Growing up, we learn quickly (in most cases) that some foods are good, and some are bad for us. We are told not to have a lot of sugar, or that we can’t have burgers everyday. Even though we might not understand all the reasonings behind why we can’t have a Cookie Monster diet, we do recognise the sense in it. We come across proverbs like “everything in moderation” and “too much of anything is bad”, and we apply them to our food.
However, is there such thing as good or bad food? Or is this related more towards one’s overall diet? In this article, I’m going to tackle this question by trying to understand what do good and bad mean in relation to food, and how we should approach this in our day to day life.
What is good and bad in food?
When we think of good and bad food, what comes to mind? I think many can agree that blueberries are a “good” food, and that sweets are a “bad” food. The reason behind this is simple. Blueberries are good for us because they have nutrients that our body needs. This means that if we incorporate blueberries in our diets, they impact us positively. Sweets on the other hand are ultra-processed sugary foods that not only lack those nutrients, but are also filled with harmful ingredients. Eating a lot of sweets can lead to adverse health effects. As such, qualifying good and bad in this context means that that one food item is healthy, and the other is not. However, when we examine commonly eaten food items, this consensus begins to diminish.
For example, there’s an endless debate if meat is good or bad for us. There are countless research studies on the health benefits and drawbacks of meat consumption. Now, the reason for why this is the case is beyond the scope of this article. However, if we go by the logic that one particular food item is good or bad, we will end in an infinite loop. So, how do we address this topic without making things more complicated? One way we can do this is through looking at our food not as a single entity, but rather, a part of a large whole.
Conflicting Information?
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), ‘a healthy diet helps to protect against malnutrition in all its forms, as well as noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including diabetes, heart disease, stroke and cancer’. The WHO provides a guideline for what is considered a healthy diet. They mention eating fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts and reducing sugars, saturated fats and trans-fats of all kinds. In theory, this all checks out. Eat your greens, ditch the snacks and sweets.
However, whilst reading the WHO dietary guideline, I couldn’t help notice the lack of animal product recommendations. The WHO’s emphasis is more on fruits, vegetables, and legumes, and less on animal-derived sources of nutrition. In fact, I was surprised to see that the guideline does not mention protein at all. As someone who eats strictly plant-based, this does feel like a win situation. However, it makes me wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye.
As stated above, the the WHO dietary guideline’s main objective is to provide a directive on avoiding malnutritions and NCDs. This directive is shared with other guidelines, albeit in different forms. For instance, the UK has its own dietary guideline known as The Eatwell Guide. Both guidelines share similar information, such as reducing fats, salt, and sugars. However, The Eatwell Guide is also specific to the population in the UK, focusing more on obesity and cardiovascular diseases, whereas the WHO operates on a global level. This difference suggests that the guidelines are targeted at individuals with varied access to food, healthcare and education, as well as different levels of socioeconomic means.
Furthermore, the Eatwell Guide makes a point to mention animal-derived sources of nutrition. The guide recommends eating animal products such as lean cuts of meat and mince, poultry, eggs and fish. Without much context, we could create a narrative that suggests that the Eatwell Guide says that meat is good, and the WHO says that it’s bad. However, as per my previous point, the WHO reflects the global context, where access to animal products varies. For example, the average per capita global consumption of meat is 34.1kg. In the UK, this figure goes up to 44.4kg per year. Additionally, meat is widely accessible in the UK, and plays a large component in the cuisines that are found on the island.
Beyond labels
Dietary guidelines can help create a “big picture” view of our food. This means that our relationship with food should not be binary, but rather a process. In vitro, sweets are bad. However, if your overall diet is healthy, meaning that it’s balanced, and filled with different sources of nutrients, then eating sweets in moderation is not as bad. However, guidelines can also reinforce certain ideas regarding what’s good or bad for us.
We can take the example of meat to provide an example of how labels may or may not, skew our perception of food. According to the WHO, red meat, which it defines as ‘all mammalian muscle meat, including, beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat’, is a group 2A carcinogen. This means that red meat is probably carcinogenic to humans. The reason that it’s “probably” and not definitively, is that there are limited studies suggesting that an increased (high) consumption of red meat can correlate with increased risk of cancers. It’s important to note that the keyword here is high, and that the exact “safe” amount is up for debate.
However, meat is an amazing source of protein. It contains B vitamins (you can read more about vitamin B12 in my article here), zinc and iron, which our body needs. Although guidelines suggests that red meat consumption should be moderate, it’s unfair to label meat as a bad food. On the other hand, it’s also misleading to label meat as a good food. As such, we have to look at meat consumption within the context of one’s overall diet. Holding an extreme view of what’s good or bad can be harmful, especially in today’s world, where information can travel globally, reaching millions of people.
I’ve recently noticed an influx of influencers online who are promoting the carnivore diet. This diet consists of eating meat, fish, eggs, butter, raw milk, whilst excluding foods like grains, fruits and vegetables. This goes against dietary recommendations, because it’s not a balanced diet. This is also very dangerous. It’s so easy nowadays to create content that can be detrimental to others. Although there is no real scientific evidence backing the carnivore diet, people might be compelled to try something new because of someone else’s anecdotal experience. This ultimately traps our thinking about food as good or bad, rather than a collective of many variables.
Conclusion
Our relationship with food is life long. But, this relationship can either make or break our quality of life. In societies where food is abundant, our choices are unlimited. It’s a blessing to have access to food, when many around the world die from hunger. As such, we ought to take advantage of what’s available to us, and to lead by example. And this all starts with education. It’s important for us to learn about our food, how it impacts our bodies, and also where it comes from. In the end, we pay twice for food. Once with our money, and the other time with our health.
Labelling food as good and bad creates a false perception. One person might eat all the bad foods out there, and still live a long life. Another person may eat only good foods, and die prematurely. What matters most is that we view food as a whole, rather than a part. The food that we eat is a component of our overall diet, which may be good or bad. I believe that this allows us to feel content about our relationship with food. This may help us reconcile with eating a snack here and there, rather than feel guilty about it. And as such, we don’t hold certain views about food, which could lead us down to extreme ends.