a small trip to an Asian store to get it. And also another banned item which is used to enhance the coffee is chicory. In the rest of the world it is not an adulterant but a coffee taste enhancer. With all these so called adulterants we do not ban the chief food enhancer here - Corn Syrup!.
4
I cook my own food, if I'm going to eat ice cream it will be the tiniest bowl I own, once a week and if I eat salad it will be on the biggest dinner plate, four to five days a week. Salad plate is reserved for meat and grains. This plan is working for me.
6
We are scared of our food? Darn right we are. Whether we consciously or intellectually think about what we eat, our bodies have been poisoned by the Big Ag effort to profit off us by seeking rent off those folks who get hungry three times a day. Our bodies are linked to our minds and somewhere deep within the unconscious brain where the lizard lives, we know we are sick and afraid.
Then there is the constant array of Big Pharma that tells us we are sick and need constant medication to mitigate the negative side effects of our modern lifestyles, and while we sometimes point to the air we breathe and the water we drink as culprits, it really is the food we eat that is bathed in chemical fertilizers and pesticides and then sterilized that is threatening our lives, and again, deep down inside our bodies and brains we feel it and know it.
So yeah, food is scary.
12
I was hospitalized for two days because of a dangerously low sodium count. It was to the point where seizures are possible, and I was in agony. Now, I pour on the salt and don't think twice about it.
5
How about the argument that the food deniers are the most obnoxious and divisive people in the liberal tribe of America. Think of the independents (and perhaps even folks on the other side) that may vote more liberally if we were to throw the food deniers publicly under the bus.
7
Blame the liberal press (that's redundant, I know) for fanning the flames of food-guilt.
To paraphrase H.L. Mencken: “Liberalism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
Like the French, we should simply eat what makes us happy, and only when we're hungry.
5
Funny I thought liberalism was marked by a greater sense of care and empathy for others vs. jealously over the self-centered pursuit of material wealth and pleasure? Thanks for correcting me in this misguided notion.
2
GMOs are contributing to the frightening disappearance of insect life on this planet (an 82% decrease over the last 25 years in Germany, and God knows what in the US) by tampering with their food sources, so they are certainly bad for us.
17
This is indeed a controversial subject. Some of the things that we know is that less calories the better. One can argue over what calories are best but we know that most eat too many. The other consideration is our bowel bacteria. They do have special needs for their diet. Feeding them is turning out to be the key consideration. We do know they do have "special needs". The "bad"guys love sugar and saturated fats. The good guys love green vegs and fiber. Many diseases can be diagnosed by type of bacteria, fat folks, diabetes, certain neuro diseases, Multiple Sclerosis and others have different bacteria.
No, its not simple. For detailed info and the science see letswakeupfolks.blogspot.com-Our important bacteria and diet blogs.
5
Some of the very same people who are afraid of food are not so scaread by alcohol or prescription painkillers or recreational drugs or...you name it.
One way of not being so scary of food is to cook oneself to know what goes in.
The thing with eating out/take out is one does not know how much of anything is in it in some sense: if you bake bread, you know exactly how much wheat flour, sugar, salt goes into it. Personally I fee it is 'a lot' -- but a sandwich that has just two slices -- not a lot. Evening dinner with bread on the side -- need to be careful. Or if you make cookies, you know how much sugar goes into it in a literal sense -- a lot! -- compared to how much sugar goes into a cup of coffee and the sugar on normal days when you don't have a cookie.
2
How do you know when someone's a vegan? Don't worry, they'll tell you.
23
FYI, bacon isn’t red meat. Bacon is pork.
3
Thank you!!! Seems like everyone I know feels guilty and anxious about everything they eat, yet most of their angst derives from propaganda pushed by fear-mongering quack nutritionists and health "gurus" out to make a name for themselves. I firmly believe that food should be grown responsibly (i.e. with respect for the environment and our fellow creatures) and as locally as possible. Beyond that, eat what you like and get over yourself. Most of the commenters here would be a complete drag to go out to dinner with.
8
When you are fundamentally neurotic and working very hard to ignore the real cause of your emotional troubles, food is as good a primary villain as any.
11
Typical NY Times baloney. Yes, eat clean, eat local, eat seasonal, eat low on the food chain, eat unprocesses.
The industrial agriculture system is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gasses and climate change. By switching to organic agriculture (and preferably not industrial and not shipped across the world) excess carbon can actually be sequestered in the soil, and global warming can be REVERSED. By our food choices. Don't believe me? France has heartily endorsed this method.
13
Whenever I eat food that has MSG in it in the United States I get a severe headache. The same occurs when I eat food with FD&C Yellow 2 and 5 food coloring in it. I read labels on anything I buy in the supermarket and don't buy it if it lists food coloring that sounds like some histological stains I used in the lab, if it has MSG in it, or some of the other lovely things the food industry loves to add to make the food look or taste better.
Because I can't eat a lot of the highly processed food I tend to cook my own meals from scratch and bake my own cookies. The only frozen food I purchase is from Trader Joe's because they don't have ingredients in their food that will make me ill. It's too bad the Congress sees fit to cater to an industry that creates foods that are unhealthy for us in portions that are also unhealthy.
I won't say that all store bought food is bad because that's an exaggeration. However, the food industry has profits in mind more than it does our safety or nutritional well being.
7
If there's one thing you should cut form your diet, it's fear....and sugar.
5
It would be one thing to say eat whatever and don’t worry about it if the food served in America was real and not over processed to the point of being hazardously unhealthy - especially if eaten on a regular basis. Supersize me is not worry free.
Since when did the nytimes start publishing McDonald’s fast food propaganda!!
5
Let us hear a compendium of nutirionists.
with all due respect to the author, it is only one voice
As a healthy octogenarian, I'd like to hear about genetic input...Genes rule.....
1
My maternal grandfather used to stand by the kitchen sink as Grandma trimmed the fat from the Thanksgiving and Christmas hams, taking the salty white strips and gobs from her hand and eating them, before bringing the platter to the table. Breakfast, 365 days a year was bacon, buttermilk biscuits made with bacon fat saved in an old Folger's coffee can, and gravy, made with some of the fat from that morning's rasher of pig belly. Lunch, in the field on their farm was left-over bacon and biscuits from the morning's repast. Supper was a freshly slaughtered chicken from the yard around the house. Grandma would stroll around strewing kernels of corn from her apron and, with a lightning stroke of her right arm snatch up the unlucky bird and decapitate it in mid-stride. Minutes later, plucked, cut into neck, breasts, wings, thighs, legs and wishbone, the bird was browning in an ocean of, you guessed, hot bacon fat.
The poor man (and, monetarily, he was far, far from wealthy) died at the tender age of 95.
15
If he died at 95, the food he was eating most of his life was not loaded with pesticides, antibiotics, preservatives and fillers of all kinds. You don’t say how old your grandmother was when she died.
1
Bet that grandma nor any of those she fed sat in a cubicle all day, leaving only to drive to or from work. All that activity had great value.
5
The food I and a lot of people choose to eat isn’t about fear as the author suggests. It’s about being informed and making good choices. So I choose to eat as low down on the food chain as possible, which is a plant-based diet. I understand that if I eat a hamburger occasionally, it will not hurt me. But as an informed citizen, I know that my food choices impact the health of the planet, not just my own health. Rainforests are being bulldozed to raise cattle for meat for industrialized countries and to grow palm trees for a cheap source of oil for processed foods. I choose not to support the assault on the planet by refusing to buy products derived from deforestation. And I choose not to support the factory farm industry and their cruel and sadistic torture of docile, helpless animals.
23
I used to have a t-shirt that said "Eat right, exercise, take vitamins, die anyway." This message doesn't mean I don't consider the personal ramifications of what I eat, or how often or how much of it I eat. Nor does it discount any other common sense approach to health such as maintaining a reasonable weight or getting enough exercise. What it does mean, to me anyway, is that we are all going to die no matter what we do. I would simply prefer to be healthy as long as possible before that happens, so I try to eat according to what works for me.
7
Every new food fad proves to me further that the best diet is "moderation in all things". Eat a balanced meal with a little bit from each food group. Mix it up regularly. Stop when you're full. Simple.
5
Although I agree with some of the author's points, he is bundling up a lot of disparate reasons for avoiding certain foods and simplistically labeling them all irrational 'phobias'.
He is especially wrong to be so arrogant about GMOs. The study of and use of GMOs is in its infancy; just like cigarettes were once deemed safe by so many studies (paid for by the corporations, just like the GMO studies, according to many recent articles in the Times), a few decades from now we will probably know a lot more about GMOs. But even back in the day many people intuitively knew that inhaling smoke wasn't good for you, just like people now know that thinking that you can manipulate the genetic structure of plants and animals that have evolved for ages in a delicate balance with the ecosystems around them and pretend that you can know and predict all the consequences, and say with "scientific" certainty that there will be no consequences, is extremely arrogant. There are also many other ethical reasons for avoiding GMOs, even if you think they're okay health-wise; history shows that whenever one entity (like Monsanto) centrally controls too much of the food source, it has led to disaster because so much is dependent on the ethics and expertise of one fallible entity. And, as many other commenters have pointed out, these foods are all soaked in Monsanto-made herbicides. I worked in a vineyard that used 'roundup', and everyone who works around it and smells it knows that it is poison.
7
Due to either genetic make-up or age, millions of people worldwide cannot consume lactose (the sugar in milk) without experiencing painful gas and severe diarrhea. For those of us in this category, requesting meals without dairy products is not evidence of a "phobia."
6
The fear is less about being caught up in some crazy trend or phase. Food production has been so abstracted from a real human connection that a lot of the time we don't know where our food came from, how it was made, and what is in it. It's really easy to exploit those fears, giving people a sense of false control and choice about it.
1
Dr. C is more right than wrong, but our food and eating are complex indeed. If we cook most meals at home from basic ingredients, not cans, and favor a vegetarian diet, we are healthier and much less likely to develop hypertension. There is a basic relationship between eating and exercising- if we exercise 4-5 hours a week, we can avoid dieting which has many adverse effects. If we eat lots of fast food meals, we get too much fat, sugar and salt. All Americans should be taught how to cook and how to prepare a meal in 30 minutes in school- so many people live alone and so many men and some women are plain ignorant about food and cooking. Cooking can be fun if it is limited to a small part of our week.
4
Some people avoid wheat because of careful empirical studies - of themselves. They are not scientists, and cannot explain why a range of symptoms disappeared when they cut out wheat. But this does not make their fear irrational.
9
Indeed, but nor does it rule out a powerful placebo effect.
3
Avoiding meat and animal protein, eating most of your calories with veggies, fruits and legumes WILL absolutely extend your life. And help the planet. A fact be should be careful common sense.
5
I'd love to know the author's affiliations - whether he has received grant money from big ag, for instance; just because he's a pediatrician, doesn't mean he deserves prime time column space.
The problem is really that we're not discerning enough in our food choices. The health of this planet is riding on our willingness to cut meat and dairy out of our diet completely, as these industries are the biggest contributors to global warning. Have we done this? No. the cruelty that we inflict on animals so we can put their flesh, and products made from them, in our bodies, is extraordinary? Have we stopped eating them in the name of compassion? No, we haven't.
When we start eating like we care about this world and all the creatures with whom we co-exist, perhaps I'll be interested in what this author has to say. Until them, give me a break.
3
My thoughts exactly. Should I eat an MSG-laden Chinese dish it would necessitate a trip to the ER.
1
"G.M.O.s are, in theory, one of our best bets for feeding the planet’s growing population"
Sometimes you have to wonder what the author doesn't disclose in order to justify some out-of-blue affirmation without any bare evidence:
-ties with gmo industries?
-ties with concentrated growth scale ( i.e. California's agricultural system) policymakers
-??
I would like it to be best articulated into a different article and explained in detail why is better to concentrate an essential industry to only one place which can cause the elevated risk of failing crops ( see the recent 4-years of water crisis) the ambient for developing and expanding microorganisms that attack some culture with the need to develop pesticides even further ( the gmo industries being the only(?) agent to actually have some kind of success on this point, IF there will not be another cause to attack crops ).
It is tantamount to live having half of your money in banknotes on an island subjected to mareal phases twice a year. Who would risk something like that?
2
Billions of people have eaten trillions of meals containing GMO food. Yet no one can point to a single specific person who's been injured by consuming GMO foods. What is especially appalling about this article is that 11% of scientists think there's something dangerous about GMO foods.
3
Aren't a few beneficial antibiotics found in soil? And I'm sure I read somewhere in a reliable source, that a certain strain of antibiotics were found growing on the walls of the sewers in Sardinia!
2
We live in the land of milk and honey and we eat too much of both. It is the volume of food that we eat that is killing us, not the composition. More plants, more fiber, less calories, less protein. Forget supplements and vitamins. Walk more. Drink modestly. Dont do drugs. Don't ever smoke. Wear your seatbelt. Look both ways in a crosswalk. Don't play with guns. Choose your romantic partner(s) carefully. Get check ups. Brush and floss. You will likely live a very long time. It's not really rocket science.
3
This consciously avoiding of certain kind of food is also driven by some articles ( also on the nytimes ) about the "doubling", the "certain increment of risk", the "longtime follow-up of trial to find out that more people using this or that food have statistically died than those who didn't use them" aka correlation is not causation ( there could have been other motives, and multiple ones too are more probably than an epidemic cause they shared in life ).
As always the best is not to see how much the risk would rise, but by what amount and prominently from what number to what final number we are talking about.
Unfortunately there is not a mathematical culture of posting this data ( you know, people are only good enough to do their taxes, their monthly expenditures under control, but not to commisurate apples at 1,5$ with apples at 1,75$ next day, according to certain reporters ), and that is because it is not "commercially"/marketingly" successful to not shoot some click-baits here and there, and what would be a better argument than your own health?
2
Thirtyfive years ago I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. At that time, people with this disease were told they weren’t allowed to eat sugar. Because of that, I developed an eating disorder, like so many young people with type 1 diabetes still do. I take pity in anybody who voluntarily decides to forgo any type of food. Just be happy that you have so many choices of food to choose from and you’re not starving. Even people who are overweight have an evolutionary advantage: when food becomes scarce, they will survive longer than others. It’s just shortsighted to forget that shortages in food have happened in the past and will happen again.
If we're going to be afraid of any food, it should be one that can endure sit on a shelf for years before consumption. Processed foods are the scary ones, and the stress that we ingest over these various diets, unscientific claims, and incomplete research on a given ingredient, is more likely to lead to our downfall than the occasional slice of wheat bread, strip of bacon, or chocolate torte.
2
Forty years ago my nutrition professor opened his first lecture with these words: "America's nutrition problems can be summarized as five excesses and one lack. The excesses? sugar, salt, fat, processed foods and calories. The lack? fiber."
Nothing's changed.
Walking through a supermarket today there's lots to be afraid of -- rows of processed foods loaded with sugar, salt and fat, sugary drinks, salty snacks, fatty meats. 'Chemicals, additives and preservatives' are nothing compared to those "foods".
Besides, these foods aren't poison .. it is the EXCESS of such products that "poisons" the body. There's also lots of fresh and frozen fruit, vegetables, whole grains, nuts and dairy products .. plenty of healthy foods to choose. And no harm in OCCASIONALLY having something sugary, salty, greasy, spicy, fattening ...
I ignore the "foodies" and faddists, whose lives seem to revolve around supplements, ailments, avoidances, oddities and conspiracies; they live in fear of "additives" that they could avoid by simply eating fruit, grains, nuts and vegetables, with a little dairy.
Good, common sense article, Dr. Carroll.
1
Oh yes, what better way to ensure a continuous flow of patients into your office than to tell them to continue to eat processed foods. There is plenty of science to fuel that the foods we eat are a major part of the chronic illnesses plaguing modern societies, from altered microbiome to energy utilization diseases. Any doctor that doesn't ask their sick patients about their diet hasn't been trained properly. This is the first place to start in working with health issues, not prescribing drugs.
7
I buy non-GMO foods not because of fear over "franken-foods," but because some GMO seeds are specifically engineered to not propagate themselves, forcing farmers into an annual cycle of buying new seeds from megabusinesses. Others are designed to be pesticide-resistant and therefore encourage massive spraying of harmful chemicals such as Roundup, that then poison our planet. The only way to avoid supporting such activities is to avoid all GMO foods, as there is not yet a designation for "organically-grown, GMO drought-resistant/pest-resistant, but still fertile." I dislike the presumption that I am in the same camp as climate change deniers because I seek to make my purchases conform to my values. Transparency is good and consumers should be able to make their own decisions, even if they seem "silly" or "faddish" to you.
7
There is a reason why your taste buds have evolved to prefer sugar, fats, and salt. They are necessary for survival.
The best diet enjoys these foods, in their simplest form.
This diet has the added advantage of being inexpensive.
Dig In! (1:15 EST)
The problem with GMO ingredients is that many of them have been "modified" to tolerate large amounts of chemical herbicides that kill other living organisms. Think "RoundUp Ready" crops that survive relentless spraying of glyphosate (RoundUp) to kill weeds in the field, multiple times during the growing season. Those crops are thus drenched in herbicides, which then enter the food chain and thus your body. That's why glyphosate residue is now turning up everywhere in our environment, including in us.
9
Statistical analysis should be required starting at the earliest possible age, as we are bombarded with information daily and there’s a lot of info that looks credible until the methodology is examined and its garbage or leading the reader to a conclusion obtained before the study was conducted.
2
Oh my god!! In terms of GMOs, Dr. Carroll is part of the problem. Why are farmers' markets proliferating around the country? Truly enlightened eaters can appreciate every sort of "naughty" food, from ice cream to sausage to bread, only when it's been produced without manmade chemicals that are carcinogenic. GMO fruit, vegetables and grains were developed to withstand spraying with Round-Up and other toxic substances. Bon appetit, doctor. Your "bad food" really is bad. In fact, it's poison.
5
It's interesting that in another column featured on the front page this morning (How To Age Well), the author of that column contradicts this opinion writer, quoting a Harvard review that found eating one serving a day of processed meats like bacon was associated with a significantly higher risk of heart disease as well as diabetes.
The idea that you don't need to "eat clean" is terrible. I guess this author wouldn't care if his strawberries, peaches and blueberries were all sprayed with Roundup and he would feed these to his children, after a good washing of course.
Everyone can take things to extremes. But eating cleaning is just good common sense, though Big Ag wouldn't have you see it this way. Big Ag's damage to our food culture started with the introduction of heavy duty pesticides to the crops, feeding foods to animals not designed to digest them well but to fatten them up, and figuring out how addititives not only extend shelf life but add sweetness to fake foods so that people will buy more. People are only now seeing the effects -- obesity, diabetes, heart disease and more -- because we can't NOT see it. (Like climate change. Now the effects are here, as predicted.)
But people like Rachel Carson signaled what would come all those years ago. Jack LaLalanne and Adelle Davis championed healthful eating and exercise, and the importance of whole foods years ago, too. It's time to start listening before it's too late to change the tide.
6
Who says we have become a less religious society? It's just been transferred to nutrition.
There is all the purity vs. impurity, virtue vs. sinfulness, and condemnation of other sects that you find in religions.
Believers undergo a conversion experience, and just like in religion, no amount of contrary evidence will shake their faith.
5
Some truth here-but also misleading statements & poor choice of facts. Author is right re: avoiding foods due to fear. This only adds to our generalized anxiety and overcharged sympathetic nervous systems-no good! But, there are compelling reasons to eat a plant-based diet. Foremost is eating more plants (whole,minimally processed) is healthy for our planet - reducing nonrenewable resource use, and making it more likely there's enough food for EVERYONE. It supports our collective survival! And individually, eating more plants makes sense. Animal foods need not be forbidden,just less and from clean and sustainable sources.
About gluten? There's lots of research and growing evidence that wheat has been overused and gluten concentrations are higher than ever, that our human guts often flare up in response to gluten, as well as other overused and often difficult to digest proteins and processed food ingredients - yielding systemic health problems. We are correct to consider gluten "load" and other food additives. The gluten craze is created by our American capitalistic response to our alarming health problems; we run to buy "gluten free" products thinking we're doing the right thing. Many of them are just as unhealthy and highly processed as their non-gluten counterparts-try GF cookies, cakes, and chips.Yuk!
The answer is to start eating whole foods, as clean as possible, do more home-cooking and enjoy the rewards of careful and loving attention to what we put into our mouths.
1
"When a 2015 Pew poll asked Americans whether they thought it was generally safe or unsafe to eat modified foods, almost 60 percent said it was unsafe. The same poll asked scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science the same question. Only 11 percent of them thought G.M.O.s were unsafe."
Did they poll the same scientists to ask where their grant money was coming from? The focus of Big Chemical has been to control the world's supply of food, which they can do if they continue the policy of seed contracts that make it illegal for growers to store seed for a second year's growing season. If the GMO push to eliminate native varieties of seed continues we risk worldwide famine when only company-controlled varieties remain and become infected with a pathogen that cannot be controlled.
This attitude is like the "just lie back and enjoy it" advice of another context.
1
I'd bet my gluten-free, kale smoothie that this author is blessed with a BMI around 20, has the means to shop wherever he wants, has a lifestyle that accommodates regular exercise and has an excellent heath care plan. Oh...and he isn't a carb addict—a side effect of a food supply that provides around 4500 calories per day, per American and most of it processed garbage. Pleasure? For someone who eats the SAD, the "pleasure" we humans are biologically hardwired to experience from food has long been perverted by a diet of over-processed franken-food in unhealthy amounts. Look around. The rate of obesity in America is around 35% overall and is now being actively enabled by a Trump EPA, FDA that shows open disdain for public health and is by the way, modeled by an overweight, out of shape, junk food eater in Chief. I'd say it's time to panic more. The aggregate harm of a little anxiety over what we eat at least says we're paying attention. Compare that to an entire population dying everyday from diseases that can largely be avoided by "eating clean".
1
The author adopts the usual laissez-faire approach to MSG. While MSG may not be poison, it does cause problems for at least a small percentage of consumers. The industry answer to such consumers is to just avoid MSG but this is easier said than done when there are a dozen or more code words on product labels that indicate the presence of problem-causing glutamates. As for inconclusive studies of MSG, remember that many of them are industry-funded and that those sensitive to MSG are not likely to sign up: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-martin/msg-effects_b_4751438.html
2
OK, how about eating dirty food that has not been through the wringer...the corporate processed food that has been effectively sterilized of the googleplex worth of microbiotic critters that live in and around an organic farm?
How about not eating all that entirely processed fast food and ready-to-eat products that are found in gas stations, cafeterias and the center aisles of grocery stores where everything is preserved in plastic, tin and cardboard?
Processed food is sterile and patently unhealthy. We need the trillions of microbiotic bits that live in and among us, and we are vaccinated daily by these creatures making us more able to resist disease and live healthier lives. All of this is available to read in peer-reviewed studies.
The healthiest way to eat is to walk out to your organic garden, harvest your food for the meal, prepare it however you like and eat it. If you can't do that, then buying that food from your local farmer is a very close second. If you can't do that it is because you have either prioritized other choices in your life that make that impossible, or you are a member of the citizenry that was born into circumstances beyond your control and must live life at great disadvantage due to evil social and economic forces you cannot control. We should do everything we can to help the disadvantaged eat well.
3
Hear hear! It is amazing how the general populace is so easily swayed by unscientific speculation but suspicious of science. It just goes to show how much they paid attention in that free K-12 education they were given. In all of science, there are only three laws....everything else is theory or hypothesis. Every good scientist knows this.
This is a stupid article. How about not focusing as much on that is bad food and focusing more on eliminating the poison that is sprayed on the growing food, or the quality of meat from the grotesque cattle farms. Focusing on the ‘we should eat this, not that’ is simply smoke and mirrors. Grow healthier food and raise healthy animals and I’d be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that overall health of our pesticide induced nation will improve.
1
I have been practicing this for 50 years (I'm 63). I try to balance things but, if one morning, like today, my breakfast is 1 huge cup of espresso with no sugar, 2 frozen Reeses Pieces and Serrano Ham... well... it is what it is.
6
Missing from Aaron E. Carroll’s discussion is the role of advertising in pushing processed foods and shaping the sick American diet. We are bombarded with advertising and placement of food items in the supermarket that work in steering us towards unhealthful processed choices.
Americans do not eat well, period, and doing so in moderation won’t help. Sure, it may ease one’s anxiety, but a little bit of anxiety can actually be a good motivator if coupled with positive action.
No, we should not panic over our food choices, but unless we increase our awareness of nutrition AND change our unhealthful ways, our too early deaths and preventable forms of disability will continue to occur.
For those who refuse to join the “Head in the Sand Club” regarding nutrition, I strongly recommend Dr. Michael Greger’s fact-based nutrition website, https://nutritionfacts.org/.
Also, grab a copy of his book, “How Not To Die,” a NY Times bestseller.
If we know who funds the American Association for the Advancement of Science then we can look at the validity of the science.
How DARE you question my food phobias! Everyone knows* that everything we eat here leads to early death, and that everything eaten in foreign countries is life-enhancing and life-prolonging**, but that if we eat those things here we'll prepare them the wrong way, and they will lead to early death too.
To defeat two of tow of our major food problems -- meat-eating and gluten-eating, I'm about to produce a line of gluten-free seitan products. As soon as
I figure out how.
As my more concerned friends used to say: "White bread, soon dead." Alas, the years fly -- that was over fifty years ago.
*Key phrase
**E.g., tofu -- now, that's not processed food. Tofu grows right on the bean plant, doesn't it?
4
Excellent article! Seems the real scary part is the choices some people make. Banning certain foods isn't going to change people's ignorance. Indeed, they would find something else to be fearful and ignorant about. Everything could be bad for you in some way I suppose but most often the good outweighs the bad.
I'm going on a hike so please pass the bacon!
Folks choose to abstain from or eat certain foods for reasons other than health - ideological, cultural, and economic reasons come into play as well. As far as GE crops are concerned, they have been proven to have no negative human health impacts. However, they have also been instrumental to the development of our current conventional agricultural system, which - particularly in the cases of corn and soy hear in Iowa - relies heavily on fossil fuel inputs, threatens local food security, and contributes to erosion and other deleterious environmental and social consequences. Foods we choose to consume or not often reflect more than just health considerations.
GMOs may or may not be safe to eat. The evidence suggests, however, that introduction of genetically modified seeds have a non-neutral effect on the ecosystem (Monarch butterflies, anyone). Even if more food results from using GMOs, if we destroy the Earth in the process, what good is that?
5
As others have noted, the chief reason we don't believe scientists on nutrition matters is because their advice has been so frequently wrong.
But there are scientists from other disciplines with noble purposes whose work failed due to sheer ignorance.
The most important case of this I know of involved Ari Brynjolfsson's work on food irradiation. "We rely on sugar, salt, and refrigeration to preserve food," he told me over 40 years ago. As a nuclear physicist, he considered another method that most scientists had not: using radiation to increase the safety and extend the shelf life of food, especially when delivering food aid to poorer regions where electricity is scarce.
Lots of work went into proving it was safe and effective. The irradiated food did not become radioactive. But the public rejected it. Hardly a shock. The words, radiation and food, don't go together particularly well.
Yes, GMOs are safe to eat. But the issue many people have with them is their potential impact on ecosystems. Yet this concern too is controversial.
But the author is right in this sense: The United States suffers from more food fetishes than any other nation I know of. Sometimes it's an expression of politics; sometimes it takes the tone of religion.
Neither politics nor religion has been known to stimulate reason and critical thinking.
3
So what, really, is the problem here? Perhaps it's that the author is suggesting common sense and not overreacting to food "issues." And as far as obesity and (related) diabetes are concerned, ask Europeans about their amazement at the portion sizes in this country. Most obesity is the result of overeating, not salt, fat and on and on. The author and the NY Times aren't the problem here.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
1
ARE YOU JOKING? As a rural physician fully 75% of the people who walk into my emergency room have illnesses associated with their food consumption. Diabetes and heart disease are rampant in those that eat a typical diet of fast food and processed meat. In addition, there are social consequences of families not cooking, and not eating together. Sugar consumption has been unequivocally related to cancer. Nitrates have been unequivocally linked to cancer. As far as gluten, if people think not eating it makes them feel better, fine. Only those truly effected will continue on a gluten free diet. People need to think more about food, not less. This is outside of the environmental costs of our meat based diet. I am appalled at your opinion.
47
We definitely worry too much about food. For nearly all of us, as long as we eat a varied diet of proteins, fruits, vegetables, and dairy products, in reasonable amounts, we should be just fine. As the famous Delphic Oracle once said, "Know thyself; nothing in excess." :-)
2
Nice job exposing the issues. Interesting to read the "backlash" comments. The most significant general points in the article are: "Many of the doctors and nutritionists who recommend avoiding certain foods fail to properly explain the magnitude of their risks", which can be minimal, and "Most Americans, ... , don’t seem to care what scientists think. In fact, Americans disagree with scientists on this issue (GMO's) more than just about any other, including a host of contentious topics such as vaccines, evolution and even global warming". You don't need to be a nutritionist to make these points about the public's over response to these issues.
3
Eat food, not too much, mostly plants. (Michael Pollan) To which I would add: Avoid what makes you feel sick, avoid excessive sugar, and enjoy what you do eat.
I have an idiosyncratic diet developed over the years listening to my own body and temperament. I became a vegetarian in 1975, slowly added chicken and fish, worked in Italy and had prosciutto and never looked back; I call myself a porketarian. Still don't eat beef because I don't care enough about it. Started having digestive problems and fatigue in my 50s and cut out gluten to see if it helped; it does seem to so I stick to that. Don't love milk--never did--so don't really drink that.
LISTEN TO YOURSELF. I love cooking and eating with friends and I can always find something to eat. Restaurants can sometimes be more challenging, but still, I always find something.
Would I love to eat everything? Sure, but my body says no. So I listen and try to be moderate in a general way, but with the specificities that work for me.
10
It’s confusing, because while everything written here is true, few people would argue that the average American couldn’t benefit from making some changes in their diet.
Something I have found useful is making one small change at a time. I tended to eat out way too often, but I can find cooking overwhelming. (I’m inexperienced, and also have some executive functioning issues that can make cooking frustrating.) For me, just cooking more meals at home every week is a significant difference, for my health and wallet, even if some of those meals are just soup rehydrated from a packet. (Not ramen though, those days are behind me.)
Someone who already cooks most of their meals at home might instead choose to start limiting portion sizes, or make more food from scratch, or eliminate a certain type of food. I am hoping to make some of those changes one day too. But in the past, I would try to go from rarely cooking to counting calories and making most foods from scratch, and as you might imagine, it didn’t last long. Incremental changes, along with self-kindness and a sense of humor seem to really help.
3
You have forgotten to mention "orthorexia", the main driving force behind food nuttery.
Orthorexia is when people claim "health reasons" to avoid certain foods, when their REAL underlying motivation is to be allowed to diet crazily in the pursuit of extreme thinness (yes, even if that pursuit fails entirely).
The people who claim "gluten sensitivity" despite no real diagnosis of celiac disease, REALLY want to avoid eating breads and starchy carbs, because they believe those things are "fattening" and by eating gluten-free, they can get very thin.
7
I agree that "orthorexia" can be a real problem for a select population. I personally fell into that when I followed the Overeaters Anonymous "Grey Sheet" diet which is ultra-restricting( and frankly nutty.) I was never so sick as when I followed that plan (for five-plus years).
As far as gluten sensitivity goes, there ARE real medical, mainstream, tests that can determine if someone is non-celiac but very sensitive to gluten (i.e. hives, stomach problems, etc.) when they eat it. My primary care doctor (very old-school, NOT a "new age" practitioner) tested me recently(I tested positive). Following a gluten-free diet has made all the difference in the world for me.
2
Human nutrition is complicated. There are a few clear rules, such as we need certain micronutrients (vitamins, minerals), and the importance of not overeating some types of food (ones high in sugar, for example). When I started teaching university classes, I told the students that I had one rule, not sure where I got it: "Eat a lot of different things, but not too much of any one thing. That way, if there's something you need, you'll get it, and if something isn't good for you, you won't get too much of it." Almost fifty years on, I still think it's a good rule.
11
Take the advice of the centenarians that say - avoid exercise, eat more bacon, drink every day, there is never enough butter, AND IT'S ALL TRUE!
3
The centenarians lived most of their lives, particularly the all-important early years, in a different world. Look around you, read some food labels, and you'll get a clear idea of how things have changed.
https://www.politico.eu/article/glyphosate-monsanto-accused-of-ignoring-...
The NYT really loves its corporate over-lords. It would be impossible in the short space allowed here to unpack the deceptive arguments and out-right lies in this piece. The fact that the article above was also published in the last few days tells us what this ridiculous corporo-splaining is about.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809
This recent study found a 75% loss of measured insect biomass over the last 25 years in their study area. No insects = collapse of functioning ecosphere. Thanks Monsanto!
10
No one wants to be gluten sensitive. I miss eating so many foods and the social aspects are challenging. Please stop judging. For so many of us, the symptoms are undeniable, and science is just catching up. Here’s a study that points to a possible marker for non-celiac gluten sensitivity: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/12/09/459061317/a-protein-in-th.... Also check out, “What’s With Wheat” on Netflix. And count yourself lucky if it doesn’t bother you. It’s not easy to cut out.
6
Yes, non-celiac gluten sensitivity does exist. I had unexplained severe hives, brain fog, stomach upset, loss of balance, etc. when eating gluten. My very old-school primary doc had me tested--no surprise, the test came out positive. Gluten is poison for many people, celiac or not.
This is from the article that is labeled"Gluten Sensitivity", well defined or not, it's clear that these people feel better not eating gluten: " patients were significantly worse with gluten within 1 week for overall symptoms (P=0.047), pain (P=0.016), bloating (P=0.031), satisfaction with stool consistency (P=0.024), and tiredness (P=0.001)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21224837
It's weird that the article is labeled 'you don't need to 'eat clean'', yet an argument against not eating gluten is the age old one that states that gluten free frankenproducts, bagels in this instance, are worse for you than glutenful ones. Not if you are sensitive, they aren't. All of that said, if someone just chooses to eat gluten free or whatever free, it's no different than vegetarian or vegan, lowfat or organic, etc. You can be vegan on a diet of Ding
Dongs. It won't be healthy, but it will be vegan( I checked, recent reports are that they are). All of these arguments are ridiculous and specious. Any diet or way of eating can be healthy or unhealthy, either is not a given if people choose to eat a certain way, or not.
3
Sorry, Mr. Carroll, but nothing changes the fact that vegetarians live longer, and live with fewer health problems, than meat eaters. If you don't want to look abroad for proof of this, look at the Seventh Day Adventists in this country. They shun meat entirely, and have much, much better health and longer lifespans than others of similar age, education levels, etc. Go here for NIH study on this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/
Plus, eating meat is bad for the animals, and very, very bad for the planet. Even if you don't care about your own health, please avoid (either entirely, or mostly) eating meat for these reasons.
5
This article is a great example of *inaccurate* information and completely misrepresents the problems surrounding the average American’s diet. While I understand what the author is trying to point out - we do tend to demonize certain foods, e.g. cholesterol in eggs and gluten - America still has a SERIOUS health problem. The most recent data from the CDC says that the percentage of adults over the age of 20 who are obese is 38%. OBESE. Not just overweight. See source below. Moreover! According to the American Heart Association, an adult should consume NO MORE than 2,300 milligrams of sodium and 1,500 should be average. This author claims that 3,000 milligrams is the average - clearly not so average or so healthy... I expect better from authors of the NYT. You all should more carefully scrutinize and analyze your data before publishing misleading articles such as this.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm
1
Some good advice here,
https://www.nytimes.com/guides/well/how-to-age-well?recid=0vwd0V9gS865NL...®ion=smarterLiving-promo-region&WT.nav=smarterLiving-promo-region&redirect=true
For me, eating 'clean' means purchasing whole foods, and processing them myself. Meaning, I cook them. I buy lentils, rice, beans, bulgur, fish, vegetables, fruits and occasionally, chicken. I try to buy these foods at the Greenmarket. If I can't get there, I make careful choices at my local supermarket. I try to avoid processed foods, but I do buy tofu, yogurt, milk and bread. Those are processed foods, too. I don't have to read labels, much, because things that grow on trees and in the ground don't have them. I am extremely uncomfortable with and suspicious of the healthful claims made by corporations who transform vegetables into snack foods - like kale chips -- or grains like oats into sugar-laden breakfast "foods," we all need to admit that no one is forcing us to buy or consume unhealthy food. We need to make the right choices for our own bodies, families and lives, and reemphasize the importance of good old fashioned home cooking, where you get to control what you cook and eat. KEEP IT SIMPLE. You can decide how you want to spend your time, money, calories and -- life. Not the corporations.
5
The author propagates the rather unscientific and disgusting corporate meme that Americans don't care what scientists think. I've seen the animals studies on GMO foods. The rats had enormous tumors. To suggest that the general public ignores the science on such matters is extremely arogant and utterly false. Consider also the enormous amount of herbicides used in GMO agriculture which are designed to kill everything but the actual GMO plant. The dangers inherent in such monoculture and the destruction of the planet's bio-diversity are becoming well established in the scientific literature, as is the corporate-propagated falsehood that we need GMOs to feed the world, when in actuality GMOs eventually result in a reduction of yield and greater application of dangerous herbicides and pesticides. As regards MSG, the question to ask is whether it is or is not a neurotoxin. Solid science suggests that it is: http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/review-excitotoxins-t... Contrary to the water-muddying arguments of the author I'd say that many are looking at such science-based information and making informed choices.
12
So much is wrong with this article, it's hard to know where to start. Until about half way, I wondered where it was going. When I got the part about GMO food, well, that was the "aha" moment. Fortunately this is on the opinion page as the author is pretty transparent about his loyalties. First, Carroll is a prominent doctor at Indiana University, the same state where a small farmer lost at SCOTUS to the agri behemoth Monsanto for simply trying to use his own seed to grow soybeans.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/13/supreme-court-monsan...
Monsanto has a long and heavy-handed history of influencing university health research to the advantage of its GMO products and the detriment of people trying to eat good food.
https://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/monsantos_college_strangehold/
Second, Carroll makes it sound like people should just believe the medical "experts" and disregard their own experiences, eg with gluten and MSG. This flies in the face of modern thinking that people must take responsibility for their own health and be well enough informed to question their doctors. At the least, Carroll's tone is condescending and arrogant; at the most it is dismissive of personal experience and therefore not to be trusted. I would certainly not take my child to him for medical care.
Third, food is fuel for keeping us alive. I always put high quality gas in my car -- why would I do less for my body? Food can be a "pleasure" and still be good for me.
22
My thoughts exactly. Thank you!
3
Our current govt. that claims to be anti-abortion stopped a law that would ban spraying Dow nerve gas on crops, so now that practice will continue. TRUST is a huge part of the problem in America; we don't trust large corporate farms nor the government, both of which have proved repeatedly our well-being can't compete with $$$$:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/28/opinion/sunday/chlorpyrif...
5
GMOs are indeed safe, however the farming practices under which they are grown are not. Large scale, factory, genetically depauperate "farms" are not the answer. The UN FAO recognizes the importance of small farms in food sustainability throughout the world. http://www.fao.org/family-farming/themes/small-family-farmers/en/
3
What evidence do you have that GMO's are safe? Pollen from GMO plants infects native varieties and before too long there won't be any native varieties left. At that point, Big Chemical will control the world's food supply.
2
How do you know GMO's are safe.
Actually, an unhealthful diet is considered the leading cause of death in the United States, worse even then smoking.
"Unhealthy diet contributes to approximately 678,000 deaths each year in the U.S., due to nutrition- and obesity-related diseases, such as heart disease, cancer, and type 2 diabetes."
https://cspinet.org/eating-healthy/why-good-nutrition-important
And then you have all the other issues that every American should be concerned about, such as environmental destruction, animal cruelty, climate change, social injustice.
Eating "clean" is important, both to the individual and society in general.
7
My personal beef is the irrational fear of irradiated foods. Compare the deaths from food borne diseases that could have been eliminated with proper treatment against the (imaginary) deaths caused by the use of radiation.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-innovations/food-pre...
Why does this doctor assume that eating in a considered manner with the elimination of some possibly ill-suited foods or additives in a diet is inherently joyless? Creative cooks who shop carefully are joyful.
MSG really does make my head feel like it will explode and a Celiac friend (genetically ID'ed) is the best joyful cook I know. GMO research remains early stage. Give it 10 years or 20 then let's talk.
3
Mom's dietary advice from 70 years ago still holds even though it predates the "scientific" recommendations and fads about diet of the last 50 years. Eat a variety of foods including meat, milk, fruits and vegetables but don't eat too much. Be moderate. There are no bad foods, but its possible to have a bad diet if you eat only one thing or group of things.
12
Sigh. Here we go again. A professor of pediatrics feels inclined to write about nutrition and manages to throw out all logic out of the window doing so.
Where to start? How about considering that we may not all be the same? Thousands of years ago Ayurveda already embraced the concept of body types. What may be healthy for you may not be healthy for me. Apparently the author has never heard of this simple idea.
And how about considering that not all items in a group are equal? We don’t demonize all fats; we demonize trans fats and other bad fats; we know some fats are unstable and should not be heated. This is apparently all too complex for the author.
As other readers have pointed out, we avoid certain foods because of the way they are treated by the agriculture industry. If the author thinks that Roundup is nothing to worry about, I’d like to serve him some.
I am glad that people nowadays are getting more conscious of what they eat and look for solutions to their health problems in their diet. Colleagues of ten years younger look older than me. The difference? I watch my diet and I don’t consume things just because it can legally be sold as food.
15
Here's my simple advice:
If it makes you sleepy or tired, do not eat it.
If it makes you gain weight, do not eat it.
If it makes you crave for more, do not eat it.
If it gives you a rash, do not eat it.
If it gives you baggy eyes, do not eat it.
In short: Do not hurt yourself.
All it takes is conscious eating, becoming aware of cause and effect. Actually, watching your diet is one of the many ways towards conscious living.
3
Sorry, Guys, but GMO foods are engineered to be poisonous, and therefore they poison the soils they are grown in, killing off microbes necessary for transmitting essential nutrients, including amino acids and trace minerals. The meat of the animals fed with GMO foods transmit those poisons to the humans that eat them. In humans, these poisons function by disrupting the intra-cellular communication that allows a healthy body to fight cancer and other diseases. Healthy soil is essential for healthy bodies - and for a healthy planet. Healthy soils, meaning soils with robust and balanced microbes, sequester massive amounts of carbon, mitigating and preventing the climate crisis.
13
Pure, paranoid rubbish! Especially if you include amino acids and trace minerals with microbes.
Engineered to be poisonous? Evidence, please.
"GMO foods are engineered to be poisonous"
Really? GMO salmon has extra toxins? Didn't know that!
Countless thousands of plant species, including most of those eaten by people, have been found to be naturally "engineered" (by evolution!) to be poisonous to insects. It helps them to survive! An organic vegan GMO-free diet is laced with such insecticides.
I don't defend the most popular modification, which makes crops proof to glyphosate -- even though the research so far doesn't seem to show a problem with soil microbes per se. By the way, this modification doesn't render the plants more poisonous; rather, it blocks their vulnerability to the herbicide. The effects of suppressing weeds so thoroughly are, however, concerning. There's a trade-off of less mechanical tillage (a good thing) and fewer small root systems in the soil (a dangerous thing).
However, to the extent that modified crops ARE made more poisonous (by increasing toxicity to insects), that's a good thing: it means less indiscriminate and potentially dangerous spraying of insecticides.
It's TRULY harmful to make GMOs into some kind of Frankenstein's monster when things that are proven to be dangerous are receiving inadequate attention.
Unless the positions of those concerned with planetary and public health are soundly based in FACT and TRUTH, we become a bunch of mini-Trumps.
1
Not everyone in this country has the luxury of eating "farm to table" everyday- but we can make sensible choices. The reality is, nobody has to "give up" anything! Simply start with portion control, light exercise, drink plenty of water and sleep well. The effects are not immediate and it is a process which requires self discipline. Americans by nature are impatient and expect immediate results, this is why "dieting" never works for most Americans. It all starts and ends with the person in the mirror- take ownership and do something or continue on and hope for the best. Those are the only two choices you have.
6
The author says: "If I ate an extra serving of bacon a day, every day, my lifetime risk of colon cancer would go up less than one-half of 1 percent."
In other words, he is talking about eating at least 3-4 pieces every single day. Egads! One slice of bacon contains 192 milligrams of sodium. Eat 3-4 and you have consume close to half of the sodium limit for an entire day.
68 percent of the calories in bacon stem from fat, about half of which is saturated. Repeat : bacon is two thirds fat, and one third saturated fat!
Add 30 milligrams of cholesterol and you risk high cholesterol, which leads to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke.
5
But it's _baaaaacon_! We can't get enough of it even if it'll kill ya. (There's bacon-flavored everything, even bacon-flavored -- yikes! -- vodka, fer petesake.)
It's easy to take pot-shots at the extremes of a valid movement. The good doctor has a point, but sadly takes an arrogant and ignorant stand that is extremely irresponsible. Sure food should be a cause for celebration and delightful social communion. And the extremes and contradictions can be funny. But millions of intelligent people have experienced the harm of pesticide laden, nutrient deficient, chemical saturated foods. And have made rational, science based choices to avoid factory foods that are produced by corporations with profit, not health, in mind. Shame on you doc!
14
I agree with a lot of what this article has to say, but I do have a couple bones to pick.
The quote: "MSG, or monosodium glutamate, is nothing more than a single sodium atom added to glutamic acid — an amino acid that is a key part of the mechanism by which our cells create energy." is a scientifically faulty argument. Hydrogen peroxide is a single oxygen added to water, but that's not a great reason to start chugging it.
6
Excellent analogy! May I use it?
Nor is glutamic acid/glutamate especially involved in energy production, though of course it's a part of many if not most proteins...
Thanks for this column. I am old enough to remember when food was a pleasure and Russians were to be feared.
16
Through experience and information I agree with much of what you say in this piece. But for me, MSG is evil. The debilitating side effects for me have put me in the verge of the ER twice. This was after a hotel banquet in Atlanta and Chinese food in NY. The government let’s the junk food industry label msg as ‘spices.’ Even if only some people become ill it’s enough to protect people from this flavor enhancing enzyme that is totally unnecessary. A spice? That’s a lie.
6
Right on! For those of us who react to MSG, the government's assessment that it is "generally recognized as safe" provides small comfort. The recommendation to simply avoid it is not that simple as noted here: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-martin/msg-effects_b_4751438.html
2
After some reflection I think the author of this piece is very irresponsible or is largely unfamiliar with the food situation, nutrition and the government's determination to promote profit over food safety. We all need to read labels, ask questions and be mindful of what we eat. Just because it's in the US of A does not mean it's in our best interests to consume it. The government is not, nor has been, our friend in this matter for decades.
I am astounded by the number of comments here that brush aside the higher cost of non GMO products. Hunger still exists, even in America. If you are poor and hungry you need to eat. No hard science exists to justify avoiding all GMOs. Plenty of hard science exists about the need to eat. Does anyone really believe that if people would just take the extra time they could prepare nutritious food as cheaply exclusively using only "organic" products as they could using the cheapest ingredients available, whether organic or safe GMO? I strongly believe that the "no GMOs" movement is supported only by those who have never personally known hunger.
11
I avoid GMO foods whenever I can. It is common sense. You are right in that the hierarchy of things eating any food is better than being hungry. And if the body of hard science re: avoiding "ALL GMOs" is not sufficient for you, how about considering the body of science that clearly shows profit motives result in the production of products (foods, medicines, toys, cars, etc) that are harmful to peoples health and well being. I don't need to sit around and wait for hard science. I am employing my "common sense" on this topic. Oh... did you see this article " These Scientists Have Discovered How To Use Electricity To Make Protein From CO2
Finnish scientists have built a bioreactor that will be able to create cheap nutrients almost anywhere on Earth. " Nothing could go wrong here.
Furthermore, feeding people who need food and avoiding GMO food are NOT THE SAME TOPIC ( I used my critical thinking skills here!).
1
If the mantra "you are what you eat" was true, I should resemble a trash can.
My diet consists mostly of starches, dairy, mayo, baked sweets and anything fried/processed. I also eat an average of two servings of fresh fruit... a week. I never eat breakfast, always have soda at lunch and usually chocolate for dessert. I complement that with a multi-vitamin pill, every other day. I don't get sick, except for a cold every 10 years or so, on average.
My point is: it's not what you eat, it's how much. I eat all of the above in moderation. Yes, I have borderline high bad cholesterol. But I also I have plenty of energy, sleep well and look younger than my age (51). I'm 5'7 3/4", 135 lbs, ideal blood pressure.
4
@ScavengerMan,
I truly wish you continued good health, but reality says, unless you are protected by unusually strong genes, you will someday reach a tipping point where your bad habits catch up with you and lead to disease.
That's what happens to so many Americans, or haven't you noticed the sick and obese? Many, not all, are that way due to lifestyle choices, including a poor diet.
Although the death rates may not show much effect of diet, I am convinced that healthy diets of moderate consumption have two major values. First, the quality of life in the last 10-20 years before death is so much better than those who baconator their way to diabetes, obesity and other diseases (also obesity related-body stresses like high blood pressure, hip and knee replacements, etc). Secondly, a huge part of healthcare costs in this country is spent treating those conditions and keeping them alive to reach comparable death rates. Or as someone said, it is better to die healthy!
1
I ignore a majority of the 'eat clean' articles because I think they're bunk but I do know that certain foods do act as migraine triggers so I avoid them. I don't think that makes food scary because other people can eat those foods and be just fine.
1
Remember Haggar the Horrible asking the doctor how do I live longer. The doctor lists a variey of foods not to eat and Haggar asks will that result in a longer life and the doctor responds no, but it will seem that way.
8
This is a totally refreshing and scientifically appropriate article. Thank you and your voice of reason. I can't wait to send this to my Cardiologist.
3
What we need to fear is marketing and advertising that distort science and create the”fads” in food consumption which have aided and abetted our obesity epidemic. It’s all about money. We take ingredients out of food that shouldn’t have benn there in the first place and then charge more.
1
Yeah, the whole gluten thing drives me nuts....it has indeed become a 'fad', as many friends can't give me any valid reason for why they are now 'gluten-free'. These are the same types of friends who are politically correct (just for the sake of it) and who often jump on things associated with the PC bandwagon.
There are indeed some who must avoid gluten (I have a friend with actual celiac disease, and who had to take a three month leave of absence from work, during which time she was diagnosed with celiac disease and then had to recover and then learn about her new diet). There are others for whom gluten may cause bloating and/or some intestinal discomfort. But there are many others who are simply following a GF diet because they heard it's 'better for them' or 'more healthy'.
The way you know this is truly a 'fad' is that, if you go into any cafe, bakery or coffeeshop in a 'hipster' neighborhood, it will always have GF items. Surely it can't be that, for some odd reason, hipsters are more sensitive to gluten? lol. No, it's simply because it's 'cool' to eat a GF diet. How utterly ridiculous.
4
Processed "gluten-free" items are, for the most part, really junk food. You can eat "gluten-free" just by keeping it simple--no processed foods.
I eat gluten free because I tested (in a mainstream lab) gluten sensitive. I don't have hives, stomach upset, brain fog, etc. avoiding breads (gluten free or not), sugar, high carbs, etc.
Btw, eating "gluten-free" is excruciating and difficult, for those of us who must avoid it. Try going to a party, restaurant, get-together, etc. and avoid it COMPLETELY, no cross-contamination, etc. It's not for the faint of heart.
So important this conversation stay front and center! The issues are obviously more complex then a short op ed piece, and yet the author speaks well to a certain truth. Wouldn't it be great if NYT could dedicate an regular section to unpack and informatively connect the dots from within the universe of topics related to our collective health and food - from government policy to growing your own, from the gut project to hormones. If we don't educate the poor, promote sustainable alternatives and change policy, a disproportionate number of people in North America will continue getting sick from what they eat.
1
All food recommendations (except selected recipes) in newspapers should be ignored. I'm old enough to remember a whole raft of food cautions: fat, meat, sugar, gluten, salt, alcohol, just about everything edible. The "experts" change their minds every few years, because in fact they don't know what they are talking about.
Eat a variety of wholesome foods. Avoid processed foods: learn to cook. Don't eat too much. Don't worry about food. Enjoy your life.
7
Hooray! The best doctor I ever went to advised me against taking vitamins. He asked what kind of food I served - fresh fruit and vegetables? He said if you cook your own meals with fresh ingredients you will get the vitamins naturally. That was 38 years ago. Between fresh ingredients and moderation, eating ought not to be scary at all.
6
The problem with this type of article is interpretation. People read fat and salt are fine, and say “great pass the Cheetos!” Michael Pollan’s rules still the best, eat food, not too much, mostly plants.
1
Good points by the author but what about the amount of dihydrogen monoxide in our diets.
4
This article reads like talking points for agrochemical industry. We all know food quality matters! There are more allergies, chronic diseases and obesity than ever! We are learning a great deal about agrochemical industry impact on our food. Remember- none of us gave consent to intake these toxic herbisides and pestisides and as they have increased dosing to the crops, the EPA has raised acceptable toxicity levels-per whom? The recommendation of the chem companies themselves? Our guts will never be the same with the toxicity of glyphosate and other chemicals used directly on our agricultural products. Some of the highest toxicicity involves wheat and grain products as glyphosate is used as a desicant. The microbiome inhabitants have a shikame pathway to damage. Let the author eat it all. We can decide with our wallets. Also, MSG causes glutamate excitotocity at the NMDA receptor-very bad for the brain and nervous system and more. If you know, you may stop consuming this stuff and you may get well or dramatically improve your health. I don't work for the organics industry. I do work with people in healthcare and I am very alarmed by what I am seeing. I do recommend people try to eat organic where ever possible.
Consider reading Whitewash by Carey Gillam. Fantastic reporting on the damage and corruption of the agrochemical industry and how far it reaches and how much effort there is to suppress this information. Eat Well!
5
MSG is a trigger food for most migraine patients.
1
Being so scared of food is definitely a first-world problem. That's why I've gone vegan free.
2
"...dangerous trend of anti-intellectualism..." Yes, who needs knowledge when you can have beliefs? This, my friends, is the threat we must confront.
1
"MSG, or monosodium glutamate, is nothing more than a single sodium atom added to glutamic acid." Well, carbon monoxide is nothing more than harmless CO2 with a single oxygen atom subtracted. Obviously we can't conclude that carbon monoxide isn't bad for us. Unfortunately, such poor reasoning makes the entire article seem suspect.
4
He also directly contradicts other NYT health writers. Only 3 days ago, Tara Parker-Pope wrote: "A Harvard review found that eating one serving a day of processed meats like bacon, sausage and deli meats was associated with a 42 percent higher risk of heart disease and 19 percent increased risk of diabetes." But Aaron Carroll sees no problem in having an extra serving of bacon every day; does he figure that the damage is already done, so why bother with moderation? Makes no sense. https://www.nytimes.com/guides/well/how-to-age-well
1
Love this guy! The key to eating, and not becoming unhealthy is moderation, as most things. I eat a diet in which most of my protein comes from red meat. My lipid profile and cardiac function, including clean vessels, are fine. Gluten free is a big rip off, and nobody I know feels better eating that way. Not to mention my pasta would taste as good. People's concerns about GMOs is overblown. What took years with horticulture and breeding, can now be done quicker. And everyone knows the world needs food, otherwise Malthus will be proven correct.
5
Regarding GMOs, my concern, and I think the concerns of most environmentally aware people who are questioning the safety of GMOs, is not whether they are safe to eat, it’s whether their introduction as crops is dangerous to other crops and the ecosystem as a whole. This frequently quoted survey suggesting that people who are against the introduction of gmos don’t understand the science is very misleading. I understand the science, and I understand the risks to crops and biodiversity. So even if eating gmos won’t hurt me, I’m still sceptical about them.
5
The author is both right and wrong. A certain segment of America probably IS too food-phobic, and can't enjoy a croissant or a cheeseburger without stressing about it. Thanksgiving with that crowd isn't much fun. There's another segment of America that isn't food-conscious enough, however, and eats nothing but processed foods, soda all day, no fresh fruits or vegetables, etc. I don't think anyone in the medical profession would seriously contest that that diet leads to many preventable health problems. Lastly, I wish the NYTimes would stop printing columns hating on people who don't eat gluten. Everyone I know who stopped eating gluten did so because it made a huge difference in their digestive health, and when they eat gluten, they feel awful. It's likely a result of some combination of genetics, individual microbiomes, and farming practices that have changed the wheat in the U.S. Gluten-free isn't a fad (Gwyneth Paltrow excepted), just a rational response to health issues.
161
Sadly, that Americans "do it" and "claim benefits" is hardly scientific. The placebo effect is well documented, and me-too-ism and groupthink are powerful forces.
The medical profession has always focused on medicine, not health. They almost never prescribe a good diet, good exercise, good rest and enjoying the company of good people.
3
Amen. I’m not celiac but after a food allergen blood test and a careful elimination diet supervised by my primary care doctor and nutritionist, it became clear gluten was causing my IBS-like symptoms. I removed it from my diet and voila, the symptoms disappeared. It wasn’t jumping on a fad, it was going through a rigorous process to figure out what was causing extremely unpleasant symptoms which would eventually prove quite harmful if left unchecked.
1
@Elsie: The author is right about what he's discussing. He's not wrong about anything. Your point is very important; it's not his topic.
2
For the sake of the geese, please skip the foie gras, a “traditional” food dependant on abusing animals.
In general, though, you are right that the food culture in France is healthier (and tastier) than the American one.
I don’t know the extent to which extreme confinement of animals and other techniques of modern factory farming have penetrated French agriculture, either for domestic consumption or for export. It would be good to know that the juggernaut of industrial methods farming is resisted somewhere, while its fifty year era of expansion in the US begins to abate, driven in part by concerns about the treatment of animals.
The industry in the US works so hard to keep its “barns” (this quaint designation should be retired) from public view, they’re nearly as secure as prisons, which is what they are.
5
The goose probably enjoys being fed to produce the foie gras and won't know one way or the other whether its liver was fattened or not fattened when it is killed to be consumed.
1
Half truths, exaggerations, and truths-- surprising this made it into the Times. True, the fact that a substance-- salt or gluten- is bad for some bodies, does not mean it is bad for everybody. Similarly though, the truth that a substance, MSG or cholesterol, is not bad for everybody, does not mean that substance is not bad for some bodies. Rather than simply "relax," a truth to hammer home should have been that rather than bright line bans, eaters should at the facts for the dangers of each item and how it applies to them. Despite the vitriol against GMO's, in many cases, a GMO item may benefit people and society. Rather than banning more nutritious "golden rice" because it is a GMO, that food should be evaluated individually on its merits.
2
My wife and I have been Paleo style for the last 5 years. We quit eating sugar, breads, grains, processed foods, crappy vegetable oils etc. We are far leaner and more fit in our early 60s than we have ever been in our entire adult lives. Switched from fruit juice, bagels, toast, oatmeal to bacon, eggs, butter, avocado, cheese for breakfast. We can eat sugar and grains when we want to, if we are eating out or holidays but generally we are 90% paleo and that serves us perfectly well. Our blood panels are the undeniable bottom line, reduced triglycerides and bad cholesterol, increased good cholesterol, improvements of 20-50% across the board. Don't eat garbage from agribusiness, get a bicycle, get a dog and walk it and you will be lean and healthy for life.
6
Amen. Thank you!!
1
No doubt there have been, are and will continue to be unfounded food fads and fears. But I cringe when the author says, in effect, "hey scientists say it's OK so you shouldn't worry". For one far too easy example, I can cite the fear of fat that exists to this day, instilled in the 1960s by Ancel Keys and other scientists at the behest of the sugar lobby. It's important to not just look at science, but also the quality of the research and who is funding it.
Other commenters have made excellent points regarding the safety of GMOs; another important consideration is that the study of the human microbiome, especially that of the gut bacteria, is in its infancy. There is evidence pointing to the importance of high bacterial diversity in human health. In Western society, diversity seems extremely low, health is declining and our processed, low fiber, chemically-laden diet seems to play a role (in addition to antibiotic overuse, etc). Our guts, which evolved over eons, seem to require whole foods and high fiber ("the ancestral diet"). We have absolutely no idea how a GMO food will be received by our gut bacteria. We may take a food that nourishes helpful bacteria and genetically modify it into something that nourishes nothing, or in a worst case, nourishes a pathogen instead. Who is studying THAT?
7
I agree with the point of "obsessive fear" but such fear became trend because a lot of people don't have access to the enough information about food we consume. I find it a bit hard when I have to rely on prepared food but no fear.
I know how to get and prepare food because I grew up in the country where such basic life skills are mandatory to be taught in elementary schools.
It would be helpful to reduce fear among us if the author listed even few links to such fact based information.
What an irresponsible article published by the NYT. What about all the benefits we have know for years about diets high in vegetables and olive oil/nuts as fat sources. Was this person sponsored by the meat industry? And how about environmental impacts of “eating bacon everyday.” Think bigger and broader next time NYT!
11
Amen.
2
Ironically North American food manufacturers are being rewarded and applauded for taking processed food back to it's natural form ('antibiotic free meat', 'non-GMO', 'msg free', 'natural ingredients', 'less sugar', 'made with real fruit').
The European model is very simple. Real food = greater longevity in life (coupled with cities designed to encourage walking/taking transit/being more active). Oh, and 5 - 6 weeks vacation time to ease work-related stress and lower risks of cardiovascular work-related episodes (I've still never fully understood North America's workaholic/take pride in being a workaholic culture we all subscribe to when so many of us spend our retirement years in ill-health/bedridden).
It's disturbing that people are gluten intolerant when eating in North America, but can gorge on bread and pasta when they're over in Europe with no qualms. Hasn't anyone wondered why we feel so lethargic and crappy after eating out in restaurants here, yet we feel energized and well after meals in Europe?
Someone (I have my guesses) is being dishonest in this food to table equation in North America. And the government enables it in the name of the King almighty ruler of the Western World. Profit. Just look at what pesticides are allowed here in our food chain versus Europe as a starting point for a bit of proof.
9
I see thousands of people who evidently eat whatever the hell they want, ingredients or process be damned, and about twice or three times as much as they need. Eventually the health care system will be overwhelmed by the results of their self-abuse. But by then, thanks to the Republicans, the health care system will have been so undercut, people will be turned away.
3
Food for thought (heh). I agree that bandwagons get going for no good reasons and then marketing bludgeons us. I've seen soda pop advertised as being gluten free, as if any soft drinks have it to begin with.
But I notice that the author doesn't mention refined sugar. We (Americans) are fatter than we've ever been. Poor people are morbidly obese in this country. It's because we have a diet that is loaded with sugar.
I like sugar. I eat things with sugar in them. In fact, I love pastries of all kinds, until they go past my tonsils. I've learned from years of making myself feel like crap, that foods loaded with sugar aren't my friends.
Doughnuts at work are not the temptation that they used to be, because I (finally) realized heartburn and several hours of feeling dull witted and logy was the second most lasting result of eating them. The most lasting result is of course, buying new pants and seeing numbers on the scale more suitable for someone who is 7 feet tall.
I don't feel more pious than anyone. I have no holier-than-thou pontificating to share. I've struggled with weight my whole life and I know how hard it is. I just finally realized refined sugar is not my pal, and I quietly avoid it whenever I can, just to avoid feeling crummy.
If anyone wants to demonize refined sugar, I won't stand in their way.
5
I've been a student of human biology and anthropology most of my life and the author is right One thing he doesn't mention are these ridiculous cleanses. Your liver and kidneys cleanse your blood people! You don't need a "cleanse" unless you are in kidney or liver failure! Also those horrible colonic things - stay away from that! If you are constipated eat more fruits and vegetables and drink more water. You do not need an enema unless you are going into surgery! Which leads to another problem - these low carb diets. That's what's making you constipated. You need whole grain carbs for bulk - so you don't get constipated and think you need the stupid, horrible colonic thing. Just eat moderate amounts of complex carbohydrates (whole grains), fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, beans, nuts, meat, fish or other protein source like tofu, tempeh, etc. and you'll be fine. It's the simple carbohydrates (sugar, white flour) and fast food that are bad. On the other hand Italians live off of pasta and pizza dough made with white flour and have great health and longevity, so maybe even the white flour thing is BS.
6
There's something very important that this author does not explore in his editorial.
It's that every party involved with food (for-profit companies; the government; researchers; and consumers) is an interest group. And each of these interest groups uses different concepts and different language to describe their particular "stake" in regard to food.
Now, ideally, all these groups would align their interests with those of consumers, who want food to be nutritious, safe, appealing, affordable, and gentle on the environment. Unfortunately, it is not at all clear to consumers that they are doing that.
The interests of food manufacturers, in particular, are often directly at odds with the best interests of consumers. In regard to food-related research, is it at all surprising that consumers are bewildered and skeptical of findings and advice that change from one decade to the next?
6
Sad that some physicians will promulgate views on the health effects of food and diet without knowing the underlying science. Here we have an uniformed and irrational argument about living in terror, and that the effects of thinking about food are "insidious." In Carroll's view, "an extra serving of bacon a day increases his risk of colon cancer by only one-half of one percent." His view is reductionist, where we consider one risk factor alone. Instead, the view needs to be one of considering the totality of risk factors for an individual. The exposome of the individual, in light of known epidemiological and experimental data on risk factors, is a beginning to understanding health risks. Looking at data for ALS, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes for example are very instructive for considering what to eat.
6
Thanks for making sense out of what are typically senseless dogmas put forward by the undereducated. People believe in food fads just as they believe in religions. Unfortunately you will never convince those who believe because they don't care about scientific evidence for or against any dogma. Until humans have sufficiently advanced to where they can live without religion we will always have those who just want to believe what they don't understand. But how do we keep these religionists from passing laws that keep us from advancing, like laws that ban GMOs regardless of what is genetically modified. The ignorant will always be with us.
3
My understanding of Eating Clean means cooking. The disgusting additives that people have gotten used to have flavors and textures that don't exist in clean food. Eat fresh food for a while and you will notice that all preserved food have an acidic taste that comes from preservatives like citric acid and the taste of soap that I imagine come from solvents in the machinery the food passes through. Not to mention that everything is sweet and lacks depth of flavor. And those are the additives we can taste! It appears that processing food adds plastics to the food from conveyor belt dust to leeching from storage containers. A simple tomato sauce is three ingredients; tomato, onion and salt, and it will taste better than anything you can buy in a jar. How did we become so helpless that we can't even cook our own food?
4
Using these 3 specific over-generalized food-component misconceptions as "examples" supporting the title is misinformation by inference. Coming from a pediatrician, of all people, it's unconscionable.
While salt has been known for a while not to account for increased in BP, what IS added -- more accurately, over abundantly added --- to processed foods is NOT the more complete natural mineral, but simply table salt. This robs people of the more complete mineral cohort they would otherwise receive, while deadening their taste buds, and acting dynamically with sugar to addict people to their perpetual craving for processed foods. This, of course, is quite healthy for the Big Food Industries.
While gluten allergy/sensitivity is nowhere near what you might assume -- sorry folks, but if you haven't had a near-death experience as a young adult, odds are EXTREMELY slim that you have Celiac's -- avoiding gluten does force people to consume MUCH less processed garbage. Most "gluten-free" products feature single-grains, which are closer to what nature intended. This behavior incidentally increases quality of consumption, while lowering quantity. A win all around -- except for Big Food.
Glutamate is NOT Monosodium Glutamate, just as Hydrogen is not Hydrogen Dioxide. MSG is used to increase the taste cravings of consumers. It does not belong in your food.
Against the vast corporate toxic dump that is our food industry, we should NEVER relax.
7
Eating clean is not about avoiding salt. MSG, fat or gluten - it's about avoiding processed foods... good click bait title though.
3
What food fears?
1
I've always thought that the GMO hysteria was ridiculous. If you think about it, all of the plants which we consume today are genetically modified. The Incas would be astounded at the size of the potatoes which are dug out of the fields in Idaho every year, and would not believe that they are related to the same ones they ate thousands of years ago. Likewise, our hunter-gatherer ancestors who first learned how to choose grasses that eventually turned into the grains we consume today would also be surprised at the constant improvement in genetics which has resulted in the oustanding increase in agricultural production.
5
so, preferring to not consume glyphosate which is in gmo corn and is a known carcinogen, is "ridiculous?"
1
You are talking about hybridizing, not GMOs. GMOs are where some genes are spliced to get a certain trait, often crossing different biological kingdoms such as putting a bacteria into a plant. Please do some research on this. The GMO salmon is especially concerning. And yes, the long-term studies do show organ failures and cancer.
Although I usually enjoy reading the comments from my fellow Times junkies, on this article I've had to stop. Many of the writers here illustrate your points about American food phobias and the general mistrust and misunderstanding of science. Magical thinking is a human trait, and people really have to work to think rationally. Reacting emotionally, on the other hand, requires no effort and feels intuitively right.
I hope irrational fears about GMOs don't stop botanists from continuing to develop nutritious and hardy strains of plants to feed the world's poor, reduce the use of chemical fertilizers and insecticides, and use less water in the process.
4
I have my own theory on the obsessive, orthorexic behavior we see today from eating clean, competitive parenting hysteria, ultra-organizing, to "purging" the house rather than cleaning out the closets. As our society has retreated from using status in organizations to determine relative social status in the neighborhood (e.g. PTA president, garden club chair, vestry member, bowling league official), we need some other way to signal our worth and measure one another against an unspoken ideal.
4
There is no need to be concerned about the quality of food you eat---unless you have a health problem that can be made worse by poor food choices; you are getting up in years and the food choices that caused no problems earlier are now affecting you negatively; you face a choice between going on certain drugs for the rest of your life, such as statins, or being more careful about food choices. This article is on target for a certain segment of the population, but it misses the mark as a broad generalization for the reading public.
Aaron E Caroroll has written a truth:
"...being afraid of food with no real reason is unscientific — part of the dangerous trend of anti-intellectualism that we confront in many places today."
Why are people scared of food?
I've never been rear-ended or T-boned by any type of food.
I've never been gossiped about by a boss-vegetable who wants to hire his vegetable patch cousin into my job, depriving me of my livelihood.
I've never been confronted by any type of hot dog in a dark ally that wants my wallet.
I've never had a rough landing at Laguardia in a plane whose pilot was a zucchini.
I've never almost drowned because the broccoli I had in my swim trunks weighed me down too much.
I hope none of these types of things ever happen to the food-scared people, too.
Old JImma from the Old Country
1
my favorite comeback for a GMO fear monger is Thompson Seedless Grapes. usually this stops them.
2
"We turn occasions for comfort and joy into sources of fear and anxiety..."
We eat too much. We should eat to celebrate from time to time. But eating for "comfort" is STUPID.
FACT: Most people eat way more salt than is healthy. This NY Times article is FOX FALSE NEWS.
"I often wonder which is the greater threat to our health..."
Stress IS a threat to health. But all primate suffer from psychological stress. It's hard to avoid psychological stress. The same brain that enables creativity enables stress.
"Many...recommend avoiding certain foods..."
NO ONE should eat rice, wheat, pasta or potatoes on a regular basis until you work in a physical job. These foods are way too high to carbohydrates relative to other nutrients. And French fried are nothing but starch, oil and salt. These are FACTS. Although obesity is complex, energy in/energy out is still part of the equation.
"G.M.O'sone of our best bets for feeding the planet’s growing population."
That's a lie. Overpopulation will outstrip our ability to produce food, regardless of new innovation. Capitalism requires that many people be underserved. And it requires destruction of genetic diversity to promote monoculture.
"Most Americans...don't care what scientists think..."
MOST Americans are as science-illiterate as this pediatrician.
"Food should be a cause for pleasure..."
Food is for NUTRITION.
We should NOT celebrate obesity-driven blindness, foot amputation and kidney transplants.
1
Is this a joke? Until you are sick, fatigued, and unable to eat many foods due to food intolerances - you probably can eat whatever you want. But when you do get sick - you realize food made you sick... GMOs, pesticides, processed and artificial colors and flavors. Aaron Carroll is either not in touch with what is going on in the world around him or lives in a cave.
2
I could trust this essay better if the Times provided a couple of sentences (surely easy enough to research) about who supports Dr. Carroll's research, and where that research focuses. A title and a job don't guarantee trustworthiness. As always, it is better first to follow the money. Dr. Carroll's work may well be perfectly "clean" itself; but tell us.
6
"..we turn occasions for comfort and joy into sources of fear and anxiety.."
This is a most mordant diagnosis. It describes New York Times' attitude towards the USA.
2
You can discover the world's most perfect diet and still walk out your door and get hit by a truck.
1
Oh dear, oh dear. The pitchforks will be coming for you. Heresy. Just eat everything you like, all food groups, all in moderation. It's an insult to those who endlessly agonize over every little morsel and bore the world to tears with their special food needs. How else can they be 'special' now?
4
The comments here prove the author's point. The food elite relies on information from organic industry shills and "experts" out to make a buck on our health concerns. Anti-science propaganda is not just for global warming deniers. The left's paranoia about "corporate foods" is just as anti-science.
1
Eat mindfully, not fearfully.
To better enjoy that hamburger, think of the cow standing in the feedlot, force-fed with corn and saturated with antibiotics. Think of the slaughter, the dirt, the feces. And then the dismemberment. The collecting of scraps. The washings with chlorine and ammonia. The grinding and forming. The freezing. The shipment. The unboxing and grilling that brings the body of a cow to your plate.
Think carefully about that small morsel of congealed blood that clings to the bottom of your hamburger patty. Once it existed inside the body of a live animal. Inside it there were once bacteria, some destined to die from the antibiotics, others destined to evolve into new and unkillable forms. Bacteria that will soon be brought to you by this amazing and wonderful system.
Relax, don’t worry. Close your mind and it will all be alright. Close your mind and go to sleep now, doctor. Nature will wake you in its own due time.
2
I think the writer likes his bacon and is feeling defensive about it.
1
Actually he is NOT feeling defensive. And he has no cautions for other bacon lovers--like switch to turkey bacon!
Please. Why not take your guidance from those who advocate for health? This rear guard argument is essentially what they used to say about smoking. Red meat I'd bad. That's science not trendiest. And the Times shouldn't promote such foolishness.
while I agree with your premise, you cherry pick examples. and yes, we can all agree gluten-free foods are a joke, gluten-free people evene so and we'd all like to kill these self-rightous, food snob vegans.....most are either fat, too skinny or just repulsive. and none are even remotely athletic unless you count pedaling a bike at the gym for 30mins 3x/week a workout. I dont.
THE two main things you glaringly leave out are 1) processed garbage with too much sugar, salt, fat, especially sugar and 2) too may antiboitics in food animals (mainly beef, chicked and pork) are killing and especially, making 60% of american tubs of lard.
as one writer with perspective said (he moved from US), 30 years ago fat kids were 2 maybe 3 out of a class of 30. now its exactly the oppostite; only 2 or 3 are even thin. at least 20 of them are little porkers already 20lbs or more overweight and they haven even graduated! oh the drug crooks must be just salivating ready to pump a bunch of dangerous drugs with more side effects than benefits when we could save literally millions of lives and literally billions of $$$ annually by just eating better and getting off our fat butts and doing something besides eating, doinking on phones 10x smarter than most its users will ever be and watching far, far, far too much television. and dont even get me started on the (mostly women) who cant begin to deal with how fat they are so they "shame" us into pointing to literally the elephants in the room.
We're all going to die anyway. And with healthcare going to pot and retirement plans falling short who cares. Eat whatever you want...
1
Perhaps one of the reasons people pay so little attention to scientists when it comes to diet is that the science is so limited and the conclusions change so often. Most diet studies are observational. When they are randomized they often measure "bio-markers" over the short term rather than actual health outcomes that take decades to develop. Many diet studies are based on subject diaries or memory, which are notoriously unreliable. Some diet studies are funded by the food industry and conclude, not surprisingly, that the funders products are wonderful. (Mars candies and chocolate, to cite a recent NYT article.) Finally, people make diet choices based on more than just their own health. I am unaware of any solid evidence that organic foods are healthier than chemically grown foods, but I buy them to limit my environmental impact and support organic farming. I am vegetarian for many reasons, such as the environmental impact of meat production. I don't really care much about how eating a piece of bacon every day would impact my colon cancer risk.
1
I think the writer fails to appreciate two things: First, the GMO issue for many is not a matter of food safety, but rather the effort by GMO-friendly corporations to suppress the labelling of foods containing GMOs. It is an issue of information and consumer choice. Second, the argument that humans are being unnecessarily fearful of food shows utter ignorance of human evolution. It is deep in our species to be suspicious of new/unknown foods, because many fruits of nature are poisonous, even if they resemble other foods that are perfectly good (think poisonous mushrooms and berries). Foods on the grocery store shelves are often new to us, and it is an adaptive trait for us to be suspicious.
As for gluten: the vast majority of us may not have a gluten allergy or celiac disease, but we can still have a negative digestive reaction to the forms of wheat that are increasingly farmed and sold to us - bred to have a higher gluten content to make production processes easier (not to make consumer digestion easier). My suspicion and food avoidance practices have very little to do with what science says. It has to do with my displeasure at have corporate mediation come between me and the freshest, most natural foods I can possibly eat.
1
with all due respect, I see the effects of bad diet everyday as an Occupational Therapist. It seems to be that in a society that often has difficulty with self awareness, it's somewhat irresponsible to take the "everything in moderation" approach. We are all different and food reacts in our bodies differently. The importance of getting "clean" is that we have a better sense and can feel when a food doesn't agree with us. This, to me, is the key to good health. When we eat too many processed foods, sugar, etc, our ability to disengage from our cravings diminishes.
Most of us eat too many processed foods and this has a HUGE effect on our health and quality of life. why are we discouraging an effort by some to take control of their health?
3
There's a lot of good sense in this column, but it leaves out one ever-present factor in United States eating: portion size that is gargantuan compared to portions in other countries.
Whenever I am fortunate enough to vacation in Europe, I feel better after just a few days and find when I come home and weigh myself that I have lost weight. I attribute these two things at least partially to smaller portions, and meals that are more likely to have been made from fresh, rather than processed, ingredients.
Recently, I've tried to change my eating habits at home. Now, when I go out to dinner, I only eat half of my meal, and save the other half for lunch at work the following day. After one week of this, I've lost two pounds and feel noticeably better I am curious to see where this can lead. I am not obese, by any means, but should probably lose 15-20 pounds.
7
Bravo to you for your changed behavior of eating less, and also being thrifty enough to get two meals out of the large portions.
I notice that even 5 lbs of extra weight changes how I feel. You are indeed correct that you will feel better when you drop those 15 or so lbs.
2
The author ascribes emotional reactions "terror" and "fear" to consumers regarding food and states that we Americans view food negatively instead of pleasurably. Speaking just for myself, I LOVE well-prepared organic vegetables teamed with turkey that hasn't been pumped full of antibiotics. I love not eating gluten because it causes my stomach to roil so I can't sleep and makes me produce gas, the noisy smelly kind. I love not contributing to the byproducts of red meat production: methane, deforestation, pollution, and slaughter.
By coloring rational food choices as fear reactions, the author sort of calls those of us who enjoy healthy diets stupid because we aren't paying enough attention to scientists even though he states it is often scientists who promote the fear reaction to certain foods in the first place.
Understanding how my body reacts to certain foods has led me to crave fruits and vegetables and put aside wheat, red meat, and sugary foods. I feel better and I'm no longer fat. That's not a fear reaction, but comes from observation and rational choice.
3
The reference here to GMOs misrepresents the issue, which is not whether GMOs should be allowed, but whether GMO foods should be labeled. People have good reason to want to make informed decisions about what to put into their bodies and those of their children, but industry has spent millions resisting labeling, co-opting scientists who are all too willing to dismiss the public’s “irrational” fears.
But are they irrational? There is ample historical evidence that industry cannot be trusted with the public’s health when profit is on the line, and the impotence of science to resist corruption. Nor is it realistic to expect the government to protect citizens, given political interference in the missions of agencies like the FDA, DCD and EPA. Sadly, it simply is not rational for consumers to trust anybody.
GMOs may deliver value to the consumer in the form of lower cost or higher quality, and an informed public may choose labeled GMO foods for these reasons, just as most now choose produce grown with pesticides over more expensive organics. Open standards for labeling would lead to a better-informed public and a stable, market-based result for GMO foods just as we now have with organics.
Authors like this one should not disrespect consumers who rationally demand a right to know what goes into their bodies.
1
A much bigger issue than "what" should be eaten is "how much" should be eaten. Anyone who has seriously attempted to lose weight and keep it off knows: (a) obesity is a huge problem in this country; (b) most Americans get very little exercise and don't burn off many calories each day; (c) even fairly active middle age and older people shouldn't eat more than AT MOST 2,000 calories a day; (d) 2,000 calories isn't much, and (e) failing to eat based on these facts -- every day -- is certain to produce even more obesity.
1
Women ' s metabolism plummets after menopause is complete. The 2,000 calorie count is much too high then for nearly all women. Which is why they start to gain weight that normal exercise doesn't control.
3
Agreed, and, as I mentioned, 2,000 calories gets consumed pretty easily. It's a sobering coming of age to realize that you have to very carefully consider what and how much you eat if you want to keep weight under control. Americans just don't have any reason to get much exercise, to burn off many calories, unless they go out of their way to do it -- via going to the gym, long walks, etc.
Amen -- almost. The exception is sugar-sweetened sodas. Sugar in solution subverts metabolic and hepatic pathways and causes people to eat more food. It doesn't simply not fill you up (even as you're consuming hundreds of calories) -- it makes you hungrier. As many have pointed out, the French live longer and suffer less disease than we do. The French also don't view soda pop as a food group. While there's little evidence that soda is addictive, there's plenty of evidence that soda is the culprit behind our obesity epidemic.
3
This is pure corporate food industry propaganda. "Scientific" evidence is often manipluated, incomplete and even fraudulent as the motive is extreme profit, not the health and wellbeing of the masses.
I don't live in "terrror" of food . I make informed choices and enjoy eating what nature has most bountifully provided. I stand against experimental "food" created by the companies who produce poisons and weapons (FYI we don't need poison companies to be part of our food system) I have the right to the pursuit of happiness and to choose, happliy, organic non-gmo natural food.
Glyphosyte IS scary - and unproven what is it's impact on the ecosystem and future generations. Same with splenda and saccarin and any other man created chemical.
4
Mmmm, good sugar and fat...and salt. That'll make a lot of money. Addict those customers. Controlling overeating by avoiding ones favorites (read trigger foods) works, to some extent. It's an issue in this dialogue.
The biggest problem in this country is the number of folks who "self diagnose". They are putting themselves at serious health risks.
2
I wonder if all of this outsize focus on self-regulated food rules doesn’t amount to a national eating disorder. Is controlling what we eat to the Nth degree maybe a way for people to cope with what they experience as a lack of control over our over-stressed lives? Whenever I do a six-week “slow-carb” diet I do lose the lovehandles but, reflectively, I think what I enjoy more is that feeling of being in control. Perhaps this explains the scientific blind-spots that otherwise reasonable people suffer when it comes to food and diet.
2
Good piece. Common sense...but we know how that goes...it ain't so common.
The issue I'd like to see addressed; "Food as Entertainment" (How it wrecks nutrition and pushes the American waistline ever outwards.)
Food, eating it, has become a form of entertainment in the US. And I'm not talking about going to a new restaurant/take-out and trying new foods, experimenting with new flavor profiles, or non-standard ingredients. Rather that what we consume is supposed to enhance our lives. That it has to have an E-factor (Entertainment) to be worth eating. Look at how food is marketed. From Hotpockets (everyone say it in that voice!) to McDonalds - its all about consuming FUN! Eat a cheese filled microwaved processed food brick, and you have now entered a world of excessive fun.
Some commercials make it look like eating a piece of candy is like tripping on LSD! Gums with flavor crystals, and flavor enhanced chews - float us down colored falls of flavor and/or lift us into the stratosphere on waves of fun flavors! Its orgiastic!
So I'm bored, and this gum will end that!? Awesome!
The family is yawning, no one is talking, but all I need do is open that box and heat-up those edible bowls of Family Sized Entertainment and watch the fun happen! Hey look, a functioning Family gathered 'round the table! Ain't that so All-American and patriotic! Get me some!
We expect too much from the foods we consume, expecting them to fill in the empty places in our lives. Food as salve...wrong!
5
This is how I feel the best in my 55 year life:
- 85% of what I eat is unprocessed veggies, fruits and nuts. (I count not by calories, but by mouthfuls.)
- I *mostly* avoid processed foods and allow myself only one candy bar sized sweet a week. (I avoid added sugar like I avoid the plague.)
- I ride my bike 5 hours a week, dripping sweat hard.
- Only one coffee a day before 1pm.
- Go to sleep the same time every night (mostly).
I feel like a king!!!
5
Keep in mind that celiac disease is rather serious and that food allergies AND sensitivities can cause problems for people. Should I eat wheat or a variety of other foods though they make me sick? I think I will pass. And I do try to buy food that have fewer glyphosates and other poisons in them, including the ones that kill bees. I try to avoid processed, industrialized foods. I am much healthier than I was in my 20s and early 30s, when I began to avoid the foods that gave me symptoms of bloat, stomach aches, runny nose, fluids in the ear and forced me to use antacids and various medicines.
1
That ridiculous slogan is the singular reason I will no longer eat at Panera. I also shut down any talk of "detox" during a spa treatments. I go to a spa because it feels great and helps with relaxation; I have healthy kidneys and a liver to handle my body's toxins, thank you.
3
There is so much hysteria in these letters. I find most people tend to grab onto the latest food fad with little understanding which is the point the author is making. I laugh when I hear most people talk about "carbs" with little understanding of actual dietary requirements. His citing of the gluten-phobes is also spot on. I find the entire organic food phenomenon an outrageous excuse to sell over-priced items that are completely unneeded.
It's always been quite simple. Make fruits and vegetables the main source of your diet while adding in a bit of protein. Avoid processed foods. Avoid sugary snacks and drinks. Drink water when you are thirsty. Consider red meat a treat. Eat small portions. Avoid saturated fats. See, it's not hard. It really isn't.
10
Mostly awesome, especially about gluten.
The GMO thing is not quite so simple though. It's not the GMOs themselves that necessarily pose the problem, it's the idea of enormous corporations patenting seeds and plants, charging poor farmers exorbitant rates for them, breeding/desiging out the plants' ability to reproduce so that new seeds need to be bought every season...that's the real insidiousness of GMOs.
Oh, not to mention that a lot of the research that says they're safe is paid for by the GMO-makers.
5
You failed to address the biggest dangers in food - pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, trans fats, sugar and over-processing. These really are unhealthy, and they're ubiquitous in our food system. Rates of cancer, diabetes and other chronic diseases are increasing every year, and it's hard to believe that food isn't one of the main contributors. When profits are more important than people, and corporations are allowed to essentially poison our food, how can we NOT be afraid?
3
I don't eat gluten anymore because it makes me sick. It's that simple. And I don't use gluten-free substitutes, I just eat different, nutritions foods. This idea that we must eat grains to stay healthy is false. Human beings lived for tens of thousands of years before they learned how to use them.
I want to agree with this author, but find myself wishing for a well-thought out piece. Why demonize the fat in gluten-free bagels when the point of the article is to lower food-based stress? And the author also fails to convince me that adding a 'single sodium atom' to an existing chemical structure doesn't make it dangerous. Adding a 'single carbon atom' to all the oxygen in my home would be a bit of a problem for my lungs (though my plants would be in heaven). And ham-handedly lumping in the GMO debate at the end makes even less sense, from both a logical and thematic standpoint. Next time, stick with the bacon study.
In Aaron E. Carroll's home state of Indiana, 65% or 3.1 million adults are overweight or obese, so his views are just perfect for the Trump era. The typical American diet is LOADED with chemicals that our bodes never encountered in human evolution. In addition, Industrial food production and eating animals takes an extraordinary toll on our environment and adds to rising sea levels, air pollution, deforestation, desertification, increased cancer rates etc. But bravo Mr. Carroll, lets keep eating those pork rinds and like Mr. Trump we can just add an inch to our hight and say we are not obese.
4
When it comes to food there is a lot of all-round opportunism, greed, ignorance and magical thinking. 'Eating clean' is a marketing ploy that obfuscates the fact that microflora in our food is not only healthy but required for normal functioning of our immune systems.
Irradiation and (especially) additives may make food look nicer and last longer, but are not that beneficial to our enzymes.
I've seen no credible evidence that non-GMO products are in any way different from GMO products.
The main problem is that chemicals-laden food is cheap and designed to foster addiction to food leading to obesity. This is where profits are made on the backs of the American lower middle class and poor, disproportionately Latina and black citizen. Quality food and access to exercise should be a human right - at least in civilized countries.
1
It is not the food that we should be scared of it is all the of the unwanted, un needed additives. The herbicides, fungicides, the pesticides, the fertilizers, and the antibiotics. The raise of many cancers, of diabetes, of autism, of birth defects that can be traced to the raise in their use on our foods. With the USDA the FDA and academia kowtowing to the every whim of the agro industrial complex we should be afraid of what our factory farms produce.
4
Best is to let our bodies tell us which foods make it feel better or worse. Eat a meal with a big, juicy steak, potatoes and a slice of pie for dessert - note how energetic or not you feel. Then try a meal with a salad, baked tofu, lightly cooked vegetable and fresh fruit for dessert. If you don't notice a difference on how you feel afterwards, then go ahead and eat all the steak and pie you want. This is not about "panic" like the author writes, it's about common sense and taking good care of yourself. Plus, reducing animal suffering is a great thing too.
2
To those of you incensed by my mention of foie gras: perhaps you've never seen the "gavage" process. At the small farm where I buy foie gras, the ducks come a-runnin' when Mme shows up with the tube and a bucket of (non-GMO) grain. They voluntarily open their beaks, the tube slides down their throat without a whimper, and I see no sign of cruelty.
On the other hand, when I see industrial production chickens in the US that are so chock full of growth-stimulating drugs they can't even stand up, that seems awfully cruel to me. Not to mention remarkably unhealthy for the consumer.
Misguided activists in the US have perpetuated the notion of foie gras being the product of cruelty. When will they save the poor chickens?
2
Well, my 97 year old father, who is sharp as a tack didn't exercise purposefully a day in his life. He worked long hours on his feet. When he retired he and my mom traveled, but neither walked nor hiked for exercise. They ate the majority of their meals at home, home cooked by them (they both cooked). My Dad has always had a major sweet tooth, but never got into liking soda. He was a two pack a day smoker until his late 50's, so he does have a slow growing form of lung cancer and congestive heart failure. He has been at his slender weight all of his life, never have I never heard my Dad mention a diet to me!
His life goes against every study and research recently done, that says eat this but not that. He never really paid any attention to studies. He ate what he liked. Period. We should all be so lucky to reach the ripe old age of 97! I told him the other day, "Dad, had you not smoked you could reach over a 100!" He shrugged.
3
Our society is clearly unhealthy if one is willing to take a quick look at the world around us (if we can get away from our iPhones and laptops, that is.) Look at newsreels from, say, the 1940s, 50s, and you will see crowds of people that for the most part are slim and not obese or severely overweight. Fast forward to today and at least half of the crowd is obese and/or overweight. Diabetes in children and adults is skyrocketing. With the proliferation of fast food and a technology-driven, sedentary lifestyle, you have a recipe for disaster. If you are concerned about your retirement investment portfolio, folks, you may want to go entirely the way of healthcare stocks - our nation is sick and will be getting sicker - a lot sicker.
1
I think it is funny (in the "bad for society" sense) how many people attack climate change skeptics for being "anti-science", while themselves wholeheartedly believing all sorts of non-science from unqualified sources when it comes to nutrition and GMOs.
2
This is a problem of many non-scientists not knowing how science is performed by professionals and how to evaluate whether a study was done well or poorly. Media coverage is contributing to that mis-understanding or ignorance.
But a bigger problem is when others (politicians, pundits, corporations,) exploit this by appealing to our fears of food, job loss, etc. The Public needs to be as aware of this as what is science "truth" and bad science presented as accepted fact.
This is probably true for what the author means, but what I talk about when I mean "clean food" is food raised w/o hormones, food raised w/o pesticides, food not overly processed, and food harvested humanely. Pesticides are everywhere, made to endure in the environment, and I believe we are slowly poisoning ourselves. Pesticides DO cause cancer; pesticides DO interfere with fish and invertebrate natural orders; some studies link pesticide bioaccumulation to autism, among other things. So yeah, I DO need to eat clean food.
2
In my experience "food anxiety" (gluten free, non-gmo, vegan etc) which many times was adopted by who, no surprised, started out with eating anxiety issues (anorexia/bulimia), lead to adverse health issues in many friends.
Stomach polyps, premature grey hair, etc. I'm convinced many "gluten intolerant" people made themselves that way by so limiting their diet that their stomach's natural biome's balance got so thrown had trouble processing otherwise healthy foods. It's a self fulfilling practice in my mind.
I eat it all in moderation (often eating vegetarian or pescatarian many days) and exercise. I have major health problems and look act younger than my years people often say.
If you eat meat, you have an obligation to watch the underground videos that show how your meal is processed and how the animals were treated before you ate them.
Do you say the same thing to people who wear leather or have leather purses, dog leashes, etc.?!
Conspicuous consumption is an American institution as old as food fads. We all jump at the opportunity to pay more at Whole Foods and waste our "filthy lucre" on gluten-free and non-GMO products because it reaffirms our station in the desperately-sought two-percent income bracket, which as Americans we all secretly believe is merit-based. This may lead to inferior health choices, as the author of this article points out, but let's not underestimate the invigorating psychological benefits of feeling superior to one's fellow man, which is a mighty thing.
2
This author seems a bit glib somehow. "You Don't need to eat Clean"?
He dismisses issues lightly, refers to debatable evidence, and somehow misses the fundamental picture that our food supply has been corrupted by big, big, big agribusiness, and complicit politicians. You need only to look at obesity rates to understand that. Obviously, some people go a bit overboard in their food fashions and restrictions these days--- but they do that in reaction to a fundamental problem. Sadly, too many scientists and physicians (and I am a physician) have been suborned by industries, both agri and pharmaceutical. They are used to lend credence to unending sketchy practices, and lousy science. I would like to hope that this author is not one of them, but his glibness is worrisome.
3
As a cook, I encourage variety in color, taste and texture. And common sense. Like the King said to his banished daughter in the fairy tale, " Now I know you loved me most because you wished I would never run out of salt!"
1
Those of us with food intolerances and allergies know what agrees with us and what doesn't. Those without intolerances and allergies should thank their lucky stars for their good fortune and not pooh-pooh our concerns. Their arrogance is ill-informed and infuriating.
Oh our luxury problems with gluten and gmo's and meat. I can only imagine how ridiculous this would sound to people who have no food.
3
Sugar. Sugar Sugar Sugar.
Good job missing the elephant in the room.
I am sure the reason Americans are physically miserable most of the time is just eating too much. Can't be what we eat. Nope.
3
My father ate EVERYTHING in moderation and lived to 90. Until the last 7 months he had nothing major wrong with him? The only thing he avoided was tranfats and limited his sugar intake.
2
Thank you for this article which puts the focus back on science. Fear comes from lack of knowledge.
1
Clearly you are coming from the mainstream medical establishment which has virtually no training in diet and nutrition and views a wellness visit as a vaccine schedule instead of true preventative medicine.
As a functional medicine doctor board certified in Integrative medicine, which is a newly recognized specialty by the APBS, the same group that validates pediatrics, I work with patients on diet and see significant changes to chronic health problems on a daily basis.
Patients with fibroids and irregular cycles, stomach cramps, bloating, inability to gain weight or inappropriate weight gain, hair loss, insomia, depression and anxiety, skin rashes, chronic widespread musculoskeletal degenerative conditions and auto immune conditions all need to modify their diet.
I perform microbiome analysis to detect imbalances in the gastrointestinal flora that cause increased gastrointestinal permeability that leads to food sensitivities. These same microbial imbalances can be exacerbated by certain foods that cause the overgrown strains to proliferate. This is not pseudo science, this is the verified practice of medicine that has changed countless lives after they have been failed by their conventional PCPs. Many of these patients have digestive imbalance due to the frivolous use of antibiotics by pediatricians, who are the very last group I would expect to understand the nuances of the microbiome and accompanying impacts of diet.
1
"G.M.O.s are, in theory, one of our best bets for feeding the planet’s growing population."
"In theory" indeed! The learned consensus is that GMO foods have done nothing to improve food supply for a growing population. On that count, they are a dud.
1
What a ridiculous article! Consumers have every reason in the world to worry about their food. Roundup is used to dry grain, leading to residues which have harmed animals in studies. Frequently food is recalled for contamination. And if you care about others, there is the issue of farm workers being exposed to pesticides and herbicides, as well as meat processing plants with unsafe working conditions. I would expect an article like this to appear in an industry publication, not in a serious newspaper.
3
Science is seldom wrong but quality of journalistic reporting of it is very often incompetent.
Example, a study of 30 participants doing physical exercises and keeping some strange diet gave surprising results going against common knowledge. The scientific paper had a correct results reliability analysis that showed that...with 30 people and half being a control group, the results are very unreliable and most likely random. Scientists reading the article understand that this is some sort of preliminary study and not "knowledge". Articles of such low quality should be ignored by general public, but a journalist sees opportunity to have a sensational title ...
Another and serious manipulation is use of the "relative frequencies" and here apart from incompetent journalist, one can encounter serious business interests. Example; a healthy person finds out that he has cholesterol levels just above the norm, his doctor may use the primary prophylactics tables and tell him that he has a 50% higher risk of a cardio event.
What doctor will not tell, and maybe not know, is that a risk for a normal person to have a cardio event within next 10 years is 1 to10 000, and 50% more is 1.5 to 10 000, which is negligible and does not require live long medication with statins (with all bad side effects).
A recent UK study of fat but healthy people showed increase of 49% of risk of cardio events, also negligible but the headline was "YOU can’t be fat and fit".
1
The transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture is viewed as one of the great advancements of human civilization. It involved selective breeding to domesticate animals and plants with desirable traits. Interestingly, for thousands of years mankind was altering genes without the foggiest notion of a ‘genome’. Now that we can make defined, limited genetic changes to domesticated animals and plants, with a fairly good ability to predict the consequences of the alterations (it will never be 100% since we don’t always know what we don’t know), the outrage against the technology is overwhelming. I guess ignorance is bliss.
I wish opponents of the technology would consider the consequences of not using the technology. Take Golden Rice as an example. Vitamin A deficiency is estimated to cause over 600,000 deaths per year among children. While rice plants produce vitamin A in their leaves it is not produced in the grain. The golden rice project involves genetic engineering to express 2 genes in the rice grains resulting in Vitamin A accumulation. Thus, one could dramatically reduce Vitamin A deficiency in rice producing regions of the world. Yet there are activists opposing the project. I’m not sure how one’s ideological opposition to a technology can justify blocking a solution for dietary deficiencies causing great suffering and death.
1
". . . 'Tis folly to be wise." (I'm just completing Thomas Gray's thought). No one is saying that making vitamin A available is bad. What we're saying is that many, many people who eat a modern diet are very sick because of it in ways that perhaps you can't imagine--incapacitated, dependent, and treated dismissively by industry, government, and sometimes even health care professionals who are uninformed. Careless changes to the food supply have ruined many lives.
I cook. It's all ingredients to me. I don't think good/evil. I think tasty/healthy/seasonal. I use salt & sugar, along with vinegar, citrus juices, flour and other starches, chemicals like baking powder and baking soda, to adjust flavor and texture. These are tools, sometimes used well, sometimes misused by food packagers and restaurants. (Salt and fats are the most commonly abused).
I've also noticed that people on say "sugar free diets" are all of a sudden macerating dates or concentrating pear juice. These people need to understand what 'sugar' is. If beet sugar wasn't a concentrated commercial commodity, it'd be a health food.
I myself have developed a dairy sensitivity. I wish I hadn't. I'm glad I ate cheese and ice cream when I could. They are not poisons, I've just developed an age-related inability to digest lactose. (A sugar!)
Thanks to food purists though, non-dairy milks are common!
2
I wish our real food tasted good. In Europe this summer, I ate delicious fruit, vegetables, meat, raw-milk cheese, and fish. I used to be able to get amazing produce at my local family-owned grocery store, but now they sell the same tasteless, watery fruit that Safeway sells.
Am I the only one who remembers real food being much more delicious 30 years ago?
4
and you're in CA, try getting decent food, even citrus, in FL
2
GMO crops are not in themselves harmful, no more so than old-fashioned, selective-bred vegetables and grains. What may well be harmful is the purpose of the genetic modification. "Roundup-ready" strains are meant to survive dosing with the powerful herbicide glyphosphate. Depending on timing of its application, the consumer gets a trace or a goodly bite of residual Roundup with the harvested grain, soy or potato.
Avoiding GMO will not get Roundup out of one's diet. Farmers have learned that using glyphosphate to kill plants just before harvest promotes their drying and increases the value of the crop.
We don't need to be hysterical about our food. We need to be alert to real dangers and we need responsible media coverage of real, quantifiable hazards in the food we eat.
6
Genetic engineering in agriculture has been used almost exclusively by large input companies to design new crop traits that require continually increasing use of toxic and energy-intensive pesticides. It's extremely unlikely that large agricultural input companies will suddenly switch gears and help lower the actual costs of producing food.
4
So you're asserting that "large input companies" don't want to cut their own costs of production? I'm not clear on what you're claim is exactly, but it sounds a lot like the paranoia that this article is critiquing.
Actually, genetic engineering can be used to reduce the use of herbicides and pesticides, BT crops are engineered to have the leaves of crop plants produce a naturally occurring protein produced by soil bacteria that is toxic to pest insect larvae (but not to mammals) and thus reduces the need for pesticides. Also consider the use of a genetically modified mosquito to reduce the population of mosquitoes that spread the Zika virus. These involves a clever strategy whereby the insects mate with wild mosquitoes and produce offspring that die at early stages of development, thus reducing the insect population. Interestingly, the genetic modification can't spread since the the change leads to the death of the offspring. ( It involves a clever trick that enables one to raise the mosquitoes in the lab with a supplement they would never see in the wild.) Let's distinguish the value of the technology from the company's pricing strategy.
In reading people's comments on this article, it's pretty easy to tell who has been made ill by the modern diet and speaks from experience, and who hasn't a clue what it's like. There is a huge grass-roots movement of people who know that foods are making them sick -- grains, pesticides, contaminated soil, sugar, you name it. This isn't a conspiracy theory. Food tends to be highly processed and it's clear that we cannot trust the agriculture industry or government to keep us safe. People are increasingly looking after themselves and the first step is often to eat carefully. Experts keep telling us what to do, but the facts speak for themselves. "Eating clean" can transform lives -- and a great many individuals know that's true. And we want to be listened to.
10
This is a very simplistic point of view. If what we ate didn't matter, we wouldn't have the current epidemic of obesity to contend with. The author might have a more positive impact by discussing the negative impact of prepared, processed and fast food that our society has become addicted to. Eating a genuinely healthy diet of food prepared at home from scratch would go a long way toward improving America's overall health.
8
Taking your comments one step further is how to help people prepare food at home from fresh ("sctatch") ingredients. For some it's providing better access to fresh food and knowing quick & heathful meal prep. For some it's a time issue - many I know are commuting from work, taking kids to after school appointments- sports, lessons, etc. - that impacts time they have to make dinner at home.
As a common-sense cook and mother, I have long followed my parents' advice about food: moderation. We eat organic foods as much as we can afford not because of their nutritional value but because of the effects of pesticides and fertilizers on farmworkers and the environment. I vaccinated my kids, albeit with fear.
At the same time, I distrust a lot of scientific claims, because I can never be sure who funded the science and why. I'm still horrified to recall that Hormone Replacement Therapy was described as perfectly safe for decades before proper studies were performed -- and then they halted the studies because the harmful effects were so obvious. Doctors recommended antibiotics for my infant kids' colds years after the CDC issued warnings. There are hundreds of such examples, which make otherwise rational, pro-science non-specialists think twice before trusting scientific claims about food and health.
10
You call attention to a real issue. This is where politics no longer serves us. Money buys influence in regulations and laws passed (or not.) And like the GMO comment earlier, agribusiness is using science and technology not to benefit our health, but to maximized profits. (But, hey! Corporations are now people, too. Right?)
1
I find that organically grown produce and meats generally (but not always) taste better than their conventional counterparts. I'm willing to pay a little bit more for that.
5
Excellent article, though it needs to be balanced by an examination of where not looking at food choices does actual harm- as seen, for example, by the large rise in obesity and diabetes. The country seems divided between those phobic about their food versus those who ignore all consequences of a poor diet. As an aside, I think much of the difference is between people with enough money to be irrationally obsessive and those who can't afford that luxury.
What unites the two groups is our culture of anti-intellectualism, as you note. This may sound strange when talking about the upper middle class of Whole Foods buyers, but having a college education and money does not mean having good critical thinking skills, being able to think in probabilities, being able to distinguish between statistically meaningful distinctions and those distinctions without a difference (as in your comment about bacon).
The news media is part of the problem. I am constantly reading about something that increases your chance of getting a specific kind of cancer- without mentioning its overall prevalence or even a mention of the percentage of increase. Knowing both one can at least come to some meaningful conclusions (though a more sophisticated awareness of research also helps.)
Bottom line: Better reporting, with some basic statistical information and necessary skepticism, and better teaching of critical thinking skills would help people separate the wheat from the chaff (yes, pun intended.)
11
I think a lack of mobility, more than any kind of food choice affects health. As for food itself, I thinks its a good idea to eat non-factory foods but that is expensive and out of reach more many lower-middle class and poor in the US. I would gladly pay a food tax of some sort that would subsidise small-batch produce and foods so that they are more easily available and cheap. The whole culture of food availability and profitability needs to change.
2
I often wonder which is the greater threat to our health: eating something other than the ideal diet (whatever that may be) or stressing about eating something than the ideal diet. Professor Carroll could have taken his piece one step further by exploring how food anxiety diminishes our health, because it surely does.
5
My son will DIE if he eats certain foods- so we avoid those foods and we’ve gone COMPLETELY organic. Everyone is much healthier. Worth the effort. In the end, we felt more anxiety over death than eating GMOs and other junk.
Excellent comment! NY Times - please write this follow-up!
The citing of opposition to eating GMO's by the public and the inverse sense of their relative safety by the scientists is interesting for (at least) two reasons: 1) many of those very same scientists likely do not buy and eat GMO foods for themselves and their families, and 2) "feeding the planet's growing population" is of course an absolutely worthwhile goal. Unfortunately the truth is that GMO's are far more likely to be developed and sold by american corporations for their profit not to feed the world. An example is the recent permitting by the FDA of the very first animal for genetic engineering. These frankenfish are "made" by an Mass. company in Canada and Panama are are most certainly NOT for feeding the hungry. These "atlantic salmon" grow twice as large and fast as natural salmon and merely enable the company, Aqua Bounty, to sell more to those who are food secure and make them more and quicker profits.
4
The percentage of children with obesity in the United States has more than tripled since the 1970s.1 Today, about one in five school-aged children (ages 6–19) has obesity.2 This is what the CDC reports. Perhaps your author, a pediatrician is not aware of what is obviously a national crisis related to food consumption. As a nurse who has advocated for lifestyle change for over 35 years, there's no avoiding the facts: our proscess-food steeped diet has taken its toll with heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and increased mortality. First, we layer our foods with pesticides, then irradiate our foods to death (wonder why it takes ions before you see mold growth?), use additives to expand shelf life. I had a real world experience with my son-in-law with advanced diabetes. At age 44, he had suffered a heart attack, kidney failure, and a stroke. In desparation, he agreed to me preparing his food from scratch. I had to research the renal diet which is low-sodium, low-potassium, and low-phosphorus. His AiC (a long-term measure of blood sugar control) went from 8 to 5.2; his blood pressure lowered to normal; and he dropped 20 pounds. He feels better although he has had to begin dialysis because he kidneys were too damaged.What I learned is that good quality food produces good quality results. End of story. This author needs to do more than cite a few statistics to bolster a position that is not born out by people who have switched to a healthier diet.
7
Thanks for sharing. Because of surgery for an abdominal aneurysm I had a third of my pancreas removed. I found Dr. Furhman's "Eat to Live" book very helpful. He is convinced that eating healthy foods can reverse the effects of Type 2 diabetes. Check it out, it's brilliant.
Re: salt.
Kudos to Aaron Carroll for calling out anti-salt proponents for groupthink hysteria rather than actually examining the scientific, hard-outcome evidence themselves. (I’d go further to say that 3.5 to 5.0 grams-per-day of sodium is optimum based on the actual fatal and non-fatal heart attack and stroke data that we now have and that going below 2.3 or 1.5 g/d would kill millions of people prematurely...)
I urge all physicians and health professionals to consider PMID 27216139, 25552517, 24165962, 24651634, 21289228, 28255559, 25119607, 21540421, 26298426 and 28244567.
To be fair, also consider PMID 24415713 (which was nowhere close to being statistically significant). Then weight all of the hard-outcome data and make a judgment as to what we can and should say.
Physicians, heal thyselves.
2
I know for me that after avoiding ALL msg for the past 5 years, I bloat and feel miserable every time I get a sneak exposure. I also cut way down on salt, as it also causes me excess weight gain and raises blood pressure unnecessarily. The author may have a different metabolism, but I know what is best for me - non-processed whole foods. It's more effort to find and fix, but worth it for me
3
In truth, we should be fearful of what we eat in this country. Wheat and many other mass produced crops like soybeans are dripping with toxic chemicals. Monsanto and other corporations bribe the government to allow these harmful chemicals to be liberally sprayed on the food supply to increase yield. Politicians happily pocket the money and pass laws allowing continued pollution of our food supply. This is a fact. To make food cheap or "affordable" it is saturated in chemicals in one way or another. The wheat of today is very different from the wheat that we ate 50 years ago. It has been altered to resist disease and increase yield. The effects of consuming these things are cumulative, they add up over time and will cause health problems after 20+ years. Very difficult to prove cause and effect, but an intelligent person knows they should not consume poison. The United States ranks about 30th in life expectancy, well behind most European countries and Canada. Probably a combination of diet and healthcare.
6
Just as a personal opinion, Chinese food does not taste good anymore as more more restaurants have phased out MSG. I have never had a problem with it. I have purchase some ajino moto (MSG) for adding to my chinese cooking at home. But that's just me.
4
what about here in the USA the irradiation of wheat since 1962 to increase shelf life or the standard us of Glyphosate's (Round UP) to enhance production in the final phases of growth. These two things have a tremendous impact on the gut and the rest of the body. Organic wheat is not supposed to have the above done to it.
I am a Naturopathic Doctor and have written a paper for Senator Bingham in 1973 on vegetarian diet on children under the age of five as well as many years of research on diet and nutrition.
3
"Relax, you don't need to eat clean food".
Oh boy. Love the shout out to Panera's latest marketing slogan. "Clean food".
The(eir) hypocrisy couldn't be any more laughable for me anyway. A chain restaurant that uses industrial food corporations to stock their hundreds of stores wants us all to eat their 'clean food'. Really???
If this wasn't all so sad, I'd be laughing myself all the way to my Panera stock brokers office to pick up my thousand dollar quarterly dividend check.
2
We do need to eat clean. Clean, REAL food, not processed, GMO, etc. Or we can continue to eat what we want and have a huge health care bill that doesn't deliver the best results. Eat clean, drink clean.
4
The point of the article is to refute exactly what your comment said. That point is that there is no scientific evidence behind your sweeping claims about nutrition. That perspective is ill-informed.
1
Everyday I eat the same things:
Breakfast
Cheerios or Whole Wheat cereal with non fat milk, fresh strawberries or blueberries, and several cut up almonds.
Lunch
Turkey/Chicken/Tuna Sandwich with a slice of cheddar on whole wheat bread.
Salad with butter/romaine mixed with kale and cherry tomatoes. Oil and Vinager dressing.
Dinner: Random lean protein not out of box plus veggie not out of box.
Tons of water lightly mixed with OJ and tons of coffee throughout day.
Popcorn at night with Netflix plus fresca.
Pretty much a habit I do for convenience and I have a cheap shopping routine for these items. If I try to eat fast food now it makes me sick.
Really, just simple habits.
7
GMO foods are at least as nutritious, etc. as non-GMO foods. However, the plant has usually been modified to survive many spraying of insecticide. Insecticides kill all the non-GMO plants they get close to, and they can make us humans quite sick.
So GMOs are a mixed bag. They're terrific when they save our food supply and help feed needy parts of the world. They're terrible when used to make Round-Up ready seeds.
6
This article is very misleading. It is too generic. People should listen to their doctor’s advice, not the opinion of a newspaper columnist. For example most people eat twice as much sodium as is recommended by doctors. 1500 milligrams of sodium per day is optimal if one has high blood pressure, while 2,000 is good for those whose blood pressure is normal. Eating non processed foods, seasoning carefully and reading labels in the grocery store is time consuming, but the only way to achieve this goal.
2
The columnist is a doctor
Note the author's "day job" qualifications - professor of pediatrics and an MD
Also, most physicians have little nutritional training. Plus, like the rest of us, fall prey to poorly performed science studies. (Or the corps that pay for them.)
Your body functions basically as a chemical plant. Understanding those mechanisms helps in evaluating nutritional recommendations. Gone are the days where "calories in = calories out" was all that mattered. Fat chemistry, carbs versus proteins, hormones such as insulin and lepton all figure. The information is out there.
Most physicians get less than 2hours of training about nutrition in medical school.
They understand biochemistry, pharmacology, pathology--but not nutrition generally.
The title of the article is misleading. It implies that it doesn't matter what you eat. That's wrong. It does matter what you eat. The title might better be worded as, "You may be avoiding some foods that are good for you or, at minimum, would do you no harm."
5
There is a saying I learned as an apprentice at the Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems that goes "You can pay the farmer. Or you can pay the doctor."
In America, we spend so little money really on food (most of it cheap and processed and full of sugar, killing us slowly) and we spend so much money on doctors' visits and pharmaceuticals and fighting cancer and diabetes exactly because we eat so poorly.
If we invested more in our health up front (eating good clean fruits, vegetables, whole grains, eggs, limited meat) we wouldn't have to pay so much in medical costs. We need to get back to basics - good clean unprocessed food - and we'd find we don't need to visit the doctor nearly as much. But then at least some in Dr. Carroll's industry would lose their very lucrative jobs. Our immense American medical industry is really built on sickness, not health. Want to change that status quo? Visit your local farmers market.
11
I totally agree with the article. For normal, relatively healthy, people, they should eat everything in moderation. Try to eliminate processed foods and cook at home more, but bacon, steak, eggs, sugar, milk, salt, butter, bread... just eat without fear!
3
This author fails to understand that the most convincing arguments against GMO foods are ecological and social, not health related. I have suffered from disordered eating due to food paranoia, and I am in complete agreement that food anxiety can cause very adverse health effects. In fact, minus the paranoia most of the health issues I was attempting to fix by removing foods are gone with just lack of food stress and more exercise, which also decreases anxiety. All that said, the GMO issue is so much less about personal opinions on how they effect your health. They are controlled often by companies like Monsanto that force you to buy seeds every year rather than save seeds and become self-sufficient, which clearly impacts the rural and impoverished nations they claim to be helping. Seeds are often copyrighted and small farmers can be sued if their crops so much as get pollinated by GMO's next door. GMO's can have adverse effects on diverse local food supplies, wipe out entire food species, and make people extremely vulnerable to famine should any blight or disease effect the dominant GMO crop. What I have said is a lay persons version of the tip of the GMO iceberg. Do your research before you claim GMO's are safe- it's not just about consumption.
5
I think it's good that the information is out there. By information, I mean the nutritional and non-nutritional content of processed foods we buy, the results of scientific studies on the health effects of various substances in our food, and, yes, articles that present this or that person's opinions about how or how not to eat. It's all good, as long as people take it in, think about it and discuss it with others, and make rational (or even emotional) decisions about how or whether to incorporate it all into their daily lives. Will for some the reaction to all this take the shape of an obsession or a fetish? Sure. Will some react trumpishly and simply do the opposite of whatever the evidence shows? Yup. Will some decide to carry on without incorporating any of the myriad available recommendations into their lives? Absolutely. Will new evidence arise leading to changed recommendations and cognitive dissonance? You betcha. But even with all the potential inconveniences, I strongly believe that having the information is always better than not having it, sometimes a lot better.
The study suggesting that non-celiac gluten sensitivity is not real is based on shoddy science and dangerously misleading. The trial periods on gluten vs gluten-free diets are only for a period of a week. It can take many months for your gut to heal and symptoms to resolve after removing gluten from your diet. I would love if I could relax about my diet and eat whatever like most people but if I do then my health suffers. Articles like this are a cruel disservice to the countless people who suffer needlessly from dietary intolerances.
3
Well put. I'm tired of articles like this. People have good reason to worry about the food they eat.
1
What about all the toxic chemicals that have made their way into our entire food chain? This article is missing the biggest issue facing “clean eating” in the US. Our FDA allows widespread use of pesticides and insecticides that are banned in many countries in Europe and some even banned in China - many of which are carcinogenic, endocrine disrupters or affect brain development in children. Under the Trump administration, the EPA has even stopped testing many of these chemicals.
7
The reason we seem to be consumed with anxiety over what we eat is not hard to find. It's called consumerist capitalism. It amplifies minor worries and turns them into national neuroses. Why? Because panic sells. Once an idea enters the national consciousness - for example, the evils of gluten - consumerist capitalism steps in and begins creating and selling solutions. Gluten-free food, gluten-free cookbooks, the Paleo Diet, preposterous labels trumpeting foods that have never contained gluten as being "gluten-free." The talk shows get in the act, as do the millions of advisors on the Internet, who live to tell you how and how not to live.
How do we break this feedback loop that produces goods and services that cater to our food neuroses faster than we can buy them? The only solution I can think of is to declare independence from food columns and from any media that talks about food as if it were a toxic substance. We'd all be better off if we went back to using our great-grandmother's cookbooks than today's phobia inducing tomes.
Most foods today are toxic. That’s the problem. Roundup is everywhere. Digestive and health problems are pervasive. Let’s clean up our food!
Someone may have already commented on the fact that GMO wheat is a genetically altered wheat that allows the plant to endure large amounts of pesticide Round Up spraying without dying. The problem is that the pesticide is killing everything else around it. Round Up has a problem, because it is also killing bees, birds, and creating "weeds" that are Round Up resistant so that the farmers have to spray more and more.
Also the wheat is patented so if a seed strays into a non-GMO field the farmer will have to pay for it. It is becoming impossible for farmers to save their own seeds for planting.
Since I'm not an expert on the topic, this is a very basic sort of description. People should do research about this.
5
Perhaps Americans need to start cooking again. If you by a wide assortment of good ingredients and cook, it seems to me you will eat a fairly healthy diet. I know many people who never cook, and am now teaching a student I tutor in math and English how to cook. Why? Because he asked and he has the sense to know fast food and processed stuff aren't healthy. We have removed cooking as an elective in most middle schools and in some high schools. If families don't cook, how will the next generation learn? We want kids to graduate from high school able to care for themselves. Surely being able to turn basic ingredients into a tasty meal is part of this.
3
Protein isn't manufactured by cows, chicken, and pigs, but rather by the plants they eat. Broccoli, for example, has more protein per calorie than steak and contains cancer-fighting chemicals and is linked to being fit and trim. Steak, on the other hand, is linked to an increase in cancers, obesity, heart disease, autoimmune diseases, asthma, and diabetes.
So, do we want to solve the health care crisis in America? Do we want to remove 95% of all heart attacks? Do we want to stop and reverse the rise of diabetes, which consumes 30% of our Medicare budget?
Of curse we do. The answer is quite simple really, just go vegan. Anyone can do it. Your weight will return to normal. Type II diabetes mostly clears on its own. You'll have more energy. Your cancer risk drops to nearly zero. Your arteries will clear and your heart attack risk drops to near zero.
Vegan diets aren't restrictive. They do however remove toxic foodstuffs manufactured on some factory farm or just plain factory.
AAron Carroll in this article, by advocating a toxic diet, is killing thousands of American's per day - far more than the 9/11 attack. He, in turn, is cheered on by the hospital system that sees every heart attack as a profit center. Big pharma cheers to. Statins and many other meds would no longer be needed if we were all vegan.
1
Most food fear is created by food manufacturers and marketers. That's where the (sorry: completely irrational) fear of GMOs comes from in most cases.
How to get people to pay more for food? Scare them into doing it. Fear works.
1
I’m afraid of eating Roundup. Aren’t you?
1
I expected to learn this writer is a spokesman for the processed foods industry. He has invented something to sell, and it's a point of view that is nothing more than contrary to common sense and long-term scientific knowledge.
He says that the effects of fearing certain foods are "more insidious than any overindulgent amout of 'bad food' can ever be." Wrong. Anyone who eats "any amount of 'bad food', " because it's better than worrying about that bad food, is quite likely going to suffer from a condition like heart disease, obesity or diabetes.
Carroll has cherry-picked statistics that fit his selling point. He says eating an extra portion of bacon every day may not significantly increase our risk of colon cancer. But what about the impact on our arteries and waistlines? It's not to say we should never eat it. But it does mean we should be informed on its harmful side before digging into a daily extra serving.
The writer's overall promotion of "relaxation" and seeking comfort in eating can be dangerous. He is not much better than a food industry that seduces us with their wares by shoveling in too much salt, fat and sugar. We don't need relaxation, we need education.
We also need to know how to educate ourselves. But that's not sexy. The scientific community is in fact the most responsible source for food information. We just need to focus on long-term knowledge not fads. We shouldn't choose our foods out of uninformed fear but we also shouldn't ignore the facts.
2
Because there are so many unhealthy looking Americans, both young and old, something needs to change. The unhealthy often blame their food for making them sick. It is not the food. It is their behavior that is making them sick. You cannot over eat and not exercise and expect to be healthy. Having digestive issues? Eat more fiber, drink more water and walk at a good pace at least 20 minutes a day. If after six weeks of this regimen you are not feeling 100% better then go see a doctor or nutritionist.
1
It is always interesting, after crossing the border between Canada and the US, to purchase the identical product as made and produced for that country's population and its taste preferences. The American-made Oreo cookie bears little relationship to the Canadian in terms of sweetness and taste. A Reese's peanut cup similarly is sweeter south of the boarder, although to a degree that it retains little peanut taste. Canned soups, cookies, many breakfast cereals, many of the US varieties contain so much sugar that the practically burn the mouth with oversweetness.
3
Sounds like an advertisement for a book that will sell well - people want to be told they can indulge in all the foods they like and be healthy, too. Somehow, I’m not convinced.
1
Much of this problem is due to the scientific illiteracy of journalists. Journalism degrees require no scientific training while journalist are the major purveyors of science to the public.
Journalists have as central tenets of their profession that there are two sides to every story and pronouncements from so-called people in authority must be reported as fact to be ‘objective’ no matter how absurd.
In science the ethic is very different, a theory is only as good as the data that supports it and as accurate as the experimental outcomes it predicts. Science does not care what you believe .
People try, but in the end it is hard to manipulate science...Journalism and the public, not so much.
This article must have been sponsored by ConAgra, and the Salt and High-Fructose Corn Syrup industries, because it is not factual.
Over 3 grams of salt daily is well over the "sweet spot". The CDC recommends that adults eat 2.2 grams of sodium per day. For adults over age 51, at risk for high blood pressure or diabetes, the amount is significantly less.
Pork, known as the "other white meat", is white in its natural state. The addition of sodium nitrate gives pre-packaged pork its pink color. Buy fresh, cooked porked and ask the butcher to slice it for sandwiches. In 2015, the World Health Organization said nitrates cause cancer.
High-fructose corn syrup is suspiciously not mentioned in this article as a health risk. It sweetens most soft drinks. Unlike regular sugar, it must pass through your liver and be converted to fat before your body can use it as energy. This direct conversion to fat leads to obesity, liver disease and Type 2 diabetes.
Americans have no trouble taking pleasure in the foods they eat. The problem is, they take pleasure in eating and drinking very unhealthy foods.
America's most-consumed foods are fat, salt and sugar-laden burgers, hot dogs, pizza, french fries and soft drinks. America now has the most obese population on the planet, with high incidence of diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
There is much pleasure and good taste in healthy eating. It's not a cause of fear, it's a way to a longer, healthier life.
2
It is obvious that the author has little knowledge of the actual research available on these topics. I suggest a thorough review of anything published by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, the China Study, Fast Food Nation, Amy of the Nurses Health studies, and any research published on the diet and health of Seventh Day Adventists. This large body of research clearly shows the large negative impact that the consumption of processed foods, low dietary fiber, and animal products of any kind (including fish) on public health. Misinformation such as that presented in this column is harmful to individual and public and ignores the abundant facts that argue strongly against the authors premise.
2
Undoubtedly millions of people have eaten MSG and not died from it. And I do believe it makes foods taste better. However, after several instances of eating food containing it and then having nightmares with images like the LSD folk used to paint, I am staying away from MSG.
GMO is not unhealthy, ok. How about Roundup? Is that good food?
2
we should worry more about what comes out of our mouth than what goes in
3
Looks to me as if this op ed is native advertising for GMOs. No thanks.
And I note that excessive consumption of sugars and carbohydrates (which convert to sugars in the body) are not addressed.
1
Please do not relax! Be fearful of Diabetes, Heart Disease and Obesity. Choose your foods carefully. Over a life time choose health as opposed to a life of suffering not least by those people who will need to care for you as your Diabetic foot is amputated, as part of your intestine is removed or stapled to attempt to save your life after you have relaxed your way into a 300lb body, as your chest is cracked open to create a bypass for your blood to flow because your Coronary arteries are so clogged by plaque after eating bacon every day for breakfast! If not for enlightened self interest, eating clean is a gift we can give to those who love us. Yeah, that man or woman crying in the waiting room at the hospital as the Doctor tells them that their lives will never be the same and are left to wonder how they will be able to afford the rent and if only they had pushed you more to eat a healthy diet instead of enabling you to relax your way to an early death!
143
I've been to too many parties where already overweight people relax and sit around making themselves even fatter with even MORE high-sugar, high-fat calories they don't need.
Frances, Right on! Incredible the NYTimes would run this fatuous apologetic for the commercial food industry when it ran some articles last year saying that currently 30% of NYC residents are diabetic or prediabetic!
Thank you for this important article. I think it is excellent advice to relax & enjoy your food! And also to be very skeptical of pseudo-science and fads. However, there are important reasons other than one’s own personal health to eat low on the food chain and to avoid factory-produced meats. I buy locally-raised vegetables because I want to support local farmers, and because they are very tasty! And I usually choose to eat vegetarian, and especially avoid factory-farmed meats because I care about the welfare of animals.
2
As to the implied assertion that GMO's are safe, and that "we too often fail to think critically about scientific evidence," I would question where that scientific evidence is coming from. I'm sure that Professor Carroll is well aware of the growing corporate influence on university research by companies such as Monsanto and Conagra Foods. For example, Monsanto collaborates with universities in a number of ways, including through “peer-reviewed research in academic journals” and by providing “graduate-degree advisors and academic mentors.” And DuPont’s seeds division, Pioneer, sponsors symposia and workshops on university campuses throughout the United States. Also, although the negative consequences of GMO crops on human health and the environment are too complicated to summarize, the use of glyphosate (the main ingredient in many herbicides such as "Roundup") has increased exponentially since GMOs came on the market in the mid 1990s.
15
Fear is bad. Living in fear of our own food is bad. Anxiety is destructive, and fearfulness is unhappiness.
Still, extreme oversimplification does not stop fear. It drives fear reactions as people realize they can't trust this advice to relax.
I distrusted it when it said MSG is not a problem. Well, that may be true for some. Anyone with diabetes or sensitivity to insulin and blood sugar levels will feel MSG's impact. It has the highest possible glycemic index, really just mainlining a sugar hit as harshly as possible. Many people not strictly diabetic will feel the effects, including children and the elderly.
Then he got to GMO's. I suspect that was his real motive. I distrust that too, because the MSG stuff was so oversimplified.
GMO's are not all the same, one category. It depends on the genetic modification done. They are all over the place, doing all sorts of things. It is oversimplification to say they are all ANY one thing. They are many things, including some good and some maybe bad.
It depends. That need not mean to live in fear. Just know what you are eating. Most of us have a diet of the same general things, a list we go down. How many new things do we really try each day? Check your list. Then relax.
7
I agree with majority of the things in the article, although I think the main issue comes with how food is advertised and how research claims are twisted in the news to appear that we must avoid "x" nutrient or else we're on a one-way road to obesity. It's not realistic, but if most people took the time to actually read a little bit of the abstracts or skim the research they would see that most papers find no effects for some associations, or positive/negative effects but maybe in small amounts. As you say, people don't think critically about the scientific literature, and what they also don't realize is how everything must be BALANCED. It should be common sense that BOTH too much or too little of something is not beneficial for our diets, but for some reason the public always takes it to the extremes and then claims are further enforced by label claims and media headlines. By the time new claims come out, the information is so vast and opposing, leading to more confusion and distrust in the scientific community. In the end there needs be a responsibility of the nutrition and health professionals to provide adequate education and for the public to take things with a grain of salt.
Here's what I know - at least 4 people in my close inner circle have symptoms associated with eating gluten. Me personally, I've never been diagnosed with a gluten sensitivity, yet whenever I eat a slice of pizza, I can literally feel the tingling in my sinuses as they swell up. When I ate gluten - severe sinusitis at least twice a year - after stopping gluten, four years and no sinus problems at all. Can you explain this doc?
The reason people don't trust science isn't that we think the scientific method is broken, it's that we KNOW too many scientists make their living from obscuring information from us.
5
Not to agree or disagree entirely with the point of this opinion column, as perhaps there is too much worry about landing on the benefits or problems of any particular food option, which nutritional/ epidemiological science changes the definition of every 10 years or so (fats are bad/ carbs are good, then the opposite).
But as far as gluten goes, the general understanding of clinicians, such was Dr Carroll, may not be complete. Many reactive antibodies to wheat and its metabolites are clearly present in a portion of patients who consume gluten-containing grains and may have serious long-term health consequences.
Here is a lucid explanation of these concerns worth looking into:
https://chriskresser.com/3-reasons-gluten-intolerance-may-be-more-seriou...
4
About MSG... I worked in China for a year during the 1980s. At that time, cooks would throw a fistful of MSG into just about every dish. Halfway through my China year, I developed severe insomnia (alleviated eventually by acupuncture). After I got home, through observation and experiment, I discovered that every time I ate something with MSG in it, I would again be unable to sleep. This was not my imagination! Upon my return to China last year I discovered that MSG is no longer popular, which I was very grateful for. Maybe most people aren't sensitive to this ingredient, but some definitely are.
5
I am very scientific in my thinking and research. However, I do get severe, unusual headaches whenever I eat anything with MSG. This article makes it sound like it is all in my imagination and that I have bought into the MSG propaganda. But, my MSG headaches began when I was a child in the 50's and 60's before any of this research was done. For example, I can eat at a restaurant that I don't think uses MSG only to get ill and find out after I call them that they do. I try to keep away from chain restaurants and/or have the kitchen just simply grill something for me and only use salt, pepper and olive oil. Since I have started doing this, my MSG headaches have virtually disappeared. Granted, my story regarding MSG does not amount to verifiable scientific research, but it is authentically my experience.
13
Glutamic acid and it’s sodium salt is a naturally occurring amino acid. You get this stuff every time you eat protein. It is rapidly cleared from your body by the kidney.
Look elsewhere for the cause of your headaches.
Again, you can say what you like, but there has been a direct correlation between my headaches and eating MSG. If I don't eat MSG, I am fine.
Your experience may not qualify as verifiable scientific research but it is another example of someone (like myself) who is not likely to volunteer for a food industry-sponsored MSG study knowing what faces us: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-martin/msg-effects_b_4751438.html
1
The issues between science and culture work both ways. How many medical scientists testified for tobacco companies? I'll feel more sanguine about the long-term, widespread use of GMO's when I know the percentage of scientists in the field untroubled by their use who are funded by agribusiness vs those doing entirely independent research. I don't ascribe nefarious characteristics to those promoting GMO's, but the scientific method - practiced by human beings with inherent biases - can lead to interpretations of results [or inadequately designed tests and parameters] by those intellectually invested in a particular outcome and results seen differently by skeptics with no such involvement.
8
I had this "don't-worry" philosophy for years. I was overweight and unwell. With a disciplined, natural-food approach, I dropped a load of weight and felt great. There were no cravings or "fear," just a realization that the system won't tolerate some things. If science says that highly processed foods, MSG and GMOs are all okay - then by all means go ahead and enjoy, if you wish. My experience says something else, so I'm sticking to what works.
17
The key word here is ‘discipline’. You stopped overeating and worked out regularly.
Congratulations. You are reaping the benefits of a healthy lifestyle.
I work with a vegan. If we go out to each lunch with our department, she scours the restaurant's ingredients and often ends up eating almost nothing. She told me she made a grilled (fake) cheese sandwich last Saturday. Yum. She has taken one of the most joyus parts of life and turned it into a dreary bit of business. I have never asked her the "why" of her choice, because that's her's to decide, but I mourn the fact that she is missing out on so much.
5
To eat his (or her) own. Food is first and foremost about nutrition. Some people find no pleasure in eating, eat only in order to fuel their bodies. Perhaps they have undeveloped taste buds? I dunno, but they're no fun to dine with.
People don't want to eat GMOs because they fear they are contaminated with poisonous glyphosate.
14
Um, you do realize that just about everything we eat is a genetically modified organism. If humankind had not spent centuries breading plants and animals to get better food, and yes plant and animal breeding genetically modifies the offspring. we would all be living in cavesw and dying very young.
1
Can you and Tara Parker-Pope review the research on processed meats together and get back to us please? Her guide to aging and eating well in today’s paper says “Avoid processed meat,” and cites several studies about bacon and sausage to emphasize her point.
7
This piece could be summarized by the phrase "don't be so puritanical about what you eat!" Some of the comments illustrate our American Puritanism: once we adopt a lifestyle habit based on a political viewpoint or a health goal, we forget about Aristotle's advice "all things in moderation." I personally have to constantly ask myself if I'm being puritanical or perfectionistic about food. I find that I can indeed relax and enjoy, especially when I'm away from my own kitchen or my own country.
So - if you're in a restaurant that uses MSG, and you know it'll make the dish taste better, and you know MSG doesn't actually make you sick, and you don't want to annoy your fellow diners - just order it without mentioning MSG. If you're a vegetarian, you're hungry, and you show up at a party where there's "nothing" to eat - go for the chicken wings! If bread really makes you sick, by all means avoid it, but if you kinda maybe think gluten erodes your energy level a bit - join your friends and dip the wonderful Italian bread in the luscious olive oil!
What we don't know about what we eat (and drink, smoke or vape) far exceeds what we do know. In these dark times, Just Relaxing might be the best thing we can do for our own health, not to mention the well-being of our community!
9
Re. gluten: lots of foods we ate for years were gluten free. Now they are labeled "gluten Free". Are the increasing numbers of gluten free sales including all these products? Like Corn Flakes?
1
Corn flakes is not gluten free.
We talk about food in the negative because actually scary foods are pushed on us, and especially children, in a relentless fashion. I will never think it's OK for a 3rd grader to show up to school with a breakfast of Takis. I guess I should apologize to the kid's parents for fear-mongering.
8
You are a teacher and beleive that the market place contains "actually scary food?"
Ever heard of trans fats, Jeff?
Thank you, Dr. Carroll, for lighting the candle of science and reason in this murky wilderness of food voodoo! I do boycott some products that advertise non-GMO because it’s so silly — prehistoric genetic modification by selective breeding was the beginning of agriculture and civilization! Why should we bury ourselves in a New Stone Age when we have evolved to think and reason from facts? I’m shopping now for your book “The Bad Food Bible: How and Why to Eat Sinfully.”
4
Is Roundup Ready technology ancient? Is it a good idea?
Relax! Ozone is just oxygen with an extra oxygen atom.
If life depends on molecules containing two atoms of oxygen, then molecules with three must certainly be better!
What a loan of nonsense from a so-called professor of medicine.
22
Right? What harm could one teeny, tiny atom do? I'll bet ozone makes air taste sweeter, too.
We are like the replicants in the movie Blade Runner. We are genetically programed to die at a certain time. So quit worrying about food and just enjoy it. We are on this planet a very short time.
4
Amen! (And good luck swimming upstream in the loud river of unsubstantiated opinion. Reason is dead).
4
While the author makes some good points, particularly about wheat, he leaves out way too much information that we know about diet. I'm on a whole-foods, plant based diet (mostly for ethical reasons) but my own research and experience has shown me it's also the healthiest diet. To say that our diets aren't tied to health (and to sickness) is outright dangerous. I notice the author doesn't mention our obesity, heart disease, Type II diabetes epidemics. One only needs to talk with their neighbors and relatives to realize how sick Americans are.
18
I agree with the other in many respects, that our food fears in the US are overblown. But there is something seriously wrong with the way we produce food and the impact Big Ag has had on our food supply. Case in point: in recent years my husband has developed a sensitivity to wheat and can no longer eat bread and pasta without stomach issues. We were in Vietnam last month, where he didn’t want to miss out on the wonderful baguettes and croissants they make. To our surprise, he was able to eat them with no consequences. When I’ve told people this, they shared similar stories of problem-free wheat consumption in other countries. Why? Is it GMOs? What have we done to our food supply that is making us sick and it is not the case around the world. We need to get these poisoned seeds out of our food chain.
9
This is the most sensible article on eating I have seen in years. Thank you.
As a physician, I am constantly shocked at how gluten has become so demonized. Everyone seems afraid of 'carbs'--right now, I have lived through the 'fat' fear, years ago. People trying to lose weight will attack a food group as the culprit. I say, enjoy food, delicious food, but just not so much of it!!
11
Have you studied nutrition extensively?
Sorry, I'm NOT imagining that I'm celiac. I have been diagnoses! Wheat is dangerous for me. I'm also not imagining that MSG gives me severe migraines for months, it is demonstrated by them and documented. That is why some of us need warnings about those things on products. My life definitely improved after dropping all foods with wheat and all foods with MSG (Kentucky Fried Chicken for example.) These are not irrational fears for me and no excuse should be given corporations involved in food processing to keep the public ignorant of their presence.
9
I agree; this piece is just more blather from another know-it-all M.D. belittling people with actual health problems created or exacerbated by certain foods (and non-food additives and contaminants).
true - my sister and her children all have celiac issues
but really ? KFC ? I love me some extra crispy , maybe once every 3 years , tho
peace
T
The aversion to GMO foods (setting aside the manner in which they might be fertilized) is certainly silly. Nearly ever single fruit or vegetable we eat has had its genes modified the old-fashioned way, via grafts, cross-pollenation, and selection -- and it's been that way for centuries. In fact, if people were really concerned about GMO foods, they might look into the work now being done to recover healthier, "legacy" strains of fruits and vegetables, including wheat itself; Stephen Jones's "Bread Lab" is doing wonderful work bringing back the grains of our ancestors from the drab stuff of today.
1
I agree it's not the modified DNA in GMOs that is unhealthy. People don't realize (it's never listed on food labels) that fresh foods contain the DNA of that organism. High school science labs extract DNA from strawberries. We eat "foreign" DNA and proteins ALL the time, as does every other organism, breaking them down into their subunits and rebuilding them to our own specifications.
However, just as you raise how they are fertilized as a caveat, I agree with others that the way they are treated with herbicides such as glyphosate, which evidence suggests is toxic to us, is the real concern.
Modified rice with additional vitamin A is wonderful, but any food grown with tons of pesticides and herbicides is reasonably suspect.
2
The main issue is drowning the crops in poisons- Roundup or glufosinate. Although the fertilization methods and inbred insecticides- all of which are having to be increasingly more powerful every year- are what’s dangerous. These crops destroy the life in the soil, and sicken us. Check out Whitewash by Carey Gillam.
I hope the author is not suggesting a disregard for decades of research in Nutrition Science that the USDA advisory, and others, follow, though at first glance it may appear to be so. To cut back on saturated fats, salt, sugar, and processed foods, are now accepted tenets of a healthy diet.
The author perhaps needed to state that he suggests a moderate consumption of almost all foods, except those that are a known problem for an individual, and to avoid over-eating because of taste or tradition or propaganda.
4
The many comments here from folks who dispute the author make his point. And I bet many are the same people who are apoplectic about the refusal of others to acknowledge climate change.
I consider myself liberal. I think most of the misinformation and ignorance of the last 20 years has come from the right, and has culminated in this disaster in the White House. But anti-intellectualism abounds on both sides. It's just that on the left it is masked as faux intellectualism. The fake science on vaccines, or gluten free/low carb diets. Emotional support animals are the latest craze.
If we believe in science and data, that belief cannot be selective.
7
The funny thing about diets is that in the end, the "truth" is what happens inside of your own body. If a person feels sick after they eat a food, then they feel sick. If they feel better if they avoid that food, then they feel better. That's not fake science. The problem comes when people go out and try to sell books telling everyone else how they "should" eat.
1
fine, but I'm sticking with the "sugar and processed foods (especially snack and fast foods) are evil" mantra.
4
There is so much guilt attached to so much of what we eat. I am glad to read an article that attempts to lessen that. From a former dietitian.
3
This is a complex topic that can be simplified. #1 Should multibillion dollar chemical companies be dictating food policy? This is the GMO issue-all else is smoke and mirrors. #2. Processed food is created to make money for multibillionaire corporations. If something can last on the shelves for months- more profit. No matter if it is nutritionally bereft. #3. What we consume or not is intimately correlated with our health and well being
4
The author should be more scientific about how he describes chemical compounds. In this statement, "MSG, or monosodium glutamate, is nothing more than a single sodium atom added to glutamic acid," he's not making a meaningful scientific statement. Rather, he's fallen into an amateurish trap of Science-by-Intuition.
Adding "nothing more than a single ion" or atom of anything to a molecule can indeed make the difference between toxic or salubrious. For example, adding a single sodium atom of sodium, a toxic element, to chlorine, another toxic element, yields table salt.
Whether monosodium glutamate is good for us is besides the point. The point is that we should attempt to think, and write, scientifically and objectively. "Science-by-intuition" is a large part of why so many people are unable to think critically about issues like global warming ("but we had that polar vortex!") or risk management ("I text all the time in my car. I'm really skilled at it!").
9
Why do so many "food police" advocate legalization of drugs? Are drugs good for you? McDonald's is excoriated (as though people are forced to eat there), by the same people who think pot is the be-all-end-all for ailments. And are you absolutely sure that foods sold as "organic" are really organic?
3
McDonald’s (and traditional fast food generally) tends to be singled out for criticism because of the problems with industrialized meat production. Looking at the science that links climate issues with the resources consumed in, and the solid and gas wastes that result from, this production are instructive. It’s not that eating a Big Mac every once in a while will hurt you; it’s that selling literally millions of them day in and day out is destroying our planet.
1
Good point about the use of "organic." There is no legal definition of "organic" food. Anyone can call anything organic. Its like labeling food that naturally never contains gluten and "Gluten Free."
It's striking how much more informed and comprehensive - in terms of all the various public and environmental health issues raised by the American diet - the comments on this opinion piece than the piece itself, which is limited in scope and cherry picks its evidence to make a very limited (and unclear) point. In fact, I have to ask: what is the point of this article?
6
The problem is not with the food people eat but how much of it they eat.
8
The problem is that the foods peddled by Big Food America Inc. are not foods at all. They have been chemically transformed into addictive substances that trigger the pleasure centers of the brain like cocaine does, and they will kill you like opioids do, just more slowly. This allows Big Pharma to take your wealth while you still have a pulse.
4
Sounds like a doctor who has just given up trying to find a better way. His advice to us and his patients I suppose is "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we all will die. "
3
Ok...........but if you are a Diabetic carbohydrates are completely scary and we are actually hardly able to eat any if you do not want to take medicine. And I am talking type 2.
#WeirdScience When an Indiana Doctor for a Center for Diabetes & Metabolic Diseases sounds like an Eastern Kentucky Congressman in charge of Opioid Regulations ... relax, don't worry, science will solve this problem = Time to turn to your local heirloom seed bank, a community garden, and the time-worn wisdom of Bill Best, Joel Salatin and Barbara Kingsolvers of the world.
2
A few years ago I was hosting Thanksgiving and had to deal with a variety of food avoiders: my father-in-law, a diabetic; one sister-in-law who avoided gluten and dairy; another sister-in-law and a brother-in-law who avoided meat. I made gluten-free cornbread, which I used for some of the stuffing, and sugarless cranberries and apple pie. I used olive oil instead of butter for the turkey and vegetables to the dismay of my mother. The result was a lot of increased stress for me and the effort didn't seem to be appreciated. Never again will I try to accommodate my guests' food fads.
14
This illustrates a point I think the author meant emphasize: food is for sustenance, but it also has a strong social-cultural component that we’re overlooking lately. We gather for meals in celebration, to acknowledge milestones, to mourn a loss, or to just have a reason to get together. Barring a serious illness like (diagnosed) Celiac or Diabetes, eating a little stuffing isn’t going to kill you, or even stress your body beyond what it can handle. The ‘eat clean’ movement(s) make shared meals more stressful, if not impossible to actually “share.” It’s great that people want to watch what they eat, but letting food become your religion turns you into a zealot. I’m happy to append a menu to accommodate non-animal eaters, but the rest of you are on your own unless you bring a doctor’s note!
135
from Jac: " ...eating a little stuffing isn’t going to kill you,..."
Every high fat meal you eat slows your blood circulation to a crawl for many hours. I've seen the videos. I'd much rather be a "zealot" than have the outcomes that the average American has on his health.
In a society whose scientific study of food and food system functions largely on behalf of lies told for corporate profit and continuing government payoffs, I am willing to forego socializing when it means making myself sick, short term and long term.
1
I appreciate the candor of your comment as well as your applied reasoning. I certainly did not think about that aspect of food until now.
“. . . think critically about scientific evidence.” You can pretty much determine the level of understanding a person has about science and especially biological systems by the attitude they have about G.M.Os. It amazes me how many doctors, who you would think are aware of the biologically locked synergistic effects of living organisms, believe that eating G.M.Os somehow alters the human body. Eat a toxic food, a food contaminated by E. Colie, Listeria or Salmondella for instance, the body reacts by puking and rasing its defenses. Eat a sprout of broccoli, G.M.O applied or not, your body will extract what it needs and go full-throttle to get rid of what it does not need. You would think doctors and scientists would understand this. Some do not. The biological system of the human body is quit capable of taking care of itself. You will be promptly notified when the body’s biological system encounters a problem. All you have to do is pay attention.
2
An old saying: "better to eat wrong food with good attitude than to eat right food with wrong attitude".
Buried in this article is a defense of GM foods.
In two words, no thanks.
3
It's insane that in a time where poor dietary choices are directly responsible for the death of millions of Americans every year, the NYT prints articles justifying the general public's bad habits. In my humble opinion, this is utterly unacceptable.
It's not difficult, or stressful, to eat plants. You'll feel better, live longer, and be happier. Just do it.
6
The author's ignorance is astounding enough to be laughable. Not surprising when you see he is a tenured, mainstream academic, apparently with no reason to study any further than what he learned decades ago. And, residing at a large research university in a farm state, he dares not, or knows not to, question any possible health effects caused by agricultural pesticide use.
8
Head and neck GERD can cause awful problems. Check it out.
One gets an impression from reading this article that Professor Carroll is blessed with excellent health. And good for him. But not everyone is that lucky. Would Professor Carroll kindly educate himself on autoimmune diseases, their prevalence in present-day North America, and the role of diet in managing them, before offering blanket advice that consuming gluten, MSG, processed meats, and G.M.O. foods is safe for most people?
8
I'm approaching 61 years of age. By genetics I am graced with good health. But by pure accident I have generally tended to follow the Golden Mean in terms of eating and exercise. I try to experience exercise by performing tasks manually: walking to the Post Office, pushing a hand mower, even hand-grinding my coffee beans. Plus I do some moderate weight training. I eat eggs and meat but in moderate portions. I eat slowly and eat many more things than I did as a kid. If the food item or flavor is unfamiliar I just eat it more slowly as I acclimate to it. I do try to limit--but not eliminate!--heavily processed foods. I drink alcohol but not every day and I try to stop before the point where it interferes with sleep. I have coffee at breakfast and that is my coffee for the day. I consider coffee one of the pleasures to induce me to get out of bed in the morning. I try to remember to drink water through the day. I don't add salt to my cooking, assuming I get enough in restaurants or in the processed foods that I do eat, but if I feel a craving for something salty I assume it's a message from my body and I indulge in something salty. I'm not suffering any sense of deprivation at any time during the day. I am convinced that these moderate practices have as much to do with health as genetics.
8
Recently, I was in the supermarket buying bacon (a rare purchase, so no lectures, please). I noticed a couple of brands had "Gluten free!" in large letters on the packages. Seriously? Who thought that bacon had wheat in it in the first place?
Reminds me of how, a few years back, we'd see "Cholesterol free!" labels on foods with no animal products in them (like peanut butter).
4
As a person who has had a rather violent reaction to bacon that was not gluten-free, I can assure you that the label helps! This is the problem. Things that should be a no-brainer for those with allergies and sensitivities are no longer straightforward.
Carrageenan (an emulsifier) raises my blood pressure dramatically. I had become used to watching for it in dairy and avoiding it, but was floored after Christmas two years ago when I woke in the night with soaring BP. The turkey had been injected with a brine containing carrageenan!
We need to be conscious of what we are eating - even the basics can be surprisingly complicated! I wish I could be more at ease with food at restaurants. The only foods I can relax and enjoy are those I prepare myself from known sources.
You’re so right....
I agree with the author in nearly every respect. HOWEVER, the "Chinese restaurant syndrome" in response to MSG is real. I have it, and so did my father. There is no doubt it causes a slight headache and flushing. The effects go away quickly and as far as I know there is no long term harm, but the effects are real.
Small amounts of MSG do not affect me. I have not felt this syndrome since Chinese restaurants began cutting back on the amount of MSG they use, in the 1970s. MSG is a naturally occurring flavoring, discovered by Ikeda in 1908, in things like soy sauce, so in small amounts it is very unlikely to cause harm.
Other people like myself have different reactions to MSG which are more severe and longer lasting. Your "scientific" conclusion is suspect, to say the least.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-martin/msg-effects_b_4751438.html
Certainly true, but you've focused only on the myths. There is damn good reason to eat a good diet. For example, in a rare controlled study, the Mediterranean diet slashed mortality so dramatically that the study had to be ended early for medical reasons.
What we need is sound science and common sense. There's a big difference between a senseless fad like gluten avoidance and minimizing intake of added sugars, say, or avoiding partially hydrogenated oils, which are so harmful that the government will be banning them.
The foods we choose do have a major effect on healthy and mortality -- we just have to distinguish solid information from pseudoscience and fads.
6
interesting opinion piece that echoes many sentiments of people I know --> Let common sense carry the day with food. One difficulty is that we have taken in a passive role in our health and education. This can be seen clearly with medicine and in schools. We are WAITING to be told what is right. Long story short is that the answer is almost always complicated and not a one-size fits all answer. But often, we remain at the mercies of powerful companies and/or special interests whose main focus is maximizing profits. I wish your opinion piece had been better about telling a more complete story. Americans don't disagree with science, we are wary of what seems like the ever changing priorities im science and research and are skeptical that we have the full picture. Are GMO's safe? Well, we don't actually know because there hasn't been sufficient time to study the question. At the end of the day, it is a good thing that we are reading and thinking about the issues you raise, but I hope your next piece is more nuanced and rich.
4
Professor Carrol sidesteps the biggest problem - Industrial Scale Food Production and Packaged Foods.
Case in points:
1. MSG. Not bad but if used in moderate quantity. But when it was used in the past it was in excessive amounts in all packaged foods. Even in foods that never had it in its original recipe.
2. Salt. Not bad if used in moderate amounts. But all packaged foods and all fast foods contain excessive amount of salt that far exceeds this "moderation."
3. Bacon. Not bad if prepared old fashioned way. But the packaged bacon is loaded with salt and preservatives.
So please point out the major pitfalls if you want eat healthy but prefer packaged foods or fast foods. It is not easy!
5
While I agree with this writer on the general point that we shouldn't be afraid of food, I take strong issue with the idea that refusing to believe scientific studies on the matter of which foods are actually healthy vs. harmful is a form of anti-intellectualism. Our disdain for scientific proclamations regarding what we consume is often reflective not so much of a disdain for intellectually-sound beliefs as it is a recognition of scientists' increasing failure to come up with intellectually sound conclusions. Far too often, the findings of scientific studies reflect not objective, disciplined and dispassionate research, but rather calculated moves by industry to fund studies carefully designed and interpreted to show results beneficial to that industry.
9
Do we really have any longevity studies on what we are told is "safe exposure" to a variety of things including food? I can apparently be exposed to so many part per billion of some really toxic stuff. But do they really know what cumulative effects are long term? They don't. We don't know that about food either. And what about food safety?
I wish discussions of healthy food were centered on the health of the ecosystems the food comes from. Worldwide, insect abundance is down 40% because of agricultural deserts and pesticide use. That's where our focus needs to be.
15
Walking through the food diet section of a local Barnes and Noble one has to be amazed at the contradictory advice written for the interested public to assimilate. Nutrition is and always will be a topic of conflicting advise because the science of nutrition remains a very difficult endeavor toward achieving consensus.
I've been involved in the food industry for 30 yrs., fascinated with food and it's preparation. The personal formula in my eating today is firstly, a high volume of fresh fruits and vegetables. Seafood is 85% of the protein. Basically a Mediterranean diet I found to be most enjoyable at each evening meal. The one thing I most enjoy is having the most delicious meal I can prepare each evening with a glass of an equally delicious wine to end with each day. Food is not just to fill the gut but to savor and enjoy, it mellows away the days problems and troubles.
13
Agree to your conclusion, but getting there is more than half the battle. The expense involved, the time required to shop for and prepare food that fits not only a pleasurable diet but one that also serves a family's various nutritional needs & requirements can be a job in and of itself. Factor in the hectic nature of work for both parents (or the increased pressures facing single parents) the shuttling of children to and from school, daycare, and other activities and you have a recipe for a "lifestyle" that will require a bottle of wine - probably cheap wine at that - in order to get through the day.
2
That's all good and fine, but I don't think you should be able to have that delicious meal while the rest of us who are differently-abled in the kitchen over cook the fish, and don't have the good sauces for the veggies.
I think you've hit on an important aspect of the issue....people do not want to take the time participate in the production and preparation of their food. They want it to just "appear" when they are hungry. To meet this goal, they have turned to processed and packaged foods, and fast food restaurants. To meet this demand, food scientists have been experimenting for years with way to make the food safe from spoiling and tasty, but in the process have made it unhealthy. To go back to "real food" means to invest time and energy and attention. (And when you do, people will write articles about what a spoilsport you are.)
Yawn. I'm 41 and have always eaten whatever I wanted. I did start avoiding all processed foods about 10 years ago as that stuff really is more food-like substances rather than actual food. But eating whole, fresh food with all the butter, cream, salt, etc. that I desire is not a problem. It's all about PORTION CONTROL and regular exercise! My resting heart rate is 50. My BMI is 23. My good cholesterol is high, bad low, and blood pressure in the middle of the ideal range. I don't freak out about food - I love it. I eat whatever I want in a balanced way. (anecdotal, I know)
7
Anectodes are not helpful. Everyone has a story about the old lady who smoked three packs a day and lived to age 100. It’s about risk.
1
Please keep in mind that the plural of anecdote is not evidence
GMO's in beginning were used mostly by large agr producers which local farmers fought as GMO's seeds become the only seed that you can use and you have to buy it year after year. The farmer could not save seeds to grow their crops the next year. ???? Not good for local/regional farmers which we still have and need more locally grown foods.
5
Until the plug for GMO I agreed with much of Dr. Carroll's premise in this piece. The issues with GMO foods may not be with the nutritional safety of them, although much of "the science" regarding them comes from industry scientists so it's really unclear whether long term that science will hold up. The real issues revolve around economic and environmental implications of GMO. GMO foods are patented and owned by large multi-national corporations thus concentrating control of who can have access to the seeds and products, dictating costs and reaping vast profit. From an environmental standpoint there are numerous problems. Many GMO's are created specifically to allow application of pesticides and herbicides which in my view is generally not a great idea. They promote monoculture farming to the exclusion of diversity and there is at least some data that in fact they are not always the best choice for every location and local environment. Is there some place for GMO products? Possibly, but I have serious questions regarding them. I seriously doubt whether they are the primary solution to feeding the world (war, climate change, mass migration are more pressing issues) and I don't want a few large corporations controlling food supply.
16
yes ! absolutely! thanks for writing this.
A lot of it is about control. People want to feel some control over their lives. Food is a concrete, uncomplicated way to feel in control compared to dealing directly with the out-of-control feelings themselves. It's also a group membership thing. Once something becomes trendy in your crowd, you want to belong.
That doesn't mean that gluten sensitivity isn't real. I am sure it is. But it seems reasonable to me that it is a lot less common than people think it is. I'd also guess that many people who give up gluten will be making other changes in their diets by default and it can be hard to know what is responsible for the improved feeling of well-being. The lack of gluten, or the fact you are now eating fewer pastries? Or the just rush you get from feeling like you have succeeded with something under your control - even if that something is just going a whole day without gluten.
6
But I argue that this wanting control isn't a bad thing. If people are unhappy and unwell, and they want to try to do *something* feel better, then what harm is there in trying to eat "better" ...whatever a person thinks that means. Why is someone writing an essay to complain about this? The author can eat what he wants and leave others to eat what they want. Geez!
I began bp meds in my 60's relevant to the article since I suddenly had reflux then after a fall and some pain meds...IBS. It seems reflux and other digestive problems are quite common not only with older people and with people who take meds but people of all ages. In order to get off reflux meds which did irritated me, I began changing to a fodmap diet which addresses intestinal irritation. After years of experimentation, I have chosen to only eat fresh food and prefer homemade meals. Gluten free is fine, lactose free is better. I rarely buy from supermarkets which is largely processed, boxed and junk food. All one need do is to look at the problems w health in the country. I have 2 sisters with diabetes. Most family members have weight problems. Do I need to eat clean. Yeah.
3
Even though I disagree with practically everything in this article, I agree that defining what you eat through negatives is exceedingly unhelpful. Adding healthy food choices into your diet, educating yourself by experimenting with recipes, taking cooking classes, and broadening your knowledge of all the healthy foods out there, will make eating healthier a wonderful and satisfying adventure.
6
I weighed 124 last year when my blood workup indicated my cholesterol was 203 overall. I saw the over 200 and freaked out. I cut out all saturated fats except for nuts, cut my sugar intake to 15 mg a day and started eating only whole wheat pasta. I was down to a crazy unhealthy 117 within 3 months. Then I was faced with what to put back. More sugar? More saturated fat? Anyway, this article hits home for me, but I can't seem to shake the cholesterol recommendations/fear of going on statins. I'm now 119 (really still too low) and due for my annual blood workup in two weeks. Did the diet change/s even matter? Or did I just hurt myself? I suspect the latter. Thanks, A. Carroll. This article confirms what I already suspected. I need to shed my fears.
6
The author lumps too many things into the hominy pot and weakens his case for just eating and enjoying good food without fear.
We are exhorted to trust science with regard to GMOs and food additives like MSG and are labelled part of the dangerous trend of anti-intellecualism if we have legitimate concerns regarding their application.
Were the scientists who drew up the food guides that lauded carbohydrates, but vilified salt, fat, and red meat, not real scientists? They certainly were trusted and believed by government and the food industrial complex long enough to turn a large proportion of Western eaters into obese carb addicts with all the associated and myriad problems. Which scientists and latest scientific studies are we supposed to believe now?
GMOs may not result in poisonous food, but its proprietary business model robs the earth of a resilient diversity that's needed for our long term survival. MSG misses being a benign amino acid by one atom? That's not reassuring. Where's the whole truth?
Telling us to simply 'update our thinking when better research becomes available,' is rich given that government scientists stuck to their carb over fat meme for decades despite the availability of ample better research.
I trust pure science in service to truth. Science in service to industry is obviously not pure. Ergo its conclusions are suspect. To conclude that is not anti-intellectual. Quite the contrary, based on the evidence.
18
The author must be as healthy as a horse! I have a child with Celiac disease and I watch his food like a hawk. I avoid GMO's not because they are inherently dangerous but because the modifications are often to allow farmers to spray Glyphosate indiscriminately on their crops. Of course, non GMO grains have similar issues with Roundup being sprayed to get a field ready for harvest. Which may explain why my son reacts to gluten exposure in american foods but barely reacts to foods in less developed countries where I know cross contamination with gluten is happening.
And since when have the scientists at the FDA been unbiased? Let's see - trans fats, non stick coatings, round up. All are/were ok, yes? A dose of healthy suspicion is not a bad thing.
If you really want to be all about 'don't worry, eat happy' at least don't ridicule those of us with real symptoms and concerns.
13
Ok, I'll join in. We all think we know something about this topic because we all eat, and each of us has an opinion about the relationship between food and health. I believe that the more out of control the world feels, the more people (Americans) have gotten vested in what they eat and, more importantly, in what they SHOULDN'T eat. We can't control the world, but we can control for the most part what we DON'T eat; bread, sugar, whatever the current demon happens to be. So much angst. Just eat; not too much, to paraphrase Pollan.
3
Well why do people from other countries look so much healthier? We look fat and sickly. There is something wrong here and it's making us sick. I have tried eating everything and without anxiety but it makes me fat sick and anxious. I bet if I had grown up somewhere else that would be possible. Our bodies are somehow broken.
4
We've been led to believe that getting sick regularly is just how it goes, a regular part of life. This is nonsense spouted by the drug pushers and chemical food industries to keep them in business.
If children are taught, (and learn) proper lifestyle habits by intelligent parents, (yes I know that's a stretch), then most of them should never have chronic health problems, like those which support our economy.
4
Ironically, the Aging Well article in today's paper says just the opposite. The amount of mythology surrounding diet is quite astounding. The lack of real science is appalling.
3
The science is there but you have to sift through it to find the unbiased research. It works best if you can find out who funds what. Then you know what company the research was beholden to for results. If a study is funded by an interested party instead of a source that is not vested in the outcome, the findings are more likely to be unbiased.
It’s not as though individual health were the only compelling reason to give up bacon, or meat more broadly. There’s also the impact of meat production: cruelty to animals, harm to the environment, brutal workplace conditions throughout the industry, creation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, etc.
While I understand such concerns are not the focus of this column, a brief acknowledgement of them would have avoided the appearance of a blind spot in the author’s perspective on our increasingly fastidious eating habits.
7
The author's implication is that everyone who endeavors to eat healthfully also eats fearfully. I question that assumption, because it's not true.
The author also fails to acknowledge that there are unaddressed tangential reasons for avoiding some of these foods. For example, some GMOs are created to destroy pollinators that we now understand are critical to the food web, while the meat industry is demonstrably destructive to the global environment.
If we're going to have this debate, then lets address all sides of it. No one questions it if I say I don't like the taste of something, but the minute I try to avoid it for the sake of my health, everyone decides they're an expert on what's good for me. Frustrating!
12
I also say hogwash Dr. Carroll. We are individuals and our chemistries are different. We react to foods in a chemical way. Use common sense not fear. If cutting out bread eliminates a bloated belly, do it. If cutting out or reducing dairy means you produce less gas, do it. Just pay attention to how your body responds instead of taking medication to force your body to accept something that is toxic to your system. And definitely question whatever the 'food' industry is pushing as safe or good.
8
When I interact with people whose lives seem to revolve around food choice to the level of obsession they have their own confirming science which they are enthusiastic about sharing. When I both to engage with them and Google-Scholar search for research about their topic of the day (cows milk will kill for, for example) I find their claims are based on pseudoscience or just bad science. When I point this out they always refute me by saying that all science that contradicts their science is false because the research was funding by industry.
Of course, whether food research is funded all or in part by industry doesn't mean it is deliberately biased. If it was it would mean that whoever falsified results were corrupted. That implicates universities and peer-reviewed journals in being paid for tools of industry. The cranberry industry, for example, has funded university research into the health benefits of cranberries.
It must be noted that there is another industry or two making money off the clean eating obsession. One is industry making alternative foods, and the other is the book publishing industry devoted to marketing books purporting to prove their claims with science. These books typically have many references and a long bibliography. There's are lots of PhD's, probably embarrassing the university departments where they studied by practicing bad science, and by writing and promoting books based on the results.
2
I flagged you for others to read as an example of an apologist for the mega-ag industry. What company funds research has a direct and damaging effect on research findings, without doubt; the literature on the subject is vast. See, eg, from Google scholar:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1551714407001255
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000033/full
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.10...
You need to look further and not just at what you want to see!
If ignorance is bliss, Prof. Carroll ( a professor of pediatrics?) must be a very happy guy. As someone whose life was saved by moving to gluten-free food, his idea that we eat in fear is laughable. We eat to stay alive - this fact seems to have eluded his assessment. When you lose your heath, in my case, to Lyme Disease, his notion of "food should be a cause for pleasure" seems rather quaint, or, at least, an effort to play to Trumps's Public.
2
The manufactured foodstuff that dominate the grocery aisles are poison to our systems. Here's a rough rule-of-thumb I've found very helpful: Don't eat anything your grandma wouldn't recognize.
1
My general rule-of-thumb: don’t eat anything that can be advertised.
1
The real question is not if this food or that food is actually dangerous or bad for our health; rather who can we trust to answer these questions? The corporations which process and supply much of our food have little or no care for our health. Their only concern is profit, and they have shown that time and time again.
I agree that there a large share of mistrust of science is based on religion, greed, self-interest and frankly some idiocy (vaccines, evolution, etc ...). But even for us non-scientists open to fact based evidence, finding clear scientific answers, especially around food, seems to be next to impossible.
The publish or perish culture of academia, combined with the journalistic need for headlines, combined with some corrupt researchers who are willing to write what the above corporations pay them to write, means that I can read every finding and it's contrary about every dietary habit. Also, none of these studies look at diet holistically. They look at one detail or, at best, a few aspects of somebodies diet, exercise regime, general lifestyle. So how significant is any finding, be they positive or negative.
So I can agree with some of what you say based on common sense. But for more complex questions like GMOs, I won't trust my health to some global corporation whose only goal is higher profits, nor to an administration which has even less regard for human life.
2
Tragic opinion piece which will certainly harm people looking for any excuse to eat mostly fake and poisonous food marketed to western civilizations. Troubling that a doctor would push such a harmful agenda but I'm guessing it's to excuse his own desire to eat an indulgent and affluent diet, and of course to promote selling his book. Even the most elemental level of science discredits his opinions. That said, it's not surprising, given doctors receive only an average of 22 hours of training in nutrition over their entire time in medical school, and a majority of that training comes from programs sponsored by big food corporations.
8
I wish we could see pictures and medical reports for all the Commenters with "food fears" who avoid certain foods (GMOs, bacon, the gluten bar that passes for bread in this country) and those with no "food fears" that eat without thinking. I wonder which group is healthier? Eating organic and non-processed food isn't "living in terror" or "struggling" as the writer suggests. If it feels that way for an individual, it's likely that they are experiencing withdrawal from the heavily-processed, carb & sugar-laden typical American diet ....just as a drug addict might.
7
Excellent points
This opinion fails to reflect that the leading diseases in the West are lifestyle in etiology and diet being a leading factor. While moderation and good genes give reprieve to many, its irresponsible to give a green light to graze without conscience. This, especially, when entire laboratories are dedicated to creating the next "addicting" junk food and vital forests are decimated for cattle lands in the face of climate change.
2
Bravo! What a refreshing way to look at very American craziness! I have never understood American obsession with dietary restrictions.
3
Apologist for mega-ag or just needs justification to eat badly. Either way this is ignorance.
I don't believe anyone is afraid of food, unless they are at least slightly unhinged to begin with. And good nutrition, a mostly plant-based diet with whole grains and little meat or sugar, leads to mental health, not just physical health.
1
The article doesn't mention how food research is so easily corrupted. Frederick Stare, Chair of Nutrition at Harvard, the scourge of saturated fat, was on the payroll of the sugar industry. Brian Wansink's findings are under scrutiny, whether from confirmation bias, or something else. Yet their "results" have made it into the collective "knowledge" in ways that influence our decisions long after they have been debunked. Perhaps part of the problem is that we attach ourselves to food in such an emotionally profound way.
I really like this article -- thank you! I'm tempted to post it to Facebook but will refrain as I know it would tick off several of my friends who I just don't feel like alienating today. I do worry, though, that the food obsessions some of them have is in fact hurting rather than helping their health.
3
Sanctimonious much? There seems to be a trend to castigate those among us who would consider our food choices carefully. How does he know what the effect of eating bacon daily is? I ask this not as a bacon-hater, for I like my bacon, yum, but as someone who knows that the state of research into food is abysmal, for many reasons. It is nigh impossible to design a controlled study that involves food, and good luck getting funding. We do not know the impact of much of what we consume. Moreover, such impact is individual, for we are unique genetically; just like therapies will work differently (or not at all) for different people, so, too, will food affect us as individuals. Food can help and it can hurt. To think otherwise is folly.
I would suggest that reactions need not be life-threatening to matter. I am one of the to-be-sneered-at people with gluten sensitivity. Gluten will not kill me. It will, however, make me gastrointestinally uncomfortable, among other symptoms. After years of knowing this through experience, it turns out I have one of the variants for celiac, which might help explain my intolerance, though environment is key. That I avoid gluten does not mean I view all food negatively. Nor do I tremble in fear at its “scary” sight. And wow—to lump people who are careful with their culinary choices in the same category as anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers, who ignore robust and abundant bodies of evidence, is quite a leap and, moreover, insulting.
10
I also wonder why there's a need to shame those of us who feel better when we avoid gluten. I spent money on a lab test that showed I do indeed have a sensitivity, which just mirrors my experience. Food choices are so personal. Why do so many people feel they need to pass judgment on other people's personal decisions, I wonder?
Well said!
Shabbat without fresh challah made from white wheat flour?
Absolutely not.
1
A very good piece right up to the point at which the author completely misses the chief arguments concerning GMO foods. The argument in the article is directed against a view that GMO foods are somehow poison by virtue of being genetically modified. On that point the argument holds. But GMO represents a way of extracting more production with less labor and capital outlay without regard to the possible repercussions of the methods it enables. I recommend anyone reading this article to look in to the matter, but not to dismiss the arguments against GMO based on the ignorance of folks who are no more ignorant than the argument presented here.
2
Is there any scientific evidence that people who make choices experience fear? In the author's words, in order as they appear in the article: "Fretting, fear, anxiety, panic-du-jour, demonized, hullabaloo, panic, frenzy, effort, scary, afraid, panic, terror, fear". Is he so terrified of driving that he wears a seatbelt? So panicked by the thought of fire that he owns multiple smoke detectors? Probably not. So why does he assume that people who enjoy eating nutritious food are motivated by anxiety? That's the first logical breakdown. Here's another: MSG is nothing more than glutamic acid with a single sodium atom added. Well, carbon monoxide is nothing less than carbon dioxide minus an oxygen atom, but I doubt the author would consider breathing it for an hour. GMOs are engineered to be resistant to herbicides - meaning farmers can apply more, not less. The weeds get more resistant every year, so more and more applications are necessary. (I have a firsthand view of this out of my windows) And anyone who considers GMOs only in terms of whether they are healthy to ingest is missing the ecological and economic consequences that threaten the health of us all, whatever diet we choose.
13
Public policy made the double cheeseburger $1.00 yet broccoli more than $1.00. Fix this and you may end up with healthier folks.
4
We fail to consider scientific evidence? Nay, nay. I recall all those many years of eating margarine because the "scientists" gravely told us to, and avoiding butter (bad! bad!). Now margarine is considered nasty, and butter is rehabilitated. These days, I am reading that corn oil is "dangerous", after all these years of feeling virtuous because I wasn't cooking with lard.
Thank goodness I completely ignored the scientific evidence about coffee (bad! good! bad!) because life would be unbearable without coffee.
3
I agree finding whole healthy foods has become increasingly difficult due to govt subsidy & herbicide/seed oligopoly.
I also agree eating should be enjoyed not feared, except - Has this doc ever lived in a food desert, where the only affordable (or even available) food comes from convenience stores/drive-thrus? Has he sat in on K-12 nutritional education to discover how paltry it is? Has he taken his own nutritional courses so he can give reasoned eating advice to his ill patients? Or is he just chuckling as he cashes his Big Ag check for such a nice piece of propaganda?
I didn't read through all the comments, but those I did only voiced a few of my GMO concerns. What I haven't seen represented is the idea that science is never finished. With that in mind, how can "scientists" (read Ag industry hacks) say they KNOW GMOs are safe to consume? Is that science finished after only 40 years? That's barely over half an expected American life span, but we're supposed to believe every possible outcome's been tested in that time?! What about lifelong consumption effects?
And another thing - why are we so worried about feeding an overpopulated world? If farming were done sustainably - ie retaining fertility through cover crops & rotation rather than herbicides/fertilizers - this planet only has enough arable land to support 4-5 billion people, not 7.6 billion AND GROWING.
I wish the Times would educate readers on this issue rather than kowtowing to industry in the name of impartiality.
5
The question of GMO food is too complex to relegate to the end. In theory, I'm not opposed to genetic enhancements that simply speed up or amplify the effects of hybridization, since hybrids in the sense of selective breeding and cultivation of animals and food crops have existed from antiquity. Without them, we'd never to be able to feed humans in any numbers.
Of course, we humans don't need to exist in the numbers we do, and our numbers are contributing to destroying the planet because we're convinced that we "need" things we don't.
But I once tried to discuss GMOs with a holistic practitioner who opposed them, bringing up hybrids as evidence that genetic manipulation of food crops isn't always bad. "Oh, I don't eat those either," she said, blithely self-righteous. What can you to say to a vegetarian who buys her food from the grocery store and thinks she doesn't eat hybrids?
But GMO issues are other: punitive patenting of seeds; environmentally disastrous soil cultivation; introducing genes of utterly unrelated species or even across taxonomic kingdoms. I don't want panda bears in my apples! That's a reductio ad absurdum, but the ethical questions are real. Also, will this will contribute to allergic reactions? As the mother of a child who's had to deal with a life-threatening peanut allergy for 20 years but who is otherwise food adventurous, I've had to be excruciatingly aware of food sourcing, and I'm not sure there is such a thing as "clean" food anymore.
4
How about Roundup Ready GMOs? Do a little research!
I do not consume chatter about what to eat and what not to eat. I have passed my 80th birthday in reasonably good health. Give me a reason to change a thing.
2
Below is an excerpt from another article in the NYT in Smarter Living/ How to Age Well with which I concur. I will continue to stay away from processed meat and, on occasion, will enjoy a nice steak cooked to a perfect medium-rare.
"Processed meats like hot dogs and sausages have been salted, cured or smoked to enhance flavor and improve preservation. A number of studies have found associations between eating a lot of processed meats and poor health. A Harvard review found that eating one serving a day of processed meats like bacon, sausage and deli meats was associated with a 42 percent higher risk of heart disease and 19 percent increased risk of diabetes. But there was no increase in risk associated with eating unprocessed red meat. Notably, the culprit in processed meats wasn’t the saturated fat or cholesterol — both whole cuts of meat and processed meats contained the same amount per serving. The big differences were the levels of sodium and chemical preservatives. Processed meats had about four times more sodium and 50 percent more nitrate preservatives than unprocessed meats. Other research has implicated processed meats in a higher risk for colon cancer. "
4
"But the average American consumes just over three grams of sodium per day, which is actually in the sweet spot for health."
True enough, but the author neglects to mention that today's low salt consumption is the result of decades of public health efforts to decrease salt intake.
And the changing recommendations from dietary science don't indicate the need to disregard the science - it just demonstrates the evolution of scientific thought on what is a very complex area of inquiry.
The food companies that turn out tons of processed food each year adding to the country's of-the-charts obesity rates and other negative health statistics love guys like Carroll who foment skepticism about healthy eating.
With so much money at stake, it's easy to see why writers like Carroll get access to mainstream media - it certainly isn't their rational analysis of the subject matter.
5
The reason why I avoid GMO foods, besides environmental reasons pointed out in other responses, is I think it is difficult to tell their safety. There can be endless GMOs created and all can be difficult to study, especially studies not funded by their manufacturers. Foods that work well for us have evolved over thousands of years. It could be that GMO safety will turn out to be just fine but there isn't going to be an easy way to know.
7
In many respects, this article seems correct to me, and I'm glad you published it. However, the issue of GMO's is a complex one. To alter a plant to grow better or be unattractive to pests may be benign; but to alter a plant to accept MORE pesticide (neonicitinoids) is unconscionable. All research points to harm to insects and birds--and thus to our whole planet's ecology! And Joanne, I agree with you. We do need to limit "empty" carbs. I'm not sure about the addiction theories though. I may jokingly say I'm "addicted" to sugar; but is there any real evidence of this?
13
I used to avoid purchasing fruits (i.e., apples, oranges, avocados) from other countries but now I understand that it is the U. S. that has some of the most contentious agricultural practices for these conventional (non-organic) foods. So would it be true that the oranges from South Africa are "safer" and the same for grapes perhaps, from Chile?
~~~~~~~
What is on Trump's dinner plate? Is there a prediction for his health given his agricultural and environmental leanings?
2
I've read that Trump eats a lot of fast food, (like Bill Clinton used to).
I don't have anything against produce form other countries, except the travel involved. For instance I don't want anything that traveled for weeks or even days half way around the world in the cargo hold of a plane, (or container). Cargo holds, and containers are filthy.
Canada and Mexico ... o.k., but further than that no thanks.
I've been a vegetarian for over 20 years. I also eat a lot of organic food. When asked why, I used to mention both ethical and health reasons. Now I say:
- For ethical reasons. This is the primary motivation.
- For the pleasure of it. Being a vegetarian has taught me to explore a wide range of delicious dishes.
I try to eat whole, organic foods rather than processed foods. I'm not fanatical about it, but I do eat a lot of vegetables and whole grains. However, meat eaters can sometimes do the same. So that is not a primary reason to be a vegetarian.
The key motivations are:
- A concern for the damage done to both land and sea by our desire to eat way too many animal products
- The overwhelming cruelty of many forms of factory farming.
This article makes a number of good points, especially in regard to gluten. But the author misses the main arguments, which are cruelty to animals and our excessive use of chemicals when raising crops and animals.
23
As in many things in life, we will be happier if we focus on the positive side of our decisions rather than the negative. Rather than avoid unhealthy foods we will do better seeking out healthy foods. As someone with no problems with food security, I have the luxury of being able make healthy choices for myself and for the planet.
8
I grew up in the 50's, and my mother made our sandwiches with white bread, we had dessert every night, salt and sugar were liberally used, and we ate canned vegetables. My mother used Crisco. We drank whole milk and ate real ice cream-there was no "nondairy." It was a diet that was normal for the time, but that young people today are horrified by. Nevertheless, my parents lived well into their 80's and 90's. and here I am, healthy at 65, along with my siblings, who are all older. No one in my family has weight issues, heart disease, or any of the other horrible illness that so many people today think should have befallen us because of our diet. Today's obsession over nutrition is a little crazy. Life is very short. I intend to eat real ice cream and white bread right up to the very end.
20
You should thank God for your good genes and don't think that because your family diet choice didn't negatively impact your health that it was necessarily good. George Burns smoke cigars all his life and live for almost 100 years. That does not mean there is nothing wrong with smoking.
2
Ms.Pea. I'll bet the ranch you also learned moderation. As well as, eating 3, maybe 3 1/2 meals a day, and that was it! You snacked rarely, and IF you were truly hungry between meals, you got a simple hold-over food item a piece of plain bread, a few saltines, an apple) not a calorically dense piece of non-nutritious processed food.
That's what I learned from my parents. Im in my mid 50's, in excellent weight and fitness, and food is what I eat to feed my body, not to entertain myself. Not to kill time with when I'm bored. I don't eat at food courts, or stop at drive thru while out running errands, I don't drink high calorie, or even diet "beverages".
If Im out and get a little peckish, I will wait to get home, or if that's not going to work, I will find a wholesome alternative. Even if it means passing a dozen less then desirous alternatives.
Moderation and control. That's what we "old folks" learned. But has not been passed down by the majority of Boomers!
Generalizing from one's own case to the entire population is not helpful. Your family may be blessed with good genes with regards to carbohydrates. However, many others are not, and eating high carb diet such as white bread and ice cream can lead them to diabetes and its complications.
I used to roll my eyes as people discussed their limited special diets thinking "Get over yourself". Then I discovered that following a low FODMAP diet https://www.monash.edu/medicine/ccs/gastroenterology/fodmap (prescribed for my IBS symptoms) completely changed my life. And it wasn't just about my gut; my mental attitude and clarity, energy level, and emotional responses also improved.
Diets should not be a matter of actuary tables versus fads, but individual patients and individual needs. There are "scary" foods that contribute to ill health and "friendly" food choices that bring both eating pleasure and good health. Paying attention to how food choices affect personal health is not a bad idea.
15
I avoid GMO corn and soy, not because I think they are poisonous, but because they have been used badly, leading to weed resistance in particular. The technology was good, but as with so many things, the results when put into practice were mixed. Chasing weed resistance with newer engineered plants has led to the dicamba mess currently plaguing many Midwestern farmers. What works in the lab doesn’t always work in the field, especially when profit gets products pushed out the door without adequate testing.
24
What I find the interesting with Americans and science is how they pick and choose usually depending on their politics and beliefs. The same people who accept the scientific evidence for climate change, don't accept it when it comes to vaccines or GMO's. Then there are those who believe just the opposite. People will take one personal story or an opinion piece and accept it as evidence
36
Teresa - information bias. Its very American. Get on board!
There are people who eat whatever they like... as long as they grow it or make it from scratch. Processed food is the profit source of some giant global conglomerate; it's only incidentally digestible. I much prefer the food (and recipes) my grandparents would recognize.
29
There are valid reasons for not trusting “science.” Scientists concluded that feeding cows to cows was a good idea whereas any third grader would have challenged that conclusion. We all know how that turned out. Scientists have since concluded that feeding chicken manure to cows is a good idea given the high nitrogen content of chicken poop (http://thescipub.com/PDF/ajabssp.2012.239.254.pdf). This kind of reductionist reasoning (grass = chicken poop because both are high in nitrogen) has led to a long list of disasters, many of which are yet to be revealed.
20
So you would avoid antibiotics or life saving medicines because you don’t trust science?
Yes, people's thinking about food is out of whack.However, when there is clear scientific evidence about the real danger of the nerve-damaging pesticide, chlorpyrifos, where is the outrage?! We are allowing our nation's precious children to be poisoned, even as we teach them to eat their veggies. Not everyone has access or resources to buy organic, or the time to spray them with a water/vinegar rinse. Perhaps the current Administration believes it's in the nation's best interests to "dumb-down" the next generation by not banning this nerve agent, which is proven to lower kids' IQs. As Dpnald would say, SAD!!!
6
if you are old enough you have see coffee, beer, cranberries and god knows what others cause cancer and then not. Happy eating.
6
Eat less. Move more. Case closed.
25
Glad to hear I can cram my bird full of that disgusting glutenous stuffing I make every Thanksgiving! Thank's Aaron.
4
I don't worry about the food, I worry about the source. Depleted soil cannot provide nutritious food. Pesticides are poisonous. What you eat can kill you.
9
I'm not sure where this article came from, but in light of the reader comments, it should have never seen the light of day. Why?
- It ignores the sugar problem
- It tilts pro-GMO by ignoring the Round-up ilk
- It just seems very shallow when read alongside the comments.
The article reads like a curve ball supporting GMOs. When GMOs are brought up near the end, you re-read the whole article and say "wow, is this a GMO-industry plant?"
Gorilla Bob
42
yes!
Moderation in all things, and don’t believe the witchdoctor posts in the comments.
9
New York Times telling you good things about your bad habits . Pushing for the status quo where our population is fat and sick . We need changes as meat is heat and the world is dying but New York Times tells us not to fear or make changes .
6
Sunny Day - cause the whole bumper sticker rebellion is working. "Meat is heat"...really? You think that's gonna win any battles?
BTW, "the World" is fine, when its ready it can shake us off. "The World" doesn't know we're here, and has no stake in us staying or going...it will do as it will.
The reality is all the Henny Penny's don't care about The World, they care about their place on it.
I get the author's point and there is merit to it, but some of this stuff is straw-man nonsense at its pedantic worst.
"MSG, or monosodium glutamate, is nothing more than a single sodium atom added to glutamic acid — ..."
Umm, yeah... And cyanide is nothing more than carbon and nitrogen. Want seconds of that to go along with your bacon, professor?
41
Yes, "Cyanide is a chemical group consisting of one atom of carbon connected to one atom of nitrogen by three molecular bonds (C≡N) and cyanides are compounds that contain a cyanide group (typically shown as CN)."
"Cyanides(do) occur naturally."
"Certain bacteria, fungi, and algae can produce cyanide, and cyanide is found in a number of foods and plants. In certain plant foods, including almonds, millet sprouts, lima beans, soy, spinach, bamboo shoots, and cassava roots (which are a major source of food in tropical countries), cyanides occur naturally as part of sugars or other naturally-occurring compounds. "
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=70&tid=19
Just because something can be a poisonous doesn't mean it will harm you because it is the dose that matters. (same source).
Who is this article targeted to? Is it the typical wealthy, liberal readers of the NYT? Because I don't much care about wealthy libs wringing their hands or slinging mud at each other over their food "choices." The fact that those choices are available to them is a privilege they will never truly appreciate. So, shut the [redacted] up!
The obesity epidemic in the U.S. is driven by poverty (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198075/). These people eat sugar-filled, genetically-modified, MSG-laden foods because they cannot afford "clean" alternatives. Many who live in poverty are "food insecure" where access to fresh food is limited; where parks are too unsafe for exercise due to violence and other criminal activity; where gyms, even if one could afford a membership, are too far away.
I don't care about the rich and their food choice anxieties––I care about the way the rich shame the poor. Every time a rich person anguishes about "eating clean" in front of the woman who cleans her house; or says "you gotta cut out booze" in front of the man driving him to work, they pile shame upon shame on people who have no choice. Every overhead comment is a finger pointing in their direction saying, "shame on you, fatty!" to people who can't afford carrots, or cold-pressed juices.
I don't care how you eat. As another commenter said, every diet should be individually tailored. But unless you're ready to solve poverty, shut your healthier-than-thou moralistic mouths. All of you.
25
Comment of the year, MT. Hear hear!
Hey Editors! This post of MT's - should be a NYT pick! Nails the issue in the forehead!
Eating Clean is a rich mans worry! Eating well and enough is what the poor worry about!
Come on NYT, food and nutrition are such important topics and this article is a lazy, half cocked attempt at substance. The author's lens is haughty and academically anemic.
Regarding GMO, he barely nicks the surface of this issue with an insulting reference to polls versus anything scientific or meaningful.
Its time to delve deep into the American diet and illuminate with substance, the reasons we are sick, kids can't concentrate, people are depressed, even our pets are obese, and why kids don't exercise.
Nutrition is at the heart of all of this.
Get with it NYT make Nutrition education a priority topic-give us some substance.
17
People always want good news about their bad habits. You have just handed them an excuse. Shame on you☹️
4
What a PIECE OF TRASH. And look the author uses POLLS instead of scientific studies and evidence.
Are we to hear next there is no global warming?
16
If there is click bait in print this is an example of it. Does the NYT really think its readers need this lecture? It's almost insulting. I read it because I wanted to find out what "Eat Clean" meant, but I still don't know.
5
Methane from stadium-sized piles of cow poop is a significant component of global warming. Unless we significantly move away from meat and dairy, our descendants are going to have a tough time living.
9
Yet every other living thing emits more then all the cows...as does the planet.
Like all else in life, diet is a crap shoot. You could eat the healthiest diet there is and still choke to death on a fluke. On the other hand, you could consume doughnuts, hot dogs, pizza, and Dr. Pepper without tears, as I do at 74 as always, and have fine cholesterol readings, be barely overweight, and be otherwise healthy and happy. Knock wood. I have nothing but pity for uptight neurotics who make themselves miserable—and miss so many kicks—by obsessing abou their diets. Death is certain, life is short, and this is it. You either enjoy the blip of existence as best you can, not least with small pleasures in eating, or you don’t. A life of permanent self-denial is a life-sentence chosen out of some neurotic fantasy that extending your life a couple of years, at best, will make up for all those decades of simple daily pleasures you threw away.
3
I can't help but wonder about the source of Dr. Carroll's research funds. It's true that one shouldn't freak out about occasionally eating bacon or GMO foods or foods with preservatives and so forth. But you are, to a large degree, what you eat and there is no doubt that eating well (and "clean") will make you feel better and, more often than not, lead to better health. Sure, you can put a bit of salt in your food and you don't need to avoid gluten if you don't have an allergy to it, but more plant-based food, less animal fat, less processed food, less sugar, and fewer preservatives will all improve your feeling of well being and most likely your health. Also, what Dr. Carroll fails to mention is that monosodium glutamate is used to deceptively make old vegetables (less nutrients) taste more fresh. And processed meat contains tons of preservatives and also sucks the environment dry, not to mention often tortures the pigs and cows from which the meat came. And, as for GMOs, the same argument was used for factory farms and preservatives -- feed the world. The fact is, scientists have absolutely no idea what the ultimate effects of GMO's are. The primary reason they are used is not to feed the world but to feed the pockets of agribusiness -- period. The world can be fed quite well with sound environmental policies, but nobody makes any money off of those.
15
...because in a scary world, all the more scary since DJT was elected . As extremists of all stripes seem to be running amok, things like the food we choose to eat, whether we choose to be vaccinated for diseases, and whether we want to base our beliefs on scientific evidence or the most emotional rhetoric are what seem to be the few things over which we have any control. Easy to focus on something like gluten as the devil, to which our consumer culture responds in a frenzy of money making activity to feed that perceived need. It's a Milton Freeman, "Free to choose" wonderland. That the "marketplace" is still full of crap makes no difference. Put it up for sale and have almost any kind of pitch and some sucker will "buy in" or just buy. We constantly fool ourselves with the most irrational rationalizations to justify what we do, spinning down into a moral abyss where every tweet is a lie, every commitment is fleeting, and power is defined as the ability to screw whoever you please to inflate insatiable ego.
2
While I agree with many things in this article, my experiences in R&D food science lead me to disagree with the GMO portion. As a personal opinion, a scientist may think GMO's are safe. As a scientist, the proper phrasing is "there is not sufficient evidence that any current GMO's are proven unsafe". GMO's are a very complicated area of science, involving many different plant and animal species, so even if many or most are safe, some may not be, and some may be on the market that will be later found to be unsafe. And that is before we consider gene transference to plants in the next field over, which is becoming a major problem in GMO's.
The understanding that a product is safe-ish is not the same as it being shown scientifically safe. Monsanto's marketing does not make seeds safe.
11
Oh how I wish I could get on the fear of food bandwagon. Then I might not be 20 pounds overweight. Said with a wink and smile.
3
When a professor of medicine writes a book telling us "how and why to eat sinfully", we would all be well advised to take anything he has to say about nutrition with a grain of salt. Okay, maybe two grains. Unfortunately, typical Americans will take this and run with it. As if they needed an excuse.
Granted, some of the food scares might be overblown. And nutritional science is anything but definitive. But a "medical professional" encouraging people to put self-gratification above all else with respect to food is the height of irresponsibility. Great idea for selling books, though.
First and foremost, eating is about sustenance and health. And the true, deep pleasure in eating comes from satisfying those needs, not from some fleeting "mouth feel". Until such time as Americans get that, we will continue to be the physically unfit and disease-ridden culture that we are.
8
Mr. Carroll should be asahmed of himself. His intro statement is blatantly false. As a doctor of pediatrics, he may have heard about the childhood obesity epidemic causing untold suffering, medical costs, shortened far less productive lives. Let's put a number on that compared with his drummed up "fear of eating." Sugar consumption combined with massive over processing has lead to a food-related disease epidemic.
Eat food, not too much, mostly plants. Sir, there should be an outcry to get your license revoked.
12
I completely agree. It seems like every week the NYT has been printing articles attempting to make people feel better about their bad habits.
I agree. Half-truths galore in this article. It's an old debating trick: you overstate your opponent's position and then attack it and by that kind of dishonesty seem to win. This kind of stupid argument does no one any good. The Times should get rid of this guy.
I'm not sure what the point of this article is. There's not exactly an epidemic of healthy eating choices occurring in the United States today. On the contrary, the majority of Americans make poor choices in what they eat, choices that affect their health negatively and that often unnecessarily tether them to pharmaceuticals. It's only a very small minority that has taken the other extreme and become obsessed to an unhealthy degree. Because one is such a vast majority and the other such a small minority, the answer certainly can't be to meet somewhere in the "reasonable" middle, which the article more or less implies. Another problem I have with the article is that if eating bacon every day has such a negligible effect on one's health, then where is the data that tells us it's unhealthy wrong? Does eating bacon not affect cholesterol after all? Do higher levels of cholesterol not affect our health after all? Or does, bacon, in fact, not raise cholesterol after all?
3
There is almost no evidence that dietary cholesterol (what we eat) causes high serum cholesterol (in our blood) and yet this is has been dogma for years. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/02/why-you-should-no-longer-worr...
This is baloney. (Pardon, I wouldn't eat baloney, if it were that last thing available.) Let's pay attention to doctors and scientists.
5
I think many of the readers of this article are missing the author's point. He's not talking about people who eat a variety of foods, he's talking about the people who refuse to eat, or to feed their families, entire categories of food with little to no scientific evidence to support that behavior. Avoiding entire classes of food because of fear too often leads to significant nutritional deficiencies, as the author describes in this article, as well as potential nutritional toxicities, like Vitamin A toxicity from eating excessive amounts of carrots. So many children today are raised to be afraid of food, refusing to try anything new, prompted in their fears by their nervous, paranoid parents who believe any and all unsubstantiated horror stories about food. Some kids are trained to believe they are "allergic" to nearly everything, and end up eating bizarrely unbalanced diets, like my son's friend who will only eat spaghetti-O's and marshmallows. Everything in moderation is a good axiom to live by. We wouldn't have an obesity crisis and so much cardiovascular and other diseases if Americans lived by that rule.
15
Who are those people? Where is the scientific evidence to back up your and his impressionistic anecdotal stories of people whose eating habits he disapproves of? Before striking out in all directions, show us those people!
1
"MSG...is nothing more than a single sodium atom added to glutamic acid - an amino acid that is a key part of the mechanism by which our cells create energy."
Isn't hydrogen peroxide nothing more than a single oxygen atom added to water - also a key part of sustaining life as we know it? My guess is the author would prefer a tall glass of water when thirsty.
13
MSG is a salt of glutamic acid, a naturally occurring amino acid incorporated into our proteins. When put in foods, or absorbed by the body, the salt dissociates into sodium ion and glutamic acid anion. The exact form of the glutamic acid anion will depend on the pH of the medium around it, most especially in a buffered medium, such as blood.
Hydrogen peroxide is a covalent (molecular) compound which can change form only by reaction. Usually, this will be an oxidation of something in the solution with the peroxide.
1
stop this gluten free madness! eat bread. live longer!
7
Here's a question. How is MSG beneficial or of any good? I have never heard of anyone touting MSG. May as well also endorse high fructose corn syrup.
The one food group I have drastically cut back on is seafood. Especially farm grown anything, shrimp from the far east is questionable. The toxins, pollutants and plastics in our oceans are leeching into the food chain. The warming waters are contributing to the contamination of shellfish like oysters and clams. Be very cautious of consuming raw or uncooked especially.
7
Thanks for minimizing my pain—I eat gluten, I get a migraine, I eat dairy I get a migraine, I eat chocolate I get a migraine.
Yes it’s true—it all IS ‘in’ my head. Believe me I wish I could eat these foods, avoiding them in restaurants and familiy gatherings is a nightmare but I’ve lived the alternative: strong pharmaceuticals and days in a darkened room with an ice pack on my temple.
16
As someone who regularly had to leave a neighborhood restaurant in the '70s because of neck, back & jaw pain, I was delighted to discover the culprit: MSG! I stopped going to that particular Chinese Restaurant and the problems stopped.
And every time. I get a slight ache in those areas, I know what the chef is using. MSG is also in bouillon cubes & other foods. So, sorry, I'm a bit tired about the
' MSG reactions are a myth' articles that seem to regularly appear in this & other papers. MSG allergies are real. I don't care about the 'studies all over the world' that you neglect to name. Unfortunately, this means I'm taking the rest of this article with, ahem, a grain of salt.
14
I couldn't agree more. As for those so-called studies, I suspect most are industry-funded and, as someone sensitive to MSG, I know I wouldn't participate in them knowing what my reaction would be. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-martin/msg-effects_b_4751438.html
What about sugar? You talk salt and gluten consumption but not sugar. I wanted to know what you think about the influence its consumption has on our health.
3
The more food we eat that comes directly from the earth, the better. We can look at scientific research and data, but in most cases our body tells us what is good and what is not.
The more foods we eat that are processed, the worse. Again, our bodies talk to us, and the feedback is usually immediate and direct.
Still, when I have that hot fudge sundae, I savor it.
5
I've always thought this gluten-free craze is ridiculous.
5
It's nice to see some sanity on this subject, but the dietary True Believers are going to howl.
3
This article repeats the most frequent questionable defense of GMOs. The genetic modifications themselves may or may not be significantly dangerous to human health, but their purpose in making it possible to apply massive amounts of herbicides and pesticides to crops is not only environmentally disastrous but exposes consumers to ingesting known carcinogens. I prefer not to eat foods contaminated with poisonous chemicals.
15
Me, too!! What is wrong with not wanting to eat chemicals? If it's wrong to not want to eat chemicals, then I am guilty as charged, and glad of it!
What a sad disservice to human health this article is. The facts are as obvious and proven as climate change: The western diet is a killer. More than two million Americans die annually from heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity related illnesses. The majority of these unfortunate deaths are related to diet.... junk food, processed food, toxic additives including hormones, pesticides and preservatives, artificial chemicals for color, taste and shelf life... and on it goes. The esteemed Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn of Cleveland Clinic has proven in numerous studies that a whole-food, plant based diet reverses heart disease. He's not alone. Dr. Colin Campbell has documented the relationship between meat and dairy and cancer. He's not alone... and Professor Carroll couldn't hold a candle to any of them. The proof overwhelms. We are the most obese, unhealthiest people in the developed world... and it is all related to food and sedentariness. To take a few examples of pop-worry, such as gluten and salt, misses the point by a thousand miles. Carroll is simply trying to be provocative and sell books... sadly, his words may give some a feeling of permission to keep eating in an unhealthy way and as a result their lives may be seriously impacted.
13
How does one know whether another person in on a Vegan diet?
They tell you!
4
We humans evolved in Africa 300,000 years ago genetically programmed to crave fat, salt and sugar as active hunter gatherers with a maximum use-by four decade mortality date. We are not so active. And fat,salt and sugar are abundant and easy to acquire. While our life expectancy has nearly doubled. While there is only one multicolored multi -ethnic human race species there are colored and ethnic historical differences that meaningfully matter.
Black folks ate soul food because that was the scraps left to feed them during their enslavement in America. While the seperate and unequal Jim Crow era and the crushing poverty of poor housing, health care and education that followed has magnified poor diets into a looming health care crisis. Obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol are rampant in the black community. While most dietary medical research has a beneficial white American focus.
8
Utter nonsense. The writer should visit my clinic where I care for obese patients suffering from diabetes, high blood pressure and chronic kidney disease. If they would stop eating salt, processed foods, and high calorie fast food, they could attain ideal weight and their diseases would disappear. In general, don't follow my dietary advice and end up on dialysis or dead.
10
Food phobias are enormously profitable to industry, which rakes in huge profits marketing low-fat, low-sodium, gluten-free, non-GMO, and other options to paranoid consumers. This insanity is not going to end anytime soon.
4
Stopping mid meal with chills and nausea, worrying about lunch returning, is why I avoided Chinese. No MSG on menus is why I will eat it again.
3
It's a shame that Americans have to be afraid of their food. It's a shame that farmers soak their genetically-modified crops in pesticides so toxic that when they drift to neighboring fields they kill all the "normal" plants...some trees and shrubs too. It's equally a shame that our government cares more about protecting the interests of Mega-Agriculture than the health of it's own citizens. By the way, I noticed the professor is from a university in Indiana....lots of GMO crops out there. Who pays for his "research"?
12
Almost all the articles I read about what not to eat are published in the NYT, usually based on inconclusive studies.
2
Generally, I have observed that the hysteria over food results in individuals dedicated to warning the rest of us and acting superior to those who choose to eat normal foods in normal amounts. Often the people most obsessed with diet and exercise appear to be the least healthy. People in my own family eat and drink whatever they like in sensible amounts--and live to 100, quite healthy and alert to the end. I know that genetics play a part but the constant fear and worry and obsessing over food is harmful. More often than not, the direst warnings etc., are accompanied by plugs for a book, or a diet, or some new exercise regime.
2
I had a friend in Europe who put it very succinctly, "Your government takes all the fun out of eating."
2
As far as the msg making people sick and nauseous, it was found to be the rice being kept at a temp below 140 degrees which allowed bacteria to grow.
1
Umm. My first thought after reading this was: who pays for this man's studies, what boards does he sit on, what do I need to know about him that is not said here? As other comments have noted, he mentions none of the known killers in our food supply. What is wrong with this picture?
3
Eat like your Grandparents ate, but LESS. In some cases, much less.
Just saying.
2
Anyone who is "terrified" by food of any kind must have an unhealthy relationship with eating===that's often the problem I think.
2
Next they're going to tell us that all the science we thought was settled isn't. Goodbye global warming. I will miss you.
Give it up, Ralphie. The food and tobacco people have made obscene amounts of money from sugar drinks, processed foods, and cigarettes. The poor thousands of hapless scientists examining core samples in glacial ice and gathering more and more evidence year by year that humans are contributing to global warming just go home and warm up their frost-bitten toes for working stiff's salary. They do what they do to figure stuff out, not to make a buck off it. You could at least respect them for that.
CF -- pity those poor Climatologists -- to think they could be doing a weather person's gig and give all that ice core sampling up.
If only they weren't zealots and advocates.
All doctors are not created equal
1
Peel back the outer layer of our society and there is a massive amount of anxiety about virtually everything. Many try to self medicate and many fall into addictive behaviours whether it be alcohol, opioids, food, sex, or rage. Perspective about any rational approach to anything is fast going out the nation's window. A lack of moral leadership is the real cancer in the American diet.
2
92% of all the food we eat is processed ! The 8% left is where you need to cook and consume...........
Dr. Carroll, you were doing so well discussing salt, MSG and on to fats and cholesterol, and bacon. All are natural, meaning part of nature.
Then you ventured into ignorance territory: GMOs. GMOs are not natural. US scientists stopped their studies prematurely to say they were safe. Longer studies are filled with cancer outcomes, again because GMOs are not found in nature. This is why they are banned in other countries. They also are not found to be a feeding solution for large populations.
And the jury is out on gluten free. You ignored the hypothyroid epidemic connection on that issue.
Honestly, you should have stuck to explaining why eating fats is good for the body, something that many still do not understand in our world of crazy dieting.
New York Times really needs to step up their writing on health.
2
The foodies came out for this article, looking for affirmation, and found common sense instead. Amazing how many Americans have become so spoiled silly and over-indulgent at the same time.
3
To my ear, the author comes across as an apologist for America's industrial food system. The country is full of people who are sick because of the food they eat, and many more who are sick and suspect it may be because of the food they eat. Many people stop eating gluten because it seems to make them sick. You may call them "anti-science" with smug self-assurance, but you should just be glad you aren't sick. The science will catch up. It matters what we eat. It is foolish to believe otherwise.
2
Wow, it is really concerning that this article is written by a medical doctor. But of course, medicine and food now are like medicine and smoking in the 1950s, when, if you smoked the same brand as your doctor, all was hunky-dory. That's why I just sat the inaugural board exam in lifestyle medicine, where diet and lifestyle are understood as the cause and the cure of most of our diseases. To provide actual true facts: the 10 leading causes of death in the US are significantly lifestyle related, and in particular diet related (CDC FastSTATs). Our no. 1 killer, heart disease, is mainly attributable to diet (CDC Burden of Disease Report, 2000). According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (USDA & DHHS), most of us consume too much added sugars, processed grains, cholesterol, sat'd fat, sodium and trans fat. Most Americans 60 and over qualify as hypertensive, the official tolerable upper limit for sodium intake is 2,300mg/day, and the AHA recommends limiting sodium to 1500mg/day. In fact, meat (esp. processed meat like bacon) increases the risk of colon and breast cancers, both major killers in our society that are rare in groups that consume largely minimally processed natural foods from plants. Does the NYT not have journalistic standards for accuracy in its science pieces?
Pretty irresponsible article while American are getting fatter and fatter. Our health care system is teetering on collapse with lifestyle induced conditions that progress to serious disease. For the average reader who may not catch the details, the walk away point is to not care. As doctors try daily to describe heathy eating to a population with little knowledge or availability of healthy food. Spend a day in my wife Internal Medicine office. Maybe you’ll retract this silly article.
1
Ok- food advice from a pediatrician — no thank you!
"Taken to extremes, of course, dietary choices can be harmful." Yes, that is very true. Humans in all cultures have eaten, and in rural places continue to eat, diets based around rice, potatoes, wheat, yams, corn. These foods were are generally unprocessed, fresh, and meals include the addition of some vegetables, fruits and/or meat or fish. Aside from famine, this diet has served us well if you view health in terms of lack of diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke and cancer. The wealthy classes generally ate a diet with more meat, more salt, more fat, maybe more fruit/honey/chocolate. Putting aside the "hunter vs gatherer" debate which has falsely promoted the idea that our main food source (on a daily basis!) should be meat, it is fairly obvious that our omnivore nature leads us to plants as a constant, and meats as a periodic, source of calories. The current American diet is full of high fat, high salt, highly processed, high sugar foods. The American diet IS extreme … we just don't see it because we've grown so used to these foods, which have multiplied mostly in the last 50 years. Denatured foods (e.g. white flour) and rich foods (e.g. dairy products and modern meats) should be eaten rarely, but they are not in our culture. Try eating a diet of unprocessed foods and it will look extreme compared to our norm. In the context of history, it is not.
1
I'm in my fifties and at various times throughout my life have been told: eggs are bad, margarine is good, meat will kill you, low-fat processed foods are healthy, sugar is fine (it's fat-free, after all!). No wonder we're all nuts about food! (oh, and nuts were bad, but now they're good...)
4
If I had to choose a nutritionist it would be Dr. Carroll who navigates on sensibility, not quivering sensitivity. It is becoming increasingly difficult to go out for a simple meal, without hearing diet restrictions here, there, everywhere, not only in America, but this has now spread to France of all places.
'No gluten', 'No corn syrup', 'lactose intolerant', 'peanut allergy', and the list continues. If a friend has a great affinity for mussels but is nauseous afterwards and on several trials, it is time to call in the clam chowder.
A relative has a restricted diet, thin and svelte, and when her husband expressed his concern, I mentioned what it must be like to wonder if the food you are offered is going to make you ill, which eventually leads to caution.
Some of our pet dogs are also suffering from food allergies. A Public Health Expert and I are having an exchange on the above, and a veterinarian 'dermatologist' has been recommended.
A century ago, fish was mainly eaten by the invalid and the elderly. Some of us may have an impaired autoimmune system. But what this reader and eater wonders about is 'Plastic'. Plastic wrappers and containers, some which require a sledge-hammer to open.
We are living to a great age in these times and probably would have been dust at 60, 100 years ago, while cancer lingers. We may live to see a vaccination in our day.
People laugh when I mention eating a scrap that has fallen on the floor is not bad. Dr. Carroll has a nose :)
1
I agree that many folks' food choices are misguided, but GMO's soaked in poison (e.g. glyphosate) are not a good choice either. Agroforestry is what will feed our growing population. Greater reliance on food from perennial plants is what will prevent the collapse of civilization.
2
Hogwash. What the author fails to mention is that if humans ate a plant based diet rates of diabetes, obesity, heart disease and cancer would plummet. Never mind the consequences to the environment from large scale meat production. Go ahead Dr. Carroll, you can have my bacon.
6
The current fad for gluten free foods can be fully understood by considering the risk to manufacturers and sellers of pushing gluten free products. A trace amount of gluten eaten repeatedly by a celiac (especially a young child) can, over time, lead to terrible health consequences. But there is rarely an immediate short term reaction to eating gluten that could be traced to consuming a particular food product----and an extremely low probability of the producer or seller being held liable for damages for selling the gluten contaminated product, in either a civil or criminal court. So the food label says "gluten free"---and maybe it is.
Contrast this with products sold as treenut and peanut free. A mislabeled contaminated product can lead to immediate death if eaten by someone with a severe allergy. Manufacturers accept a great risk when they label a product as treenut/peanut free. And I trust that they not only want to cause no harm to their customers, but also do not want to see their profits evaporate through legal actions.
I grew up in the U.S. and now live in another country in Central America where people who hear about this obsession with what to eat and what not to eat are left dumbfounded. The people here eat what is available and much of it is high in fat, yet they many of them have just as high or higher life expectancy than in the U.S., are not obese, and are mostly happy - they do not suffer from anxiety about what to eat. Yes, most of them are active due to necessity, which I believe is the vital component, not fretting about every meal. Look at photos and movies of people in the U.S. from just 40 years ago - there is a stark difference in physical constitution, even more the further ones goes back, and they did not fret about having eggs and bacon. I remember there was only 2-3 "fat" kids in our school of a few hundred students by 1970's standards. Today, they would be considered skinny.
6
This article makes some sound points, but we really do need to be aware of chemicals in our food that are poisoning us, and poisoning the planet. We've made a great deal of progress on this since Rachel Carson's Silent Spring; progress the GOP seems eager to push back. So we must remain vigilant. It's important, especially for children, to eat foods that have not been doused with chemicals and hormones. So, I'd refute the laissez-faire tone of this essay.
That said: there is nothing more infantile than otherwise clear-headed adults making a fuss about what they eat, like picky three year olds. Unless a person has an actually medically verified condition (like celiac disease, which affects, really, a very small percent of the population), to carry on endlessly about what you can and cannot eat does not rise to the level of adult conversation. All food fetishes, diets, and special needs should be off the table, unless eating one thing or another is going to send you to the hospital, please. It's a way of making each and everyone very special, in need of care, when the polite thing is to eat what is put in front of you (at a dinner party, for example) and be happy that most of us, who are reading this, have enough to eat.
2
As a doctor, and epidemiologist I say that most of the nutrition studies are done based on recall. And I can’t remember what I ate a week ago, let alone 30 years ago. Garbage in garbage out. The bottom line is I eat what makes me feel good. Organic milk tastes better even though it costs twice as much. But even if you look at cost, I can make a nutritious meal from organic, locally sourced ingredients for much less than 4 quarter pounder combos at McDonald’s for my family. for most people it’s the time and hassle of cooking that deters people from eating at home, not the price of organic. The price of organic is only an excuse.
I do agree with much of what the author says about gluten free.
1
Great article.
As someone who struggled with disordered eating, this article was a breath of fresh air compared to the majority of articles out there about “clean eating.” I went down the paleo/ primal/ Weston a price/ gaps/ gluten -sugar- dairy- gmo- non organic-grain- legume free/ whole 30 wormhole and it seriously depleted me and messed up my metabolism. Especially through my childbearing years. Awful. Now I subscribe to the philosophy: eat what you want when you’re hungry/ stop when you’re full. I lean towards organic, whole foods but man they are expensive and I also eat a fair amount of “unhealthy” foods like chocolate croissants, etc. Books by Geneen Roth (women, food and god) and Matt Stone (eat for heat) really helped me to get out of the diet spiral that was so destructive. I am so happy to have no fear around food now. The fear I felt around food caused so much stress before; the stress was probably worse for me than the food (sugar/ grains/ dairy) in question!
Americans are getting the message and turning away from the unhealthy processed foods in the center aisles of the supermarket, including gluten-free frankenfoods dressed up as something healthy. Produce departments are growing in size, along with the fish and meats along the outer wall. If fear drove consumers away from boxed food and to the outer rim, good. It's about time.
5