|
|
 |
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
Voodoo Nutrition
By Kate Burch
Last week the Chipotle restaurant chain decided to remove genetically
modified components of menu offerings nationwide. Whether this
will turn out to be an effective marketing ploy for Chipotle remains to
be seen. It certainly will mean that their prices will have to
increase.
There was also, last week, a decision by a federal judge in Vermont
declining to issue a preliminary injunction to halt implementation of a
2014 Vermont law mandating labeling of products containing genetically
modified ingredients. This decision also will increase costs to
consumers, especially if other states follow suit and create a
patchwork of labeling laws. The judge’s rationale was that the
state has an interest in ensuring food safety. In truth, the
labeling law will do nothing of the sort. Genetically modified
foods have been in use for decades, and there has been not a single
incident of illness caused by a GMO. All major scientific and
health organizations that have investigated the issue have concluded
that GMO’s are safe, and that they are as nutritious as any other
foods.
The anti-GMO claque is one of several groups that have a need to
consume special foods. Others are those who believe that they
must live gluten-free; and the rather large group that insists on
purchasing only “organic” foods. (Really, now, can you think of a
foodstuff that is not organic?)
Food faddism has been prevalent in the United States for quite a long
time. In the nineteenth century, one Horace Fletcher gave his
name to a practice, “Fletcherism,” that was followed by many and
consisted in part of chewing each bite of food at least 32 times as a
means of aiding digestion. Nope, it didn’t work. John
Harvey Kellogg, founder of the cereal company, led an impassioned group
of food faddists who, of course, believed that grains were the most
essential for health, but also enjoyed such things as yogurt
enemas. Over the last few decades, we have been told that salt
was bad for us, then that it presents a hazard only for those with a
predisposition to hypertension. They said that butter clogged the
arteries, then that the trans-fat-containing substitutes are bad and
butter is good. We were told that a low-fat diet is essential for
health, then we saw the increase in obesity from people substituting
high-carb foods for those with some satiating fat. You get the
picture.
Some food faddism can be credited, at least in large part, to
marketing. Why wouldn’t food producers, in a time of plentiful
and cheap food, want to create a market niche by convincing people that
expensive “organic” foods displayed in a special store or a special
area of the produce section are to be preferred over those readily and
cheaply available to anyone. And one can’t fault egg producers
for attempting to make large numbers of people believe that they have
the secret to getting hens to lay eggs that are superior and charging
at least twice the going price to the gullible. Marketers have
also had big success in convincing people that their bottled water,
costing hundreds of times more than tap water, is superior to tap
water. The dirty secret has been that some bottled water is
simply tap water, bottled. Wanting to buy more expensive and exclusive
foods is as much a mark of high status as carrying a Louis Vuitton
bag.
The widespread fear of GMO’s or “Frankenfoods” results from marketers
exploiting the human desire to deny death and disease. If only we
could find the magical elixir that would allow us to have eternal youth
and eternal life.
I’m sure all who do grocery shopping have noticed the increased shelf
space allocated to “gluten-free” foods, and perhaps noticed how
expensive they are. People who have a metabolic disorder known as
celiac disease or sprue definitely need to eliminate gluten to the
extent possible or face unpleasant and debilitating digestive symptoms
and malnutrition. Less than 1% of the U.S. population,
according to figures I have read, are so afflicted, yet we have enough
people wanting to believe that a gluten-free diet makes them feel
better, and willing to spend large amounts of money to indulge that
belief, that it makes sense for the supermarket to give gluten-free
products valuable shelf space.
All people have needs for status, and spending more for a product and
consuming it conspicuously can help to satisfy that need. Many
people suffer from uncomfortable and troubling emotions, and it is my
belief that a proportion of these people may attempt to assuage these
miseries by their food choices. Expensive, yes, but cheaper than
therapy. Who knows? Maybe it will even work, at least for a
time.
|
|
|
|
