“Food faddists and pseudoscientists!”: Reflections on the History of Resistance to Ultra-Processed Foods

Alan C. Logan, Christopher R. D'Adamo, Joseph E. Pizzorno, Susan L. Prescott
{"title":"“Food faddists and pseudoscientists!”: Reflections on the History of Resistance to Ultra-Processed Foods","authors":"Alan C. Logan, Christopher R. D'Adamo, Joseph E. Pizzorno, Susan L. Prescott","doi":"10.1016/j.explore.2023.12.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The term ‘ultra-processed food’ emerged in the 1980s, mostly used in reference to highly-processed convenience foods and snacks, often energy-dense, poor in nutrients, and inclusive of various synthetic additives such as emulsifiers, colors, artificial sweeteners, and/or flavor enhancers. Concern over such foods was part of the growing holistic and environmental health movements of the 1970-80s; yet, those who raised alarm about the encroachment of ultra-processed foods were often labeled, especially by industry and their powerful allies, as ‘food faddists’ and ‘pseudoscientists’. Today, the topic of ultra-processed foods is generating massive personal, public, and planetary health interest. However, other than discussing the history of the NOVA food classification system, a useful tool that has allowed researchers to more accurately separate foods based on processing, most lay media and academic articles are ahistorical. That is, there is a tendency to present the term ultra-processed food(s) as a relatively new entrance into the lexicon, and by default, the idea that health-related pushback on ultra-processed foods is a relatively new phenomenon. This omission overlooks decades of determined advocacy and clinical work, much of it by pioneers within the holistic medicine (now integrative, functional, and lifestyle medicine) movement. Here in this reflection paper, the authors will use historical research and reporting to fill in the historical gap and articulate the saliency of why it matters.</p>","PeriodicalId":501446,"journal":{"name":"Explore","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Explore","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2023.12.014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The term ‘ultra-processed food’ emerged in the 1980s, mostly used in reference to highly-processed convenience foods and snacks, often energy-dense, poor in nutrients, and inclusive of various synthetic additives such as emulsifiers, colors, artificial sweeteners, and/or flavor enhancers. Concern over such foods was part of the growing holistic and environmental health movements of the 1970-80s; yet, those who raised alarm about the encroachment of ultra-processed foods were often labeled, especially by industry and their powerful allies, as ‘food faddists’ and ‘pseudoscientists’. Today, the topic of ultra-processed foods is generating massive personal, public, and planetary health interest. However, other than discussing the history of the NOVA food classification system, a useful tool that has allowed researchers to more accurately separate foods based on processing, most lay media and academic articles are ahistorical. That is, there is a tendency to present the term ultra-processed food(s) as a relatively new entrance into the lexicon, and by default, the idea that health-related pushback on ultra-processed foods is a relatively new phenomenon. This omission overlooks decades of determined advocacy and clinical work, much of it by pioneers within the holistic medicine (now integrative, functional, and lifestyle medicine) movement. Here in this reflection paper, the authors will use historical research and reporting to fill in the historical gap and articulate the saliency of why it matters.

"食品狂热分子和伪科学家!":对抵制超加工食品历史的思考
超加工食品 "一词出现于 20 世纪 80 年代,主要指高度加工的方便食品和零食,通常能量高、营养低,并含有各种合成添加剂,如乳化剂、色素、人工甜味剂和/或增味剂。对此类食品的关注是 20 世纪 70-80 年代日益壮大的整体健康和环境健康运动的一部分;然而,那些对超加工食品的侵蚀提出警告的人往往被贴上 "食品狂热分子 "和 "伪科学家 "的标签,尤其是被食品工业及其强大的盟友贴上这样的标签。如今,有关超加工食品的话题正引起个人、公众和地球健康的广泛关注。然而,除了讨论诺瓦(NOVA)食品分类系统的历史--这一有用的工具让研究人员能够更准确地根据加工程度对食品进行分类--之外,大多数非专业媒体和学术文章都缺乏历史性。也就是说,人们倾向于把 "超加工食品 "这个词作为一个相对较新的词条来表述,并默认与健康有关的对超加工食品的反弹是一个相对较新的现象。这种疏忽忽略了几十年来坚定不移的宣传和临床工作,其中大部分工作是由整体医学(现在的整合医学、功能医学和生活方式医学)运动的先驱们完成的。在这篇反思论文中,作者将利用历史研究和报道来填补历史空白,并阐明其重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信