Governments have a long history of telling us what to do, telling us what science is ‘true’, and getting involved in the health and well being of ‘their’ citizens. Issuing dietary advice is an important part of this assumed role, and here in the UK the National Health Service website contains a great deal of information on healthy eating.
And it might be making us obese, unhealthy and die younger as a population…
So what does our government recommend our diets should look like? Below is the eat well plate:
Three features instantly stand out as a cause for concern –
-
As much dairy is recommended as meat and fish – given the lactose intolerance shown by a small but significant number of the population in Britain and how evolutionary recent the domestication of milk producing animals was, to give dairy products as much weight as part of a “healthy” diet is bizarre.
-
Roughly as much grains are recommended as vegetable intake – almost a third of all food intake on this plate comes from processed carbohydrates, the majority of it grains. Grains are evolutionary novel parts of our diet and have a range of negative effects on our bodies.
-
It includes a group devoted to “foods and drinks high in fat and/or sugar” – Yes, there are many foods high in fat that are healthy for you, such as some meats, eggs, nuts, cheeses… which have their own, separate category on the eatwell plate. Same with sugar – fruits are nature’s candy bars but certainly have a place in a healthy diet. Fruits too are given their own separate category above. So what *is* the NHS recommending? Luckily, to prevent confusion, they have included illustrations. Lets see… Cola, Sweets, Victoria Sponge and Battenberg Cake, crisps… all part of a healthy diet. According to the NHS.
However, we are reassured about the suitability and healthiness of the eat well plate by the following line:
“The eatwell plate applies to most people whether they’re a healthy weight or overweight, whether they eat meat or are vegetarian, and no matter what their ethnic origin.”
Err…hold on. “…no matter what their ethnic origin…” – Considering the majority of the world’s adult population shows a lactose intolerance, and only the relatively small population of Europe has a widespread tolerance to it, as uncomfortable as it would be for a government agency to say it – I’m afraid the suitability of this diet recommendation, with its large milk and dairy food recommendation, *is* dependent on your ethnic background.
Grains area poor source of fuel, so why would the government be informing us that is should feature so heavily in our diets? The NHS live well page on starchy foods goes some way to explaining this recommendation:
- “Starchy foods are a good source of energy”
- “…main source of a range of nutrients in our diet.”
- “…they contain fibre, calcium, iron and B vitamins.”
Starchy foods can be a good source of energy, like sweet potatoes and many other vegetables. However, grains, which are emphasised in this section of the eatwell plate are a terrible source of energy. They are not filling often causing people to overeat, the glucose in grain products causes a rush and subsequent crash in sugar levels which can prompt overeating, and humans are built to use fat as a source of energy – not sugar and processed carbohydrates.
However, a look abroad shows Britain is not unusual in having a government that promotes an unhealthy diet. Similar themes are seen amongst other nation’s government advice – an unhealthy amount of grains and processed carbohydrates, blanket recommendations of dairy and scaremongering about fats and red meat.
Despite the similarities, there are a some minor differences, and I want to highlight a few here to show the sometimes arbitrary nature of nutritional recommendations from governments – these are certainly not unchanging scientific facts backed by consensus. Any recommendation on diet is framed within certain social and cultural contexts, and as a result it varies. There are minor differences in vitamin and mineral recommendations – American recommendations are ever so slightly higher compared to the United Kingdom, and contain stuff our government doesn’t even bother to recommend – Selenium for instance. In Britain we are told to consume two portions of fish a week for its health benefits . Imagine for a moment the effects on the world’s oceans if China and India were to insist its populations do the same. Nutritional guidelines often run up against ecological realities.
While all can agree on the need for fruit and vegetables, what counts as a portion and how many portions we need is open to interpretation. In Britain you are recommended to have five portions of fruit and vegetables, in Australia two portions of fruit and five of vegetables, and in the United States a number of cups that varies on age and exercise level, and in Canada up to ten portions depending on age and sex.
When looking at any blanket reccomendation, we have to bear in mind that they are an average for the target population as a whole and as advice it ignores individual variation – recommendations are necessarily a statistical construct and not a perfect reflection of an individual’s physiological needs.
So government advice isn’t set in stone (even recommended calories can be subject to change) so take anyone treating government advice as gospel with a pinch of salt and a good sense of humour.
I’d highly recommend anyone interested to listen to the Oxford University nutritional anthropology lectures made available online as a podcast. (Scroll down to the bottom for the first nutritional one). A interesting lecture, it motivated this post and provides valuable insights into the human diet.
{ 0 comments }