Complex Numbers

Thought for Food

Here's a liberating take on food.

    There Is No Such Thing as “Junk” Food  
Food hierarchies are, in truth, sorting mechanisms. It does not make you a worse person to eat “junk” food, and it certainly doesn’t make you a better person to eat whole grains.

Except that food has been linked to morality and virtue-signaling for a long time.

When I was in elementary school, I filled out a well-intentioned worksheet that asked me to sort foods into boxes.

What you were really learning was that humans like to stick everything into neat little boxes.

The worksheet didn’t consider how to feed your child when you’re a single parent working swing shift and a Happy Meal or a frozen pizza is the cheapest and most reliable way to feed your kids, or if the nearest fresh broccoli was an hour’s drive away.

And this is the often-overlooked dirty little secret of food snobbery: eating foods considered healthy is expensive and time-consuming. Being able to do so is a product of privilege.

My understanding that certain foods were so “bad” they were junk was complicated by the peculiar diet culture of the ’90s, which convinced me that cheese and avocados were high-fat and to be avoided, bananas had too much sugar and should also be avoided, but Starburst Jellybeans (lot of sugar, sure, but fat-free!) or Snackwell Devil’s Food Cookie Cakes (cake...but diet?) were somehow okay.

I've ragged on nutrition science in here before; no need to repeat it.

I entered my 20s with deeply illogical ideas about food and nutrition, which became even more contradictory when injected with the sustainability gospel of Michael Pollan, anti-GMO politics, the locavore movement, and the rise of “fast casual” cuisine.

But the problem isn't just nutrition science; it's that, as evidenced by the anti-GMO bit, people will believe whatever suits them.

Some people, regardless of age, need more salt in their diet, not less; some people need more fat, or caffeine, or dairy, or none at all. And others just need more things in their lives that are delicious—that remind them of the true bounty and delights of being human.

And really, as a hedonist, that last part resonates strongly with me. Food isn't penance. Food isn't medicine. Food isn't virtue. Food is about not being hungry, and, ideally, enjoying life.

People weren't nearly as neurotic about food before we got all these choices. But now that we have them, sure, it's good to be healthy, but not at the expense of eating cardboard.

The article goes on to link food snobbery with racism and classism, and it makes some good points, but it's tangential to my purpose in linking this.

This is, to me, the important bit, right at the end:

Contrary to what those worksheets might tell us, food does not have moral character, and consuming it does not influence or infect our own character. Food is delightful, and food is fuel, and food is culture. It becomes shadowed with shame—often, the sort that can distort our eating habits for years to come—not when we eat it, but when we restrict it, and attempt to spread that shame to others who do not.

I noticed this in particular with the low-carb or gluten-free fads. There has not been a food that I'm aware of in the entire history of agriculture that has been more culturally significant than bread. It is symbolic to many religions, but even just culturally, it's something that brings people together. I can't help but feel that the attempts to demonize it are just another way to separate us from each other, and give us yet another thing to feel shame about—shame that can only be ameliorated if you Buy My Product.