Skip to main content

Tag: nutrition faculty

Have All Our Foods Become Fake Foods?

In Michael Pollan’s book he suggests that we lost control of what is in our foods and now we have stores full of fake foods or food-like products. Hence he called the book in defense of (these real) foods.

As a food scientist I feel that some clarification of the actual situation is needed regarding his claim. In the US we have federal standards of identity (CFR – Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 for a wide range of food products including categories such as: Milk and cream, Canned fruits, Bottled Water, Canned vegetables, Food dressings and flavorings, Chocolate products, Cheeses, Cereals and flours, Frozen desserts, Bakery products, etc. Fruits and vegetables are not included in these standards. Standards of identity define what a given food product is, its name, and the ingredients that must or may be used in the manufacture of that food. Food standards ensure that consumers get what they expect when they purchase certain food products. For example, to be called Ice Cream a product must be made from cream (derived from milk) and not some other fat source (e.g. vegetable oils). These food standards prescribe aspects such as the minimum amounts of certain ingredients; maximum fat and water contents and methods of processing or preparation. It is not correct of Pollan to suggest in his book that yogurt is now made with hydrogenated fat. The only type of fat that can be used in yogurt according to its standard (21 CFR Part 131.200) is milk fat. Pollan is correct in his comment that many ingredients are now added to some foods that were probably not in these products back in the 1980s. Much of these concern “nutrients” added to foods to improve its nutritional profile, e.g. cholesterol-lowering plant sterols which is an FDA approved claim (21 CFR 101.83). The FDA allows several types of claims to be made on foods, these are (a) health claims that meet significant scientific agreement (e.g. that plant sterols can reduce cholesterol claim), (b) qualified health claims (e.g., some limited evidence supporting the claim but not considered conclusive by the FDA) and (c) nutrient content claims (the usage of terms like lowfat, lean, etc. See the FDA website for more details.

The addition of nutrients and the inclusion of “claims” is of course largely driven by marketing (to increase sales). If you, as a consumer, do not want Omega-3s in a food product, then just don’t purchase it. Most of the new food products that are introduced each year fail and are withdrawn within a short period and of course, companies that want to stay in business, will launch another product to take its place. The important point is food products, that are regulated by a standard of identity (and most “traditional” foods have standards while novelties like Twinkies do not), still have to comply with the requirements of that standard even if the manufacturer wants to add some additional nutrient like Omega-3 to the product. I would recommend anyone interested in the ingredients or nutrients permitted in our foods to visit the FDA website ( Anytime that the FDA considers changing a standard (or regulation) for a food, you as a consumer can post your comment on this website and this comment will be considered by FDA before any change is made. I just do not understand the view that adding a nutrient (e.g. vitamin D) to a traditional food like breakfast cereal somehow makes it an inferior quality product! I agree, however, that just because a food is called lowfat does not make it a very healthy product if it contained lots of calories from carbohydrate! I do not believe there is reasonable evidence to conclude that all our foods have become fake foods although many consumers are confused about the claims and labels on foods.

Although it is obviously not what Pollan believes in his personal manifesto, the comprehensive food standards we have in the US are envied (and often used as a reference) in many other part of the World.

Professor John A. Lucey
Department of Food Science
University of Wisconsin-Madison

A Food Chemist’s Perspective on “In Defense of Food”

See Dr. John A. Lucey’s complete commentary posted in the Resources Section of the Web site.

In reading Michael Pollan’s thought-provoking book, I was struck by his mostly negative impressions of food science and food processing. The food scientists that I work with here in this department, in industry and in my classes, are highly creative people that are driven by a passion for food or cooking. Food science serves several critically important functions or roles in our society. Firstly, with the shift in population from rural to urban areas, food science has provided the means to feed consumers who no longer have the opportunity to grow their own crops or tend their own animals, much of the population no longer has the time (or passion) to prepare traditional home-cooked meals each day as more housewives have joined the work force and food science has developed a range of ready to eat meals or food that require less preparation time. Food scientists study how to preserve foods during transport or storage, they study what organisms might grow on these foods and develop methods to destroy those organisms that pose a danger to consumers and they explore how to maintain the quality of the food that the consumer expects. In the US there are 300 million people to feed each and every day and food scientists have played a major role in ensuring that there is sufficient food (although not everyone is able to afford all food choices) and that these products are safe to eat. Food scientists have saved countless lives by developing many technologies and approaches to improving food safety. Food or food-like products (and the industry that produces them) were unfairly blamed by Pollan for our current health problems. The argument that food alone causes these health issues is not a balanced discussion as critical factors like lifestyle and our level of activity were ignored. Anyone that has watched reality programs like The Biggest Loser realizes that reversing excessive weight gain for an individual involves reducing the number of calories consumed, changing their lifestyle, having emotional support, and increasing their level of activity or exercise. Ultimately, it is the consumer that makes the choice on what to eat and how much they are willing to pay for food; blaming the government, nutritionists or food scientists for our purchasing decisions is easy (but unfair) and it also avoids us taking responsibility for our actions. Many individuals fail to stay on a particular diet not because those “healthy” foods suddenly become unavailable but they fail because of factors like not addressing their overall lifestyle and level of activity. To put things very simply, if we consume more calories than we need (and it does not matter to our bodies whether these calories come from carbohydrates or fat), then the body will start to store these extra calories (as fat). We have two choices, consume fewer calories or burn the extra calories by performing some activity/exercise. Unfortunately, when I look around I see more opportunities for individuals to be more sedentary. As a society we have to include this trend towards a sedentary lifestyle in our conversation about our health and wellness. Governmental nutritional policy has for decades recommended eating more fruits and vegetables (5 servings or more per day); unfortunately many people do not follow this advice. The main thing I hope most people took away from reading Michael Pollan’s book was the encouragement to eat more fruits and vegetables. In conclusion, we need to remember that he makes it clear that this book is “his manifesto” or opinions concerning food, with this Go Big Read program we can all share our opinions on this important topic.

Dr John A. Lucey
Department of Food Science
University of Wisconsin-Madison