Can’t see the nutrition for the nutrients

Did you hear Michael Pollan flogging, er, discussing his new must-read, In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto, on NPR last week?

Mr. Wallet Mouth, well trained to attend to such things, has been worked up all week about how Pollan’s comments on the rise of “nutrition” at the expense of simply “eating healthily,” relate to the project of consumer education and product labeling—one of Wallet Mouth’s core topics.

As Pollan pointed out, it was (and remains) easier to quantify the amount of beta carotene in a healthy person’s diet than the quantity of carrots. But this opened the door for manufacturers to begin crowing about the “healthy” additives in their high-profit processed food products.

During my pregnancy I’ve been reminded more than once about how many of the nutrients added to products are not actually usable by the body. In this case, as is Pollan’s point, an effort to empower consumers has obviously had a somewhat serious unintended side effect.

Mr. Wallet Mouth has been speculating whether there are less-well-documented analogs to this lurking behind other labeling and disclosure efforts. I’ve mentioned suspect (i.e. toothless or fabricated) certifications here before, as well as the perfidious technicality of “zero grams of trans fat.” And of course, the notoriously weak teeth of “USDA Organic” is a sore spot for many...

None of this suggests we shouldn’t continue to advocate for truth in labeling—only that we should notice, and take action, when that becomes “truth” in advertising.