The "Great" American Diet
Unraveling America's paradox of choice and health in a world of ultra-processed foods
Thanks for your patience with this piece and for understanding the missed Deindustrialist Newsletter this past weekend. I was off at a wedding in Philly, and it’s taken some time to get this essay put together while also getting my other publication, 'Cello Acres,' up and running. I plan to have the next issue of the Deindustrialist Newsletter come out this weekend.
For this essay, I had considered splitting it up into a series of shorter essays, but I felt it did a disservice to the narrative and build-up to the conclusion. I recommend grabbing a cup of coffee and taking a reprieve from daily life to read it. Enjoy.
Among the myriad challenges facing our society, the persistence of unhealthy eating habits stands out as particularly baffling. This dilemma becomes even more perplexing when considering the dietary choices made for children. Why do informed individuals, aware of the health risks, still opt for food that undermines their well-being and that of their young ones? This question is not just of personal interest but of national concern, and exploring its answers reveals much about our collective psyche and societal values.
So, I pose the question once again: Why do we still eat or serve others ultra-processed foods like chips, frozen dinners, soda, and fast food?
Nutrition Across Socio-Economic Lines
The subject of dietary choices is fraught with sensitivity and can stir intense emotions. It's crucial to acknowledge the socio-economic hurdles many Americans face, not only in adopting healthier diets but also in accessing nutritious food options. I am convinced that if the federal government were to first acknowledge that the nutrition recommendations, agriculture subsidies, and the support of the food industry are killing us from the inside out, and second, dedicate substantial resources to ameliorating these conditions—specifically in America's inner cities, addressing not only the food crisis but also related issues of crime, family stability, and employment—it could profoundly improve the nation's health and economic stability. Such an acknowledgment of its nationwide failure in public health and a comprehensive approach to restoring the most affected populations could arguably contribute more significantly to enhancing our collective well-being and national security than any other proposed program. However, this is an aside from the central thread of our discussion.
My focus shifts to those beyond the grip of socio-economic disadvantage—those in the broad spectrum of middle-class America, spanning the suburban expanses to the intersections with rural and urban life. These individuals often have the means to make healthier dietary choices. Yet, I understand the delicacy of discussing such choices, as they touch upon deeply personal aspects of life, including community, culture, and familial traditions, especially when it involves the nourishment of children. While I hold immense respect for personal freedom and the sovereignty each person has over their life choices, including dietary habits, my intention is not to dictate or judge, but to question and understand. Your life, and the decisions you make within it, belong solely to you. Maybe, at the conclusion of reading this, you may begin to question these very decisions.
Psychology and Contradictions in Dietary Choices
What purpose, then, does it serve to delve into this intricate web of dietary choices, a Pandora's box of complexity that seems resistant to change? My goal is to engage with the psychology behind our food decisions, specifically exploring the reasons behind continued unhealthy eating habits despite better awareness. Why do individuals, and particularly parents, opt for ultra-processed foods for themselves or their children when they are well aware of the lack of nutritional value?
In the United States, a staggering 73% of the food supply is dominated by ultra-processed products. Such foods have been scientifically associated with serious health issues, including obesity, diabetes, and various forms of cancer. Alarmingly, over 60% of the daily calorie intake for the typical American adult comes from these ultra-processed foods despite the known health risks they pose.
But healthier alternatives do exist—pasture-raised animal products and organic fruits such as apples, berries, and grapes. These may still come from industrial farms, yet they remain single-ingredient items free from the extensive chemical processing of ultra-processed foods. Even better, sourcing these from local producers or one’s own garden ensures freshness and quality.
So, the question arises once more: Why do we continue to consume and offer such unhealthy foods if we are aware of their harms? This assumption that we inherently know better may not hold true for everyone. Some might choose to ignore the evidence, and it is for them I suggest introspection. Reflect upon the values that define health and vitality in your life. Consider the importance of being an active, engaged member of society, not just for yourself, but for the well-being of future generations—your grandchildren and great-grandchildren. For those who are informed, the question becomes even more pressing: Why persist in a behavior that contradicts our understanding of a healthy lifestyle?
The conundrum—the tension between knowledge and action, health and convenience—is a critical aspect of this paradox. Despite the availability of the ‘Whole Foods version’ that claims to be healthier, many of these options are still products of industrial processing, albeit with perhaps slightly improved ingredients. The persistence of choosing unhealthy foods often boils down to convenience. The ready availability of fast food and processed snacks makes it tempting to quell hunger quickly, for adults and children alike. Parents, even those aware of the health risks, might find themselves providing these foods to their children out of a sense of obligation or convenience, sometimes underestimating the severity of the consequences or the immediacy of the effects.
A significant factor behind these dietary contradictions could be cognitive dissonance. Even when we know certain foods are unhealthy, we still consume them, influenced in part by their omnipresence and societal acceptance, which might lead us to downplay the risks. If the majority indulges, it subtly signals that the danger might not be so immediate—a classic case of social conformity. This tendency, where individuals align their behaviors with group norms under real or perceived social pressure, often conflicts with personal beliefs, highlighting the powerful influence of peer pressure on our dietary choices. How often have we seen a majority's ambivalence toward something insidious throughout human history and the destruction it has caused? This situation is no different, except that the harm is self-inflicted rather than imposed on others.
Additionally, the relentless pace of modern life and the demands of the education system often overshadow the value of nutritious meals. Children appear resilient to the ill effects of processed foods, often performing well academically and physically, which can lead parents to question the urgency of enforcing healthier diets. This presents a modern paradox: we recognize the negligible nutritional value of certain foods yet continue to consume them. So, why do we offer snacks like chips, goldfish, crackers, and the like, which we know are of no benefit and are surely worse than not snacking at all?
Industry Influence and Marketing
The influence of the food industry on our dietary choices is a complex interplay of comfort-seeking behavior and marketing strategies. Our daily pursuits often aim to secure comfort, leading us to shy away from discomfort, which is inherently aversive. Ultra-processed foods, engineered to deliver immediate sensory gratification through familiar flavors and textures, are designed to satisfy this pursuit. The food industry capitalizes on this desire for comfort, leveraging the familiarity built from a lifetime of exposure. This familiarity, especially when established in childhood with branded processed foods, can develop into a lasting preference, setting the stage for a cycle that may continue into future generations.
This cycle is further reinforced by the pervasive influence of media marketing, particularly targeted at children. Fast-food companies in the United States spent a substantial $3.4 billion on TV advertising in 2019, with the top six fast-food brands responsible for more than 70% of TV advertisements viewed by children. The marketing strategies of the food industry are not just about promoting a product; they are about embedding these products into the fabric of our culture, making them seem like an inescapable part of daily life.
To break this cycle, a critical assessment of these marketing influences is necessary. By consciously removing or reducing exposure to these influences, especially in a child's environment, we can challenge the industry's reach. However, making such choices can set a family apart from societal norms. Those who actively avoid the center aisles of the supermarket and shun commercial television, for instance, may be viewed as unconventional or atypical. In more extreme cases, they might feel like outcasts, alienated from society or even from their own family.
Yet, the broader impact of the food industry extends beyond the individual or family level. The simple truth is that as long as the majority consumes their products without resistance, the industry sees little incentive for change. The perceived social pressures to conform to a national diet, heavily influenced by industry marketing, prevent significant shifts in consumption patterns. But it's important to recognize that the reasons for our eating habits extend beyond social conformity, delving into the depths of human nature and our inherent pursuit of comfort. Understanding these dynamics is crucial to grasp the full extent of the industry's influence on our dietary choices and the challenges inherent in altering these patterns.
Personal Experiences and Temptations
The allure of 'comfort food' is a familiar struggle, one that I, too, have experienced. Lounging before the TV, indulging in a bag of chips or a large cheese pizza, presents a scenario of comfort that many of us find irresistible. For me, chips and pizza are particular temptations, exemplifying the magnetic pull of hyper-palatable foods. This pull is so strong that resisting it often feels like a Herculean task. Recognizing their detrimental impact on health, I have taken proactive measures by eliminating all chips and processed snacks from my home. In doing so, I am protecting not only myself but also my children from their deleterious effects and the potential risk of becoming addicted to them. While the absence of these items reduces the likelihood of indulgence, the persistent cravings highlight the addictive qualities of these foods—an unsettling realization supported by research showing that addiction to ultra-processed foods is a genuine struggle for many. Indeed, the study showed food addiction affects 14% of adults and 12% of children globally.
This addiction is not accidental but is a deliberate strategy employed by the food industry. Their business models thrive on creating and maintaining a cycle of dependency on their products. By engineering foods that are not just comforting but also addictive, they ensure a steady consumer base. As a result, we find ourselves ensnared not only by the convenience and social allure of these products but also by a physical dependency on them—a situation that benefits the industry at the expense of our health.
This dynamic leads to a critical point of contention: if these foods are as harmful as we're led to believe, why are they so readily available, even in places like schools and hospitals, where health should be paramount? Our tacit complicity in this scenario, our collective indifference in the face of widespread acknowledgment of the problem, begs a crucial question. Why do we continue to partake in and accept the status quo, discussing the issue without taking meaningful action? This contradiction, between what we know and how we act, reflects a broader societal challenge in confronting the reality of our dietary choices and their implications.
Apathy, Health Care, and the Weight Loss Industry
Beyond convenience and addiction, there is a pervasive apathy toward dietary choices, encapsulated in the defeatist mantra, 'I’m going to die someday anyway, might as well enjoy what I eat.' Such a viewpoint saddens me; it feels like a surrender to the processed food industry—a concession that they have dulled our taste for genuine, wholesome foods, allowing our health to deteriorate on their terms. This attitude also carries an element of selfishness, ignoring the ripple effect our eating habits have on the health and habits of those around us. Most concerning to me is the example this sets for our children. It teaches them indifference towards the quality of what we eat, which could shape their future dietary habits and overall relationship with food, perpetuating a cycle of poor choices without critical examination of the underlying influences.
Often, apathy towards unhealthy eating is bolstered by a misplaced trust in medical intervention. Many hold the belief that healthcare systems can simply repair the damages wrought by poor nutrition. Indeed, contemporary healthcare has largely become a reactive force, addressing illnesses that are frequently a direct consequence of our dietary choices. This dynamic has inadvertently allowed a healthcare economy to flourish around the treatment of conditions stemming from nutritional neglect. In fact, the rise of our industrialized food system has nearly perfectly coincided with the rise of our non-communicable disease epidemic. Consequently, rather than taking personal responsibility for the health effects of our diets, there is a tendency to defer to the medical industry for solutions.
The weight loss industry, with entities like Weight Watchers, presents another dimension to the issue. These programs often become scapegoats for the challenges of losing weight, echoing a 'it's not me, it's the program' sentiment. Individuals may follow these plans for extensive periods without seeing the desired results, leading to frustration and the misplacement of blame. Moreover, the rise of appetite-suppressing drugs like Ozempic adds to the arsenal of quick fixes, yet none address the root problem: the persistent consumption of unhealthy, ultra-processed foods. There's a lack of genuine recognition or confrontation of this core issue. Instead, the cycle of deferring responsibility continues, and when the promised solutions fail, the finger-pointing at these external solutions persists, rather than acknowledging the deeper dietary habits at play.
Cultural and National Perspectives on Food
Having considered everything from social conformity to addiction and apathy, it's possible that the challenge we face in curtailing the consumption of ultra-processed food is deeply entwined with our national culture and identity. Perhaps it's the lack of deeply rooted culinary traditions, unlike those in France, Spain, the Nordics, the Middle East, or Asia, where obesity rates do not match ours. From the CDC, the latest statistics from 2017–2018 show that 42.4% of U.S. adults have obesity, whereas 13% of adults globally were obese. It could be argued that our celebrated culture of freedom has inadvertently given the food and agricultural industries free rein to exploit American consumers, especially through legislation that favors their interests. The resulting situation is deeply troubling: the United States now leads the world in the percentage of obese children. Rather than addressing the root causes of this 'anti-food' crisis, we find ourselves entrenched in a cycle where the healthcare industry benefits from treating the consequences rather than investing in preventive measures that could address the issue at its core.
The prevalence of less healthy food choices in the United States compared to these countries can be directly linked to our differing cultural attitudes towards food, food industry practices, and government policies. In Europe and Asia, there is a prevailing culture that venerates fresh, traditional foods and communal meals, leading to healthier choices. The U.S. food industry, conversely, heavily markets processed foods, with larger portion sizes that are more affordable and accessible than healthier options. Additionally, U.S. government policies often lack the stringent food regulations found overseas, particularly those protecting children from being bombarded with advertisements for unhealthy foods. Lifestyle differences also play a critical role; the American pace of life favors convenience, while other cultures may emphasize slower meal times and cooking from scratch. Agricultural policies in the U.S. have made crops that are the basis of many processed foods cheap to produce, making these foods ubiquitous and dominant in our diet. These collective factors create an environment in which it's challenging for Americans to make healthy food choices.
This cultural and regulatory landscape presents formidable challenges for Americans, especially parents, in making healthy food choices. Striving to provide real, wholesome food at home can seem futile when faced with society's pervasive industrialized food environment. The impulse to protect our children from these influences is strong, yet complete isolation from community and societal norms is neither practical nor beneficial. This dilemma highlights the profound impact of national culture and identity on our dietary habits.
Personal Approach and Definition of Real Food
The landscape of dietary guidance is often muddled by conflicting messages, with media reports and studies offering contradictory viewpoints about what constitutes 'real food.' Just two days ago, a study published by the WHO suggested that some ultra-processed foods might be beneficial to health. This finding, which at best indicates a mere association, starkly contrasts with a comprehensive 2020 review of 43 studies examining ultra-processed food consumption. Notably, this earlier study, cited nearly 500 times, concluded that there was no association between ultra-processed foods and positive health outcomes. Such conflicting information perpetuates a state of perpetual uncertainty, leaving the public oscillating between different dietary recommendations.
In the face of this indecision, which often leads us to gravitate towards familiar brands and traditional choices, I have sought clarity through my own understanding and experience. My definition of real food is straightforward: it encompasses naturally sourced meats like wild game or pasture-raised livestock, organically cultivated fruits and vegetables, raw dairy from grass-fed cows, and eggs from free-range chickens. Furthermore, I advocate for the inclusion of locally sourced, glyphosate-free honey and maple syrup in our diets. Each of these items epitomizes whole, single-ingredient foods, forming the bedrock of what I consider to be a truly nutritious diet. While it’s possible to source much of this from local grocery stores, ideally, we should strive to acquire our food directly from local farms and ranches, or even grow it ourselves.
Embracing this definition, I have endeavored to embody the change I wish to see in our dietary habits. This journey of conviction led to the creation of 'Cello Acres,' an online platform where my wife and I share our commitment to natural, unprocessed eating and living. Our mission is to inspire others by demonstrating a lifestyle that champions organic, single-ingredient foods free from chemicals—foods that truly nourish. By addressing our national diet and returning to the essence of what real food is, we aim to contribute to the resolution of the broader health issues plaguing our population.
Bridging Dietary Divides: A Unified Approach to Natural Eating
For both meat-eaters and vegetarians, and all those in between, the journey towards healthier eating habits converges on a common path: the emphasis on natural, unprocessed options. This shared focus bridges the dietary divide, uniting these seemingly contrasting groups in their pursuit of nutritional well-being. For meat-eaters, this translates into choosing meats sourced from animals raised in their natural habitats, like pasture-raised livestock and wild game, typically free from the hormones and antibiotics prevalent in conventionally raised meat. These choices not only provide health benefits but also support ethical and sustainable farming practices. Conversely, vegetarians can explore a rich diversity of organic fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains, ensuring a diet that is diverse, nutrient-rich, and free from the additives and preservatives common in processed vegetarian and vegan products.
This unified approach to eating necessitates a thoughtful consideration of food's origins and production methods. It invites both meat-eaters and vegetarians to delve deeper into the sources of their food, fostering a connection with local farmers, understanding their farming practices, and considering the environmental impact of food production. By opting for foods in their most natural state, we embrace a holistic view of nutrition. This perspective encompasses not just the nutritional content of our food but also its provenance, the methods of its cultivation or rearing, and its journey to our plates.
Ultimately, the core challenge we face in nutrition today is our heavy reliance on ultra-processed food products. These items, which dominate the central aisles of most grocery stores, are often loaded with additives and lacking in natural nutrients. Shifting our focus towards the outer edges of these stores, where whole foods are predominantly displayed, offers a solution. Here, in the realm of fresh produce and responsibly sourced meats, both meat-eaters and vegetarians can find common ground. This shift is more than a series of individual health choices; it represents a broader movement toward redefining our relationship with food. It underscores the importance of prioritizing quality and nutritional value over convenience and marketing, advocating for a diet that aligns with the well-being of our bodies and the environment.
Conclusion and Call to Reflection
In light of all that has been discussed, a pressing question remains at the forefront: Why do we continue to consume and serve our children these detrimental, ultra-processed foods?
Instinctively, we should be inclined to nourish them with the healthiest choices available. Yet, there is a noticeable gap between this instinct and the reality of our dietary choices. Even after delving into various aspects of this issue, the reasons behind our decisions still elude me. Is it a matter of lack of awareness or indifference, or perhaps the issue is being overstated? While I have my own convictions, I recognize and respect that others might arrive at different conclusions. This diversity of thought is, indeed, a fundamental aspect of the American ethos, celebrating the freedom to hold and express a variety of viewpoints.
As we reach the end of this exploration, I extend an invitation to you, the reader, to engage in introspection and collective discourse. Reflect upon the current state of our relationship with food. Think about the choices you make for yourself and for your children. Confront the challenging question: Despite being aware of the consequences, why do we still allow ultra-processed foods to be a staple in our lives or even present in the slightest amounts?
Grasping an understanding of this paradox could be instrumental in addressing the health crisis facing our nation. It's a vital conversation, one that extends beyond individual well-being to encompass the health and future prosperity of our children and our country as a whole. Engaging in this dialogue, both within ourselves and in our communities, is essential for catalyzing meaningful change.
Stay aware. Stay empowered. Stay free.
-Greg