Which of these food products do you think is the healthiest?
A) Salmon
B) Fruit Juice
C) Ice Cream
D) Margarine
You may think this question is a no-brainer, but if you've been paying attention while at the supermarket, you may be looking for another answer choice - E) All of the above.
In this age of food science, there's more to some foods than meets the eye. For example, all the foods listed above are now made with omega-3 fatty acids. This long chain of carbon atoms, purported as the silver bullet of nutrients, is naturally found in leafy greens, nuts and fish. Omega-3 is just one of the growing health-promoting food additives that have invaded grocery stores.
Many say that additives like these create a nutrient-centric view of food and has resulted in Americans eating more food-like products, and less and less food. For the University of Massachusetts student, this is not just confined to the supermarket - technologies to make such food additives are being developed right here on campus.
The food science department at UMass has recently begun to raise funds to benefit the Center for Health and Wellness, which will explore these types of nutrients and their addition to foods. The center's goal will be to improve the nutritional quality of food by adding nutrients believed to have health benefits that do not naturally contain them.
The newly appointed head of the food science department, Eric Decker, said there are two major aspects to the effectiveness of this type of research - biological activity, and what he calls "compliance." This means that not only must a nutrient have health benefits, but also people to actually eat it.
"The real challenge," explained Decker, "is to figure out ways to take these bioactive compounds and put them in the foods so that it still tastes good, looks the same, behaves the same, but more importantly, costs the same."
The new center is currently in the planning and funding stage. Funding for the $4 million project is coming from the University, and private gifts and grants from companies like ConAgra, Ocean Spray and General Mills. Decker notes that all these gifts come with "no strings attached." More money will be needed for operational costs, which typically comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and National Institute of Health.
"There's very important research to be done," said Noel Anderson, chair of the food science advisory board and head of worldwide technical insights for the Pepsi-Cola Co. "We have raised lots of money already because this research is very much in line with where the food and beverage industry is going."
While some may have reservations about this type of tampering with Mother Nature, Decker believes this is the future.
By better understanding which populations require certain nutrients, "food is going to become, over time, even more personalized," said Decker. He admits there's no real evidence that a college student will gain any health benefits from eating more omega-3 fatty acids. However, significant research has shown that chances of a heart attack, in patients with cardiac issues, are reduced with increased omega-3 consumption.
The new Center for Health and Wellness sits at the confluence of the food industry, nutrition science, food science and food marketing. That's what has some scientists and journalists screaming foul.
It's an issue that even Decker will acknowledge: "Nutrition makes the press before the science is finished."
This creates an opening for the food industry to market the latest nutrient craze with the consumer's support and often times the Food and Drug Administration's blessing - all this before the truth of a nutrient's bioactivity can be fully explored.
Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition and food studies at New York University, has published several books on various issues about the food industry. Her latest one, "What to Eat," is something of a user's guide to the modern-day supermarket. Nestle's major concern with nutrition science is the reductive approach taken to foods and nutrients.
"Nutrition arguments are almost invariable about single nutrients taken out of their food context, single foods taken out of their dietary context, or single risk factors or diseases taken out of their lifestyle context," stated Nestle in "What to Eat."
This means that omega-3 fatty acids may not be as beneficial if removed from the fish, fish may not be as healthy when fried and omega-3 fatty acids may not make a difference to the person who never exercises.
But how can we as intelligent people living in the 21st century not trust science? The gold standard for studies involving humans - the double-blind clinical trial - is very hard to use in nutrition science. One study of this type, exploring the lung cancer-fighting ability of beta-carotene, was stopped short because the smokers who were taking beta-carotene supplements were being harmed.
Nutritionists, because of issues like this one, commonly use case-control studies (asking people with specific illnesses about their dietary habits) or epidemiological studies (tracking the dietary habits and health of large groups of people over time).
Michael Pollan, a professor of journalism at University of California, Berkeley, discusses the problems with these types of studies in his most recent book, "In the Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto." It is known, even by the researchers conducting these studies, that people often lie about their dietary habits.
In one of the largest nutrition studies to date, the Women's Health Initiative, considered four ounces (a quarter of a pound) a 'medium' portion of red meat. With most steaks now two, three, and sometimes four times that size, it's no wonder people often trim a few ounces when answering the questionnaire. This problem is so well known that researchers have formulas to try and correct the reported data.
Wrought with possible errors like these, it's understandable why a prominent epidemiologist, Gladys Block, was quoted by Pollan as saying, "I don't believe anything I read in nutritional epidemiology anymore…it's a mess."
Endorsements from health agencies should also be taken lightly, says Pollan. While some endorsements are valid, they all cost money. General Mills pays the American Heart Association to put its seal of approval on Coco Puffs and Lucky Charms. The makers of Yoo-hoo chocolate drink do the same.
It's missteps and controversies like these that have people like Nestle and Pollan saying we need to radically change the way we think about diet, but others disagree.
"The reality is that we're not going to go backwards," said Decker. "If we're to impact the majority of the population we've got to do it though the foods that are in the grocery store."
"I'm for eating real foods," said Nestle in an e-mail interview. "I think that's the way forward."
Forwards or backwards, everyone has advice on what to eat.
Pollan said this: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." Nestle said it like this: "Eat less, move more, eat lots of fruits and vegetables."
This type of advice is not new, explained Decker.
"Nutrition education has been a huge failure. People have been told to eat these kinds of diets for a hundred years" Decker said. "[Students] cannot use an ingredient like whole grains as justification to eat junk. The issue is when people try to make comparisons from one food category to another, and you can't. A vegetable is always going to be better for you than Cheez-Its."
Dan Terk can be reached at dterk@student.umass.edu.
Be the first to comment on this article!