Currently browsing posts about: Nutrients

I wondered what this headline from FoodNavigator-Europe meant:

Nutritional dark matter: The next frontier in food science: The discovery of ‘nutritional dark matter’ is unlocking new paths for smarter food innovation, targeted health benefits, and precision nutrition… Read more

I went right to it:

What is Nutritional Dark Matter? A summary of key insights

• Nutritional databases track only 150 of 26,000+ food compounds
• Most food chemicals remain unstudied but may impact human health
• Poor nutrition causes one in five adult deaths worldwide
• Foodomics links diet to genes, microbes, and disease mechanisms
• Industry must adapt to new science shaping future food innovation

As for foodomics, this term “brings together genomics (the role of genes), proteomics (proteins), metabolomics (cell activity) ad nutrigenomics (the interaction of genes and diet.”

Translation

• “Dark matter” refers to the chemicals in food that have not (yet?) been identified as essential to the human diet but might have physiological functions.
• “Foodomics” explains how all that might work.

Bottom line: While waiting for the scientists to investigate “dark matter,” the implications of the concept for dietary advice are obvious: Eat whole foods, processed as minimally as possible.

But we already knew that.

If I wore a hat it would be off to the authors of this astonishing paper: “Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products.”

They used public databases to rank food products by a combination of nutritional and four environmental factors: greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water stress, and eutrophication potential.

Their overall conclusion: more nutritious foods are more environmentally sustainable (whew), but with some caveats.

The paper has interesting illustrations.  Here’s one that correlates the nutritional value of sausages to their environmental impact.  Vegan sausages are the most nutritious and have the least environmental impact; beef sausages are least nutritious by the criteria used here and the greatest environmental impact.

We can argue about the criteria used to establish nutritional quality and environmental impact and the way the algorithm works, but what an ambitious project!

At the very least, it’s a useful starting point.

Lots of people are interested in the environmental implications of food production and consumption.  See the latest paper from the group at Deakin University in Australia: “A conceptual framework for understanding the environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods and implications for sustainable food systems.”

This review found that UPFs are responsible for significant diet-related environmental impacts. Included studies reported that UPFs accounted for between 17 and 39% of total diet-related energy use, 36–45% of total diet-related biodiversity loss, up to one-third of total diet-related greenhouse gas emissions, land use and food waste and up to one-quarter of total diet-related water-use among adults in a range of high-income countries.

What all of this says is that basic dietary advice to eat a largely (not necessarily exclusively) plant-based diet, balanced in calories. and avoiding much in the way of ultra-processed foods is not only best for health, but also for the environment.

Nutritionism is a term coined by the Australian sociologist, Gyorgy Scrinis, and popularized by Michael Pollan.  It means reducing the value of a food to its content of specific nutrients.

This General Mills cereal advertisement is a perfect illustration of how nutritionism works.

Here is one of the six examples:

Chocolate Chex has more iron than black beans?

This may be a true statement, but it is misleading.

What General Mills is not saying is:

• Whether  iron is absorbed from Chocolate Chex as efficiently as it is from black beans.
• What nutrients are in black beans that do not appear in Chocolate Chex.
• How much sugar Chocolate Chex provides as compared to black beans.
• Which of these foods is better for your health.

Hence: Nutritionism.