“There is always a well-known solution to every human problem; neat, plausible, and wrong.”
— H.L. Mencken, The Divine Afflatus

This week, Chef Dr. Mike penned the featured op-ed in Medical Economics. This article discusses the medical economics of ultraprocessed food and the need for fresh perspectives and new approaches in solving the food health equation and its relation to the current chronic disease epidemic.

Within this space, there is an opportunity to provide some additional background regarding some of the limitations of the current reductionist nutrient-centric approach that continues to dominate contemporary discussions and approaches despite over a half-century of epic failures. The existing method, labeled Nutritionism by Professor Scrinis of the University of Melbourne, Australia, is a linear form of reductionism. As is evident in the guidelines and recommendations, this methodology emphasizes the individual nutrients within food rather than the food itself.
In the 1980s, it was adopted by the government, preeminent institutions, and research leaders as the preferred – and, according to some, the only – valid scientific method by which to evaluate food and health.

Nutritionism is a form of Reductionism, which is: The practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation. Nutritionism examines a single nutrient and a single effect.

Such an approach was extremely effective during the birth of nutrition sciences in the age of deficiency diseases. In the setting of deficiency diseases, this method correlates to a finding that a lack of “X” nutrient below a certain threshold value causes disease “Y.” Restoring X at or above the threshold abolishes or prevents the disease state. This can be accomplished without using whole foods through supplementation or fortification of synthesized compounds.

This focus on strictly evaluating food’s health benefits in terms of its constituent nutrients continues to dominate contemporary discussions and approaches. A significant issue with this methodology is that it ignores the broader context of food and its impact on human health.

A nutrient-centric focus can lead to misconceptions about the healthfulness of certain food products and may overshadow the importance of overall dietary patterns, food quality,

and the importance of the food experience. That is because the linear reductionism of Nutritionism equates the sum as merely equal to the parts, and thus, it focuses on:

While the reductionist approach has contributed to understanding nutrient deficiencies and their health impacts, it oversimplifies the multifaceted relationships between diet and health. I invite you to read the article by following the link to explore fresh perspectives regarding ultraprocessed food, chronic disability and disease, economics (including pharmaceutical company revenues), and our food-health relationship.

For more on why Chef Dr. Mike critiques Nutritionism and calls for a broader view of food’s impact on health, check out the full op-ed here: The Medical Economics of Ultraprocessed Food.

References

1. Statistics about diabetes. American Diabetes Association. Nov. 2, 2023. | About diabetes
2. Adams J, Hofman K, Moubarac JC, Thow AM. Public health response to ultra-processed food and drinks. BMJ. 2020
3. Baraldi LG, Martinez Steele E, Canella DS, Monteiro CA. | Consumption of ultra-processed foods and associated sociodemographic factors
4. New evidence links ultra-processed foods with a range of health risks. | BMJ Group
5. Brown S. Most dietary guideline advisors have ties to food and pharma industries, study finds. Verywell Health. | Verywell Health
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. | National diabetes statistics report 2020
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. | National diabetes statistics report: November 29, 2023