On whole foods: "Make natural or minimally processed foods the basis of your diet.Here are some highlights from an English translation: In 143 pages, the Brazilian health ministry also lays out what may be the most intelligent food guide in the world. They have some of the best electronic medical record coverage in the world, for example, they have family health teams in many of the most remote areas of the country, and they reached their UN millennium development goals early, dramatically reducing infant mortality in the country through a series of creative programs that got moms and babies to be healthier. But it's a fascinating country when it comes to health and it's probably exactly their emerging status that has forced them to be smarter about food and nutrition.īrazil only got universal healthcare in the late 80s, which means they were able to build a system that learned from many of the mistakes other industrialized nations made and have now entrenched. The country has only relatively recently emerged as a global economic force, and under-nutrition is still as much a concern as the rising obesity problem. Brazil is clearly a very different context than America. To fully understand the absurdity of the food situation in America, let's turn back to Brazil. Brazil, where "eating is a natural part of social life" But in 600 pages that essentially do the opposite, that message is lost or at best confused. They say they want people to focus on dietary patterns, not on nutrients and food groups. Interestingly, the panel was also trying to get across the message that people should consume more vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, and less sugar and processed food. In other words, food isn't discussed in terms that relate to how people actually eat or think about how they eat. Overall, the emphasis is on nutrients and specific food groups, not meals. ("Go ahead and make that omelet," the LA Times suggested.) Red meat gets a bit of a beating (a fact some will surely quibble with given the evidence that suggests red meat in moderation is just fine for many of us). In the new recommendations, for example, the panel suggests that we can now embrace cholesterol-laden fare like eggs after years of shunning and that coffee and moderate alcohol can be part of a healthy diet. Reading through the new document that'll feed into the forthcoming US dietary guidelines, you stumble on phrases like "shortfall nutrients," "overconsumed nutrients", and "nutrients of public health concern." There are good foods and enemy foods. The approach is so refreshing that it has attracted praise from critics like Marion Nestle and Yoni Freedhoff, and when you contrast the Brazilian method with the American way it's not hard to understand why. Instead, they focus on meals and encourage citizens to simply cook whole foods at home, and to be critical of the seductive marketing practices of Big Food.įrom a presentation from a Brazilian nutrition who helped shape the country's new food guidelines. They don't jam foods into pyramids or child-like plates. Their national guidelines don't dwell on nutrients, calories, or weight loss. Food is removed from the context of family and society and taken into the lab or clinic.īrazil, on the other hand, does exactly the opposite. They take a rather punitive approach to food, reducing it to its nutrient parts and emphasizing its relationship to obesity. These guidelines only come out every five years, and they matter because they truly set the tone for how Americans eat: they're used by doctors and nutritionists to guide patient care, by schools to plan kids' lunches, and to calculate nutrition information on every food package you pick up, to name just a few areas of impact.īut this panel and their guidelines too often over-complicate what we know about healthy eating. Yesterday, a US-government appointed scientific panel released a 600-page report that will inform America's new dietary guidelines. And you only need to look as far as Brazil to understand why. The way we talk about nutrition in this country is absurd.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |