Shopping for ‘healthy’ food? It’s a minefield

Let me ask you, do you enjoy your food? When you cook, do you aim for nutritious or delicious? Delicious and nutritious aren’t mutually exclusive, of course. But eating for pleasure as opposed to treating food as fuel are quite different propositions. Even from the perspective of someone who never eats…

Kqxvrnnp-1342152738
Making the “right” food choice isn’t easy. Tavallai

Let me ask you, do you enjoy your food? When you cook, do you aim for nutritious or delicious? Delicious and nutritious aren’t mutually exclusive, of course. But eating for pleasure as opposed to treating food as fuel are quite different propositions.

Even from the perspective of someone who never eats take-away of the deep-fried mega-chain variety, making the “right” choice is not straightforward but confronts you with contradictions and conflicting advice and beliefs.

As for calorie counting, I don’t know how many people actually know how many calories, or kilojoules, they are supposed to eat each day. Perhaps devotees of The Biggest Loser might know, but counting your energy input daily is actually a really big ask and quite a time-consuming and confusing process.

The weight loss companies understand this and although, WeightWatchers® for example, currently uses ProPoints™, the number to reach is around 26 per day rather than the thousands of kilojoules required by us all. Furthermore, to encourage people to eat more nutitious foods, WeightWatchers® places zero value on all fruit and veggies.

But we’re still bombarded with media articles telling us to take stock of our collective health by managing our food intake. It’s simple: make the right food decisions, choose the right products and raw ingredients and cook something nutritious and healthy for dinner each night. Give up take-aways and fast food, buy fresh and wholesome. Just follow the guidelines in the Food for Health guide and we’ll all be better off.

fixlr

So why, if it’s this easy, is it so hard?

With the draft Australian Dietary Guidelines in hand, let’s head to the supermarket. For breakfast, we need to buy a wholegrain cereal – Guideline 1. That can’t be hard, the aisle is packed with more varieties that you can count, each box painted in bright primary colours and covered in healthy heart ticks and wholegrain ticks. And the words “natural” and “healthy” repeat over and over down the aisle.

Here’s a cereal made from five whole grains, it must be good, right? But a closer look at the really small writing on the nutrition panel states that the product is 13% sugar. Another choice states that 26% of the product is sugar, and some of those healthy cereals for growing kids are up to a whopping 32% sugar.

Not only does Guideline 2 tell us to limit the intake of foods containing sugars, but David Gillespie has been telling us how dangerous sugar is and extolling the virtues of a sugar-free diet in the quest for weight management and a reduced likelihood of contracting Type 2 diabetes.

Yes, we can choose oats (have you noticed no one says porridge anymore?), a cheap and healthy alternative providing it hasn’t been toasted in oil and sweetened with sugars. But occasionally we do want a really quick alternative if we’re a little rushed.

Australia’s favourite breakfast wheat biscuit contains just under 4% sugar. It pays to search through the shelves; some brands have far less sugar. But be aware, less sugar usually means more of something else to make the bland biscuit tastier.

Peter Guthrie

Let’s go with wholemeal bread instead and have toast for breakfast. A similarly dazzling display of breads accosts you in the aisle. The supersized loaves of super-processed product are labelled two for $5; the “farmhouse” and “country” type with more whole-grains are twice as much.

Now, bread is a simple product, but these packages contain a scary concoction of chemicals and additives all designed to keep the bread fresh longer, give it softness, an even set of small airy holes and to give it back some of the goodness that’s lost when the flour was super-milled. But perhaps the most disturbing additive is the salt.

Guideline 2 states that we should limit the intake of foods containing salt. But, salt isn’t an ingredient mentioned in the nutrition panel. You have to look for sodium. We all know that’s the component of salt that we should measure, right? Well, do we? Some of these packaged breads contain 585mg sodium in every three slices. That’s more than the daily allowance recommended in the Australian and New Zealand Dietary Guidelines for children aged 12 months to three years and pretty close to the upper level for children aged four to eight.

stlbites.com

Good grief, what a minefield. Let’s go to McDonald’s. Bacon and egg McMuffin is 1240 kJ. That’s good, right? An English muffin is 618 kJ so we may as well have it filled with bacon and egg. Easy, no fuss. But here we are back to trying to remember how many kilojoules we need each day and what, if anything, is wrong with a McMuffin.

But one of the things that McDonald’s gets right is making food sound enjoyable, a happy experience. Isn’t that what’s missing in the “eat right” messages? Enjoyment and pleasure, taste and flavour?

A paper examining food and eating habits of the French and Americans notes that the French eat a diet containing more fat and more wine than Americans but paradoxically, they live longer, a fact that has been subject to considerable research over time. The study finds that while Americans worry about the food they eat, the French see food as a pleasure, a joy.

What’s more, the French eat more slowly, eat smaller portions, a more varied diet and enjoy a more sociable experience when eating. According to the World Health Statistics 2012, in 2009, the average life expectancy in France was 81 while the average life expectancy for an American was 79. In Australia, our life expectancy in 2009 was 82, beaten only by the residents of Japan and San Marino who, on average, lived to be 83.

Eating is a more sociable experience for the French. Joshua Rappeneker

We’re being made to feel guilty and inadequate when it comes to food. We are not being helped by the creeping additives, sly sugars and salt being slipped into staples or the bigger portions being served up in stores and food outlets. And the fat-free, nutritious offerings suggested by the Food Guides are just not appetising.

In fact, those scientists researching taste agree that people don’t find low-fat, low-salt, low-calorie foods as satisfying as the full fat variety.

Furthermore, the dietary guidelines would encourage us to eat reduced fat margarine, a highly manufactured product, rather than a moderate serve of flavourful natural butter, straight from a cow. Heavens, “butter tastes better” was a slogan in the 1980s and it’s still true today.

We must be doing something right if we’re living to such a grand age. Perhaps it’s time to rethink our eating messages and put enjoyment and sociability back into our food guidelines.

Join the conversation

16 Comments sorted by

  1. Geoff Russell

    Computer Programmer, Author

    What's natural about butter? First you use vastly more water than any other food (or cotton) growing very rich fodder for cows bred to produce vastly (well over double since 1980) more milk than those of yesteryear ... and you measure the white blood cells in milk regularly to meet health regs because of mastitis. The energy from all that rich high protein fodder isn't enough so you feed each cow with 1.7 tonnes of grain annually. You artificially inseminate your herd regularly and the day old calves…

    Read more
  2. Joel Mayes

    Bicycle Mechanic

    Well, I regularly eat duck, pork belly and butter. My weight today is exactly what it was 10 years ago, my cholesterol is normal, and my blood pressure is slightly low. My BMI is 26 just in case you think that means I have been overweight for 10 years :-)

    All the healthy eating in the world won't help you if you have a sedentary lifestyle.

    report
    1. Craig Lee

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Joel Mayes

      I agree with you to a certain point... Physical fitness is now showing a greater link to lower the risk of all cause mortality than obesity with regards to prevention of chronic disease / illness. But making healthy food choices is still very beneficial and should not be subordinate when living a healthier lifestyle.

      report
  3. Margo Saunders

    Public Health Policy Researcher

    Lots of valid points raised here (and there are certainly more). The question then becomes one of how these various issues can be addressed. For example, the point about 'eating for pleasure as opposed to treating food as fuel are quite different propositions' certainly resonated -- as this is a key perspective voiced particularly by men, including those who acknowledge that they don't think of 'food' and 'health' in the same sentence and 'wouldn't want to be the type of person who makes food decisions…

    Read more
  4. Seán McNally

    Market and Social Researcher

    Thanks Penny, for all our evils our life expectancy is 82. This doesn't sound likle we have much of a problem. Since the French are a year behind, maybe they should start to emulate our lifestyle :)

    With a young family I've learnt to avoid any attemopt to meet nutritional guideliness, instead we opt for variety and avoid obviouse evils.

    What I've never understood is the measurement of a 'serving'. It strikes me as the most useless measurement ever created. My suggestion is that we give the time taken to burn off the energy or use the nutrients in a resting state for a 'average' person at defined age intervales (adult, teen, pre-teen). This would reflect what we do and lead to the potential classification of 'Not recommended for adult use'.

    report
    1. Penny Wilson

      PhD Researcher at Australian National University

      In reply to Seán McNally

      Indeed and in fact portion size creep could well be a contributing factor to increased waistband size. Have you noticed how huge some of the sandwiches are on the days when you need to buy lunch? And there's not always someone to share your lunch with.

      Thanks for your comment, Seán.

      report
    2. Russell Hamilton

      Librarian

      In reply to Seán McNally

      Our life expectancy might have reached 82, but are those older people the ones who weren't obese in their 40s and spent a lot more of their lives using their muscles to do stuff? Maybe the graph will turn down in a few decades time. And how many of our really old citizens are alive, thanks to our wonderful medications, but barely alive, in nursing homes? I'm not too concerned about how long I live into old age, but I certainly don't want to find myself surviving on kidney dialysis machines, or with some other debilitating condition, before I even get old.

      report
    3. Margo Saunders

      Public Health Policy Researcher

      In reply to Russell Hamilton

      Might be a lot of healthy old ladies. According to an article about how food habits change after retirement, just published in the European Journal of Public Health (A Helldan et al), retired women had healthier food habits than continuously employed women. Among men, however, healthy food habits were not associated with retirement. Although this study looked at people in Finland, the findings are consistent with other studies, including Australian ones, which find that older men, especially those living alone, often need to acquire food-related skills & knowledge.

      report
    4. Russell Hamilton

      Librarian

      In reply to Margo Saunders

      Margo ... sounds right. But once again I wonder if the retired women are an older generation which was used to simple home cooked meals and knows how to prepare them. Will the younger generation of today be satisfied with plain cooking of basic ingredients, and can they do it, and will they have the time for it? If they think that breakfast comes out of a box, probably not.

      report
    5. Penny Wilson

      PhD Researcher at Australian National University

      In reply to Russell Hamilton

      I think that that is one of the problems with the healthy food guidelines, healthy seems to equate with plain. But the reality is that food can be healthy and absolutely delicious. One of the reasons we fall back on convenience foods is because we just don't have the energy or creativity left after a day or week at work to then conjure up something wonderful in the kitchen. But as you say, will people have the skills or not to cook good food regardless of the plethora of cooking programs that fill the screen and cookbooks that fill the shelves?

      Thanks, Margo, I will look up that paper. And just to provide a little extra bit of information: from the WHO report I quoted, the life expectancy for women in Australia in 2009 was 84 while the life expectancy for men was 80. Bring back men's sheds and replace woodwork with foodwork!

      report
  5. Ben Beccari

    Disaster Manager

    I can't remember where I heard this but I try and stick to it:

    Eat Food, not too much, mostly plants.

    report
    1. Geoff Russell

      Computer Programmer, Author

      In reply to Ben Beccari

      It comes from Michael Pollan, on the cover of "In defense of food". It's a pity
      Pollan mixes profound wisdom with so much mumbo jumbo.

      report
    2. Craig Lee

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Geoff Russell

      There are biased points of view in Pollan's books. But his maxim's are very logical and simple. Many people could learn a lot from his 'profound wisdom'

      report
  6. Lisa Hodgson

    Director

    Great article highlighting the difficulties in choosing *real food and the stupidity of dietary guidelines. I've never counted a calorie or a kilojoule. Avoided everything labelled 'low fat' or 'diet' as they have been super processed and have chemical additives that you wouldn't feed your dog. Completely rejected the dietary guidelines during pregnancy as an impossibility to each so much food!

    It's a pretty big stretch of the imagination to call anything that lives on a warehouse or supermarket…

    Read more
  7. Luke Weston

    Physicist / electronic engineer

    It's hard to teach the public how to identify healthy food, and also to identify that food itself is not the only thing that affects health - there are plenty of other lifestyle, environment and genetic factors that affect health.

    It's hard to choose healthy food without being bombarded by "natural" and "organic" food and the naturalistic fallacy and to identify what, if anything, scientifically (almost certainly nothing) these buzzwords actually mean for your health.

    It's hard to choose healthy…

    Read more