Should You Listen to Food Gurus?

There's a lot of advice on food and eating and nutrition, these days: on the Internet, on TV, in magazines and books. A lot of it is mainstream, is well-established and backed by medical research, and has been around for a while. This type of stuff is what I think we should be paying attention to.

Some other sorts of advice are a challenge to the intelligent and well-informed consumer. It's not always obvious when we really should ignore what we're being told, either because the person giving the advice is not disinterested (meaning he stands to gain financially, either by blatantly selling you something, or more subtlety, he may be advocating a product such as a supplement that's made by a company he owns); or because it's a bit extreme and not practical for most of us. Or even simply nonsensical. (Note: Just because something is recommended as "natural," that should not automatically recommend it. Remember, poisonous mushroom are "natural." Snake venom is "natural.")

So, what are some examples of what we ought to be listening to? Well, the government tells us to reduce the sodium (salt) and fat in our diets (particularly, avoid trans fat and cut saturated fat). And eat more whole grains and fruits and vegetables.

Okay, that's all very sound advice. It should guide our shopping and make us eat less fast food. (Read those nutrition labels!) Even the big food processors have begun to adjust their products to be healthier in these respects.

But one person—I think I heard this on TV—said, "Don't eat anything with a label on it." Okay, it would be nice if we ate more stuff made from scratch, so we could avoid chemical ingredients like artificial colors and flavors and so forth. But this is not going to be practical for most people. With many wives and mothers having careers outside of the home, the trend has been for more and more of what we eat to come ready-to-eat or ready-to-heat. That trend has its downside, I'm sure, but that guy is definitely spitting into the wind.

I don't know how far that guy's dictum was meant to be carried. Does he mean to include things like eggs, milk, and even produce from the supermarket, that has those little adhesive labels on it? It's probably true that we'd get more nutritious eggs if we kept our own chickens and let them wander around. And we'd get tomatoes that would taste better (and might or might not be more nourishing) if we grew our own.

But isn't that a bit extreme for the majority of Americans who are urban or suburban? Do I need to avoid buying yogurt, and make my own? Even if I said, Okay, I'll make my own yogurt (actually, no way), then where would the milk come from? If not from a bottle or carton with a label, then I'd have to keep my own cow, right? I'm pretty sure cows, or even chickens, are not allowed by my condo homeowners' association.

One or two little asides: First, some people think that sea salt is better, or less unhealthful, than regular salt. This is simply untrue. With the very minor exception that sea salt contains very small amounts of some of the minerals found in sea water, it's still just salt: it's very close to 100% sodium chloride, which is what ordinary salt is.

Second, many people try to avoid sugar, and doing so may be a good thing--but that would be another subject. Fact is, they're too easily tricked by the food makers. I recently saw, as a food ingredient, "evaporated sugar cane juice crystals." Hey, if you know how sugar is made, that translates into nothing more nor less than ordinary sugar! Add that to my comments, in other postings, on deceiving the consumer!

Third, a common sweetener--so ubiquitous as to be unavoidable in store-bought food--is high fructose corn syrup. It's gotten a bad rap, but most likely it's not bad for you. It contains two kinds of sugars which are both naturally found in food; so it's no worse than any sugar.

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein