Most people don’t take the trouble to ask basic questions about dietary claims which form the basis of this story. Instead they allow themselves to be bombarded with differing messages that often leave them confused about just what is the healthiest diet and which staple could eventually lead to their premature demise. An example of this nutrition confusion occurred in Cape Town in 2013 when Professor Tim Noakes took on some top cardiologists and dieticians critical of his Low Carb/High Fat diet. Millions of rand were spent by the protagonists – on a marathon disciplinary hearing against Noakes, (which he won, despite his opponents labelling him a “cholesterol-denialist”), and a no-holds-barred, Noakes-supported global conference at the Waterfront convention centre. This after some of his scientific colleagues at the University of Cape Town, organised an academic debate, flying in a South Africa-born globally-respected cardiologist. Noakes faced some hostile questions from the audience and later labelled the debate a “Kangaroo court.” He countered reportage on it with his widely-covered Foreshore gathering. This story helps clarify why there’s so much dietary confusion globally, but keep your critical wits about you, even here. There’s a clash between our instant-access media culture, the billions invested by mega-business and a relatively inert nutrition-science community, the author opines. She challenges us to step outside our tribal comfort zones and ask a few basic questions of what we pick from the daily diet-news smorgasbord. – Chris Bateman *updated 16-July 2019.
Confused about what to eat? Science can help
By P.K. Newby*
Do you feel like nutritionists are always changing their minds? Do you want science-based information about diet but don’t know whom or what to believe?
If you’re nodding in agreement, you’re not alone: More than 80% of Americans are befuddled.
Yet it’s a lament that’s getting quite tiring – if you’re a nutrition scientist, that is. So much so that I refocused my career to shine scientific light on today’s critical food conversations, which have profound impacts on public health and the environment. My mantra: From farm to fork, what we eat matters.
In fact, did you know that 80% of chronic diseases are preventable through modifiable lifestyle changes, and diet is the single largest contributing factor?
Science says plants are better for you and our planet
Clean eating or keto? Paleo or gluten-free? Whole 30 or vegan? Forget fad diets, because science has the answers – there is far more agreement about diet and health than you may know. The scientific report from the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, for example, concluded that a plant-based diet is best for human health and the environment alike. More than 75% of your meal should comprise vegetables, fruits and whole grains, and protein sources should include beans, peas, nuts, seeds and soy.
Canada’s 2019 Food Guide is similarly plant-focused, as is Harvard’s Healthy Eating Plate, while Brazil emphasises foods “mainly of plant origin.” These guidelines and others also stress the importance of limiting processed and ultra-processed foods.
There’s also consensus from the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and others that plant-based diets are more sustainable, largely due to the high energy inputs and environmental damage of livestock.
While it may sound like a fad, a “plant-based” diet has been studied for decades. Awareness escalated as it addresses two urgent public health challenges: the chronic disease epidemic and the climate change crisis. It’s a win-win for human health and the environment. Plant-based diets can be adapted to suit your taste preferences, traditions and cultures, as the Blue Zones, or regions of the world where people typically live longer than average and with fewer chronic diseases, indicate.
If science has the keys to a health-promoting, disease-preventing, planet-saving diet, why are people so confused? A closer look will arm you with the skills to sort fact from fiction.
There’s money in confusion
Celebrity junk science is an obvious player. It might even be cloaked in scrubs, like Dr. Oz – though chastised by the Senate for his quackery. (Physicians, in general, have little to no training in nutrition.)
Celebrities garner enormous platforms, often clouding the truth (or drowning it completely); the deal between Netflix and Gwyneth Paltrow, whose company Goop was sued over a certain jade egg, suggests that science is losing the battle.
One needn’t be a celebrity to hold sway, however. A list of the Top 100 influencers showed that most were bloggers or athletes with no expertise. (None were scientists.) These voices gain considerable traction on social media. Health Feedback, a network of scientists who review the accuracy of online content, conducted a study with the Credibility Coalition and found a minority of articles received a positive rating, with most “exaggerating the benefits and harms of various foods.”
Traditional media don’t always shed light, alas. Single-study sensationalism is ubiquitous – for example, glyphosate in oats, coconut oil and weight, coffee causing cancer – and findings lack context.
And science journalism has taken a hit, and is perhaps why CNN interviewed an anti-science zealot. Or why the Los Angeles Times tweeted that there’s a “growing belief” about the health benefits of celery juice. (Pro tip: It’s not a thing.)
Surrounding the din of bogus dietary advice and media hype is a backdrop of science denialism, which legitimises anti-science when espoused from top levels of government. Science illiteracy also plays a role.
Nonetheless, there are knowledge gaps: 57% of Americans have never seen the dietary illustration from the US Department of Agriculture called MyPlate or know little about it, and 63% reported it was hard to recognise sustainable choices. Shoppers also claimed that identifying healthy food was difficult (11%) or moderate (61%). Unsurprising, perhaps, since 48% looked to crowded food packages for guidance: Some labels are meaningful while others are little more than marketing. (All natural, anyone?) Indeed, powerful food and agriculture lobbies still exert influence on dietary guidelines and obscure the science.
Through all of this, I believe the nutrition science community has tacitly contributed by failing to participate collectively in the public discourse. Nor have we adequately defended our discipline when attacked, whether by journalists, physicians or food writers.
Changing the conversation
Potent societal powers create a culture of nutrition confusion that not only obfuscate the truth about diet, they undermine science as a whole. Three steps will help eaters navigate this rocky terrain.
Begin by asking critical questions when digesting diet news. Does the writer have an advanced degree in nutrition, or does she or he have expertise in science journalism? Are there references to peer-reviewed studies or scientific organisations? Is the source credible? Are miracle cures or quick results promised? Are there expensive price tags for magic bullets? Does it sound like clickbait? Questioning the who-what-where-why-how is paramount.
Second, remember that what flits through our newsfeeds often comes via algorithms that enable news to careen through our echo chambers and elicit confirmation bias, factual or not. Offline, too, we are more likely to share beliefs with friends and family, our tribe. Getting curious about what you eat and why it matters beyond your comfort zone is necessary: You may need to “unlearn what you have learned.”
Finally, try this on for size: Nutrition. Isn’t. Confusing. We all have cherished traditions and values – what we eat isn’t just about the science. (At least, I hope not.) But it is time to learn the fundamental food and nutrition facts that will inspire you to harness the power of food to promote health, prevent disease and protect the planet. Change is possible – and the truth is out there.
[Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter.]
- P.K. Newby, Scientist, Science Communicator, and Author, Harvard University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
