WHY DOES FOOD EVEN NEED TECHNOLOGY? New Zealand is facing a crisis of obesity and the diseases that come along with it – particularly diabetes. One-in-three Kiwis are at risk – a number that could easily overwhelm our health system and cripple our workforce. Sounds alarmist? That’s what all the trends point to – nowadays the food we eat kills more people than cigarettes. And in this article I’m going to argue that putting technology in food is partly to blame. My interest in this area began with a book in 2009 called Health Cheque, which included two recommendations relating to food: one, we need to do more to prevent illness; and, two, that the leading cause of most modern illness is food. I’ve never considered myself a foodie, but I’ve always experimented with diet to see what works for me and what doesn’t. This led to a bunch of work culminating in the book Appetite for Destruction which we published in 2013. We found that fake food – the highly processed stuff – is killing us. Essentially you food technologists face a trade-off. Food can generally only be two out of the following three things: healthy, cheap and convenient. Of course, responding to consumer demand you’d choose cheap and convenient, which means health-wise it is crap. To be cheap and convenient it needs to be stripped of its nutrients and jammed full of refi ned sugar, fat, salt and carbohydrates just to give it some fl avour. Frankly we don’t think this junk should be allowed to be called food. It doesn’t nurture us. We call it fake food. Meeting our evolutionary desire for sugary, fatty, salty foods in the cheapest way possible 38 MARCH 2016 is what many of you do. And it is killing us. So what do we do? We are fi ghting an uphill battle against people’s unconscious minds, so change will require a mammoth effort. Education can work for children, and those with the ability and motivation to change. We aren’t doing any of that anywhere near the level required – half of Kiwis are confused about how to eat healthily and let’s be honest, the food industry probably prefers it that way. Your industry could play a massive role in education, and already is in some areas. The healthy star rating needs improving, but it is an excellent start. It needs more widespread uptake and some education on what it actually means – such as less than two stars means it is a treat you should eat once a month. But education will only go so far with the adult population. If we want to make lasting change, tax and regulation will have to be part of the package too. The healthy star rating system could be used to target junk food, then regulate it (such as banning advertising to kids) and tax it (such as a 20% surcharge for starters). But the ultimate aim of all of this is really a cultural revolution. We need to see food as an important part of our family and cultural fabric, as well as nurturing us. We need to stop talking about food as being made up of constituent parts like carbohydrates and phytonutrients, and start talking about real food. Recommended daily intakes for nutrients just confuse people. And hopefully food technology will then become more focussed on healthy rather than cheap and convenient food. We need to acknowledge the limits of what we know and the mistakes we have made. Not so long ago, margarine was going to be our saviour because it would save us from butter, but it turns out the trans fat in margarine was worse. The added fibre in most modern breads is not as good for you as wholegrain bread, yet we don’t even know why. We simply don’t understand food enough to chop it in bits, mess round with it and expect it to be an improvement on what Mother Nature intended. The simple solution for a confused public is to keep it real. Keep it food. Geoff Simmons is an economist and general manager of the Morgan Foundation, set up to inspire public policy debate. O P I N I O N 38 www.foodtechnology.co.nz
FT-mar16-Vol51-2
To see the actual publication please follow the link above