Recipe for disaster: creating a food supply to suit the appetite

OBESE NATION: It’s time to admit it – Australia is becoming an obese nation. This series looks at how this has happened and, more importantly, what we can do to stop the obesity epidemic. Today we look at how we got here, with Russell Keast explaining how, by creating food to suit our appetite, we have…

Psxnbyhn-1340759950
A hedonic response working in concert with our primary tastes encourages consumption. amanda tipton

OBESE NATION: It’s time to admit it – Australia is becoming an obese nation. This series looks at how this has happened and, more importantly, what we can do to stop the obesity epidemic.

Today we look at how we got here, with Russell Keast explaining how, by creating food to suit our appetite, we have found the recipe for nutritional disaster, while Garry Egger looks at economic growth and why we should use the economic slowdown to try to shrink our waistlines.


For all but the past 10,000 years, the hominin species (two-legged primates) on the human evolutionary tract have been hunter-gatherers. And over millions of years of natural selection, our senses developed and were refined to help us navigate the local environment.

Of critical importance to our survival was the ability to make correct food choices and our sense of taste informed the hunter-gatherer about the suitability of food for consumption.

When a potential food was placed in the mouth, the five-taste primaries informed the brain about essential nutrients and toxins:

  • sweet elicited by sugars reflecting carbohydrate,
  • umami elicited by glutamic and other amino acids reflecting protein content,
  • salt elicited by sodium and other ions (Na+) reflecting mineral content,
  • sour elicited by free hydrogen ions (H+) reflecting excessive acidity, and
  • bitter reflecting potential toxins in foods.

Working in concert with these tastes is a hedonic response with sweet, salty and umami qualities being appositive (working together) and encouraging consumption. Meanwhile excessive sour and bitter tastes are aversive and promote the rejection of the food.

Decisions on whether to swallow or spit the food are critical to preservation of life. Gary & Anna Sattler

Decisions on whether to swallow or spit the food are critical to preservation of life. Appetitive responses to foods that contained fats, salt and sugars ensured these biologically prized yet scarce nutrients were consumed. Over millions of years of evolution, the sense of taste guided the hunter-gatherer to essential nutrients and away from potential toxins.

The downside of civilisation

Then, approximately 10,000 years ago, the Neolithic revolution was underway and included human mastery of agriculture and animal husbandry, meaning a secure food supply and the end of the need for hunter-gathering. Civilisations were established around a secure food supply.

Arguably, there’s been more change in the food supply in the past 50 years than any other 50-year period – with the establishment of fast food empires, multinational food companies, hyper-supermarkets, and a food supply heavily based on our appetitive response.

In westernised societies, we live in a vastly different environment to our hunter-gatherer forebears. Our appetitive response is now a relic of evolution, and there hasn’t been enough time since the Neolithic revolution for any adjustment to the human genome.

Food companies produce foods that appeal to our appetitive desires. But, driven by appetite, we now consume excess quantities of energy, fats, salts and sugars, leading to diseases of civilisation including obesity, hypertension and related pathologies.

We now have a food supply based in our appetitive response. Ken-ichi Ueda

One answer is to produce foods that are appetitive and nutritious, yet contain low concentrations of fats, salts and sugars. While such strategies have the potential for significant health benefits, it will not be easy, as the following example with salt (sodium) illustrates.

What’s a grain of salt?

Sodium, in the form of manufactured sodium chloride (salt), is found in abundance in the modern diet and excessive sodium consumption is linked to hypertension, cardiovascular disease and other diseases. It’s predicted that a modest 15% reduction in dietary salt may avert 8.5 million cardiovascular-related deaths worldwide over ten years, making salt reduction a priority for food industries and governments alike.

In westernised societies, approximately 75% of our dietary salt intake is from manufactured foods, so the pressure is on food companies to reduce the level of salt added to foods. Salt has certain functionality in foods – palatability and consumer acceptance are the most commonly cited constraints to salt reduction by the food industry and large reductions in salt content of foods often result in declines in palatability and consumer acceptance of those foods.

This can be seen in the Bliss Point graph below:

Russell Keast

The bliss point region represents the intensity of saltiness and the concentration of sodium at which the optimal level of liking occurs.

Salt added to food at low concentrations may result in the food not being salty enough to be perceived and too bland to be liked, while a higher concentration will increase liking until an optimal level is reached. But further increases in concentration will result in the food becoming too salty, and liking will then decrease.

Higher concentrations of salt will increase liking until an optimal level is reached. SurvivalWoman/Flickr

So the challenge of how can salt be removed while maintaining consumer liking and acceptance of a product remains.

The significant change in the food environment over the past 50 years has coincided with increased prevalence of diet-related diseases. The appetitive response to certain nutrients aided the hunter-gather survive by making appropriate food choices, but we now have a secure food supply and our appetite is leading us down a path to disease states rather than survival.

As the food supply has been refined in response to drivers of appetite, we have created a food environment that promotes obesity, hypertension and certain cancers. The challenge is to develop a food supply that meets not only our nutritional needs, but also fulfils our hedonic requirements.


This is part four of our series Obese Nation. To read the other instalments, follow the links below:

Part one: Mapping Australia’s collective weight gain

Part two: Explainer: overweight, obese, BMI – what does it all mean?

Part three: Explainer: how does excess weight cause disease?

Part five: What’s economic growth got to do with expanding waistlines?

Part six: Preventing weight gain: the dilemma of effective regulation

Part seven: Filling the regulatory gap in chronic disease prevention

Part eight: Why a fat tax is not enough to tackle the obesity problem

Part nine: Education, wealth and the place you live can affect your weight

Part ten: Innovative strategies needed to address Indigenous obesity

Part eleven: Two books, one big issue: Why Calories Count and Weighing In

Part twelve: Putting health at the heart of sustainability policy

Part thirteen: Want to stop the obesity epidemic? Let’s get moving

Part fourteen: Fat of the land: how urban design can help curb obesity

Part fifteen: Industry-sponsored self-regulation: it’s just not cricket

Part sixteen: Regulation and legislation as tools in the battle against obesity

Sign in to Favourite

Want to follow The Conversation?

Sign up to our free newsletter to get the day's top stories in your inbox each morning, with a special wrap on Saturday.

Spinner
Donate and become a friend of The Conversation

Join the conversation

15 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

  1. Daniel Boon

    logged in via LinkedIn

    I think it’s a good thing ... all this extra salt and sugar etc. the world is over-populated; this is but part of the 'thinning process' (if you'll excuse the pun ... high density living suits corporate government (the herders of people) so bring on the salted peanuts and the soft-drinks, the cream-buns and milk-shakes ...

    report
    1. Sue Ieraci

      Public hospital clinician

      In reply to Daniel Boon

      So, Daniel, it's in the interest of governments to kill their own taxpayers? Oh...wait...

      report
    2. Daniel Boon

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Sue Ieraci

      Sue,
      Some people herd stock, some people consider people stock ... taxes on newly born (some kick-back to the producers of future tax-payers and consumers), taxes on the living and dying ... allowing toxic foodstuffs to be on-sold in Australia, DU used in 'war games' on Australian soil, GM food stuffs ... need I go on ...

      report
  2. Sue Ieraci

    Public hospital clinician

    Thank you Russel Keast for this interesting essay.

    In my view, there is a danger in focusing too much on what many would call "naturalism" - ie what homo sapiens is "naturally" adapted to eat, drink, give birth, fight disease etc etc.

    The fact is, homo sapiens (as the name suggests) is also "naturally" adapted to think and innovate. Hence we have fresh food available from all around the world, when traditional societies relied on what was locally grown, and either famine or preserved food over…

    Read more
  3. David Poynter

    Medical Scientist

    With this series on obesity the question is put - what can we, as informed educators or as a government, do to change people's eating habits and thereby improve their likelihood of living a long and healthy life.
    But at what point is obesity, or the ability to do something about it, the responsibilty of the obese individual.
    In this era of the internet there is abundant opportunity for the individual to take responsbility for his or her own life. If they don't want to,then let them eat themselves to death. Perhaps disincentives need to be built into society - charging by weight for air travel, charging by weight for health insurance ...
    There's nothing wrong with being fat except that on average you will be shortening your life by 20 years or so. If that's the price you are prepared to pay then go for it.

    report
  4. George Naumovski

    Online Political Activist

    No matter what is being said, people want to eat junk food! It is a very strong addiction as most don’t eat because they are hungry but eat because they love the taste and as more and more people are becoming depressed due to financial or personal issues, the sugar and fat “hit” is a comfort thing and is addictive.

    It is easy to rip through a big bang 200g of chips everyday bought from the supermarket for 3 for $5 but to eat a few pieces of fruit instead does not give the “fix” the chips do and all other junks foods do.

    Just as the government has done with cigarettes as in plain packaging and hiding then from view, same could be done with junk food but even so people will still eat it.

    The only way to stop all this obesity is for people to have some personal discipline but because that will never happen, Australians needs to prepare for the future and needs to create a government owned insulin factory because the demand for it will be so high.

    report
  5. Steve Brown

    logged in via email @yahoo.com.au

    "One answer is to produce foods that are appetitive and nutritious,yet contain low concentrations of fats, salts and sugars"

    So what's left? just protein?

    This is rediculous.

    If the author's intention was to use ancestoral diets and the evolutionary argument as a guide to what we should be eating for good health then he would have done better to demonize the 'foods' which have been introduced via the agricultural and industrial revolutions rather than decry the consumption of large amounts of fat and sugar (from fruit and honey) which often made up a large proportion of calories in hunter-gatherer diets.

    report
    1. Mark Amey

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Steve Brown

      Well, hunter-gatherer diets were likely to be high in all of the above, but, may have walked/ran 20 to 80 kms a day to get it. (This is a guess, I don't really know!)

      report
    2. Sue Ieraci

      Public hospital clinician

      In reply to Mark Amey

      The other thing that has changed is quantity. Where a family might have killed a pig or a lamb for special occasions and feasts, we now have the ability to cheaply access as much fatty meat in one meal as a family might have shared in a week.

      Of course, as I said before, this was highly variable. Historically, parts of the world endured near-starvation while the (rare) rextremely weathy engaged in gluttony and purging. Diets and quanitities of fresh food available in the tropics were different to the desert and different to the high latitudes. There is no "natural" human diet, and never has been. But whatever those of us in wealthy societies eat now, we certainly have access to lots of it, without much effort to get it.

      report
    3. Steve Brown

      logged in via email @yahoo.com.au

      In reply to Sue Ieraci

      Actually, fatty meats have always played a prominant role in the human diet. Hunter gatherers like the Greenland Inuit and Native American tribes would only seek out the fattest animals. The energy density of fat made it highly sort after.

      While some fats are obviously bad for us (vegetable oils, chicken fat,pork fat) there is no reason for the hysteria over eating ruminant fat and coconut oil. They are good for us.

      And there quite clearly is a case to be made for what might be called a natural diet, or perhaps it's just more appropriate to call it more biologically suitable. Some things in our modern food supply have terrible effects on our health, induce an allergic response and are beyond our ability to digest. The archelogical record is quite clear on this- the agricultural period ushered in a way of disease. Humans became shorter, skeletal deformities, dental problems and host of other afflications which didn't exist before became common place.

      report
    4. Sue Ieraci

      Public hospital clinician

      In reply to Steve Brown

      Steve Brown - could you please provide evidence for those sweeping statements?

      "fatty meats have always played a prominant role in the human diet" Which human diet? Ancient Hindus in the subcontinent? Indigenous Japanese?

      "no reason for the hysteria over eating ruminant fat and coconut oil. They are good for us." Evidence please?

      "quite clearly is a case to be made for what might be called a natural diet, or perhaps it's just more appropriate to call it more biologically suitable. " Again, what is the evidence for this?

      Overall, where is the evidence that humans are less nourished, have shorter stature or a shorter lifespan than pre-agricultural man?

      Without clear evidence to back up your assertions, we can only assume that you are yet another lay person with pet opinions about a "natural" diet.

      report
    5. Steve Brown

      logged in via email @yahoo.com.au

      In reply to Sue Ieraci

      Regarding traditional high fat diets-

      The inuit eat/ate a high fat diet
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet

      Native american tribes would only go for the fat animals, documented in the book 'Imagining Head Smashing In

      and
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16441938

      Regarding ruminant fat and coconut oil:

      Margarine Intake and Subsequent Coronary Heart Disease in Men study, as butter intake increases heart attack decreases
      http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3702499?uid=3737536

      Read more
    6. Toby Bateson

      Emergency Doctor

      In reply to Steve Brown

      I agree. Diets should be balanced, not individual foods. Also hunter gatherers are likely to have eaten occasional large meals and I very much doubt that they walked around snacking on little bits of fatty meat all day.

      Toby

      http://www.zenplugs.co.uk

      report
  6. Andrew Schofield

    Business man

    "For all but the past 10,000 years, the hominin species (two-legged primates) on the human evolutionary tract have been hunter-gatherers."

    Your figure of 10,000 years is incorrect. Exclusively hunter-gatherer societies (such as on Bathurst island) existed well into the 20th century. Some would argue that a small number of hunter-gatherer societies still exist today.

    report