[ Home ] [ Dietary Supplements or Functional Foods ] [ Darwinian Medicine ] [ Adaptation & Darwinian Medicine ] [ TGA & the Pan Crisis ] [ Pan Crisis ] [ Health Trends ] [ Medical Rationing ] [ Do Not Resuscitate ] [ Alternative Medicine Takeover ] [ Holistic or Reductionist? ] [ Orthodox Medicine ] [ Science Today, Quackery Tomorrow ] [ Integrated Medicine ] [ Medical Bias ] [ Health Topics ] [ Hypophobia ] [ Nutrition Breakthroughs ] [ Nutrition & Megavitamins ]

Defining Health Foods, Food Faddists & Quacks.

Defining Health Foods, Food Faddists & Quacks.

Standard nutrition texts point out firstly that a "fad" is a (1) "fashion of the moment, here today, gone tomorrow." This was also stressed by Wardlaw and Insel (2): "the word fad is actually a shortened version of fiddle-faddle, which means to play with and then cast aside." The problem with this definition however, is that it relegates most nutritionists, doctors and scientists to the status of food faddists since their ideas about food are driven by constantly changing scientific 'discoveries'. This contrasts very sharply indeed with the unchanging stability of the belief in the superiority of natural, wholegrain or unprocessed food, a common sense belief held by many health conscious consumers for generations even in spite of the erratic changes in scientific beliefs.

Robinson (1) has claimed that food fads are characterised by a false belief that "certain foods have specific properties in promoting health or curing disease" whereas the truth, according to Robinson (1), is that "no single food has a unique health-giving property." This has been repeated by Olsen (3) who describes references to 'good' and 'bad' food as "ancient mythology":

A similar theme was echoed by Herbert and Kasdan (4) who claim that food faddists use "buzzwords" such as "natural" and "antioxidant":

The problem with these ideas is that they are now very much outdated because science now generally accepts the importance of antioxidants and science has also become aware that many natural foods, such as bran and yoghurt, do in fact have unique health promoting or disease preventing properties, as we shall see later. In fact, according to Mellentin (5), the food industry is now using "science to develop foods which are basically magic bullets." It is alarming to note that the definitions previously provided by scientists and nutrition experts seem to indicate that their own teachings could now be regarded as food faddism or quackery, a vitally important fact since these authoritative teachings formed the basis for the beliefs of many past and present nutritionists. Is it true that the beliefs of many nutritionists are sheer quackery? Are the beliefs of nutritionists, doctors, and scientists, consistent over time, or are they merely fads which fly by night, fashions of the moment - here today, gone tomorrow?

Food faddism has recently been defined somewhat differently by Kasai who claims that (6) "food faddism is an exaggerated belief in the impact of food and nutrition on health and disease. Food faddists insist that food and nutrition are more significant than science has established." According to this definition anyone who believes what science believes, even if it is incorrect, cannot be a food faddist. This obviously contradicts the traditional definition of food faddism as taught by nutrition experts like Robinson (1) and it overlooks the fundamental definition of a fad which I outlined above (1,2). According to Kasai food faddism is defined by its fundamental inconsistency with the beliefs of science, but this makes no mention of any consistency of these beliefs over time. Since the belief in natural foods, though traditionally out of step with science, has been much more consistent over time than the nutritional beliefs of doctors and scientists, it seems that according to Kasai the more stable and consistent beliefs of those who believe in natural foods are fads whereas the much more inconsistent ever changing views of scientists are not fads or fashions of the moment. According to Kasai it seems, those people who believed in the advantages of natural foods before science had vindicated this belief, were still food faddists even though time has ultimately proven them correct. So food faddists may be 100% correct in their beliefs, the important fact seems to be that science has not yet discovered they are correct.

Perhaps the matter has been best summarised by Ware (7) who draws attention to the traditional medical belief that the only nutritional deficiency diseases which were possible were the so called classical deficiency diseases such as beri beri, pellagra, scurvy, and rickets. When these diseases were discovered it seems, virtually the entire scientific world completely closed their minds to the possibility of any other nutritional deficiency diseases and regarded any other use of supplements as "fads" (7):

Some nutritionists, even today, still express the traditional view that (8) "provided you eat a varied diet, including five portions of fruit or vegetables a day, your body doesn’t need extra help from a supplement." However, this view is slowly changing as there is increasing awareness of the genetic nutritional individuality of people (9,10), and increasing evidence that many people need an increased dose of certain nutrients in order to maintain optimum health and prevent chronic diseases like heart disease and cancer (7,11,12,13; see also Nutrition Breakthroughs, Nutrition and Megavitamins, B Vitamins, Nutrition is For the Birds). As a result of these trends experts increasingly acknowledge the potential health benefits of supplements (7,11,12,13; see also Nutrition Breakthroughs, Nutrition and Megavitamins, B Vitamins, Nutrition is For the Birds). However, traditional attitudes change slowly. In the year 2000 for instance, prominent nutritionist Rosemary Stanton discouraged the use of supplements (14):

But 7 years later Stanton seemed rather more open minded about the possible benefits of supplements (15): "you can't make a blanket statement that supplements are either good or bad," says nutritionist Dr Rosemary Stanton. "It depends on the particular vitamin or mineral (or combinations of them), the level of the dose and whether or not the recipient really needs a supplement." Of course the prevailing attitude in mainstream medicine and nutrition for most of the 20th century that 'we have absolutely no idea what is causing the increasing global epidemic of chronic diseases but we know that nutrition and supplements definitely will not help', has always been somewhat lacking in simple logic and common sense. These changing attitudes regarding supplements are therefore long overdue.

As is also clear from the teachings of traditional nutritionists, belief in "health foods" or foods with superior nutritional or health promoting qualities, like the use of supplements, has long been regarded as quackery or  faddism. According to Robinson for instance (1), "products sold by the nutrition quack are dispensed through health food stores." McBean and Speckman (16) list "health foods" at the top of their list of five different types of food faddism:

1. Health Foods
2. Organically Grown Foods
3. Natural Foods
4. Zen Macrobiotic Diet
5. Vegetarianism

According to McBean and Speckman (16), health foods may be described thus: "foods reported to possess health-giving curative properties beyond the expected nutritive qualities. Regulatory agencies have deemed this term misleading as it implies that conventional foods are not as healthful." These workers claim that (16) "man requires specific nutrients, not specific food items." In other words, the assumption here is that man's nutritional requirements can be precisely defined by scientific knowledge about individual nutrients at any point in time or scientific development. Prior to the discovery of vitamin B12 for instance, the suggestion that vitamin B12 containing foods possessed special health benefits for the B12 deficient person would have been regarded as quackery and would have been denounced vigorously by doctors, scientists, and nutritionists. Scientists believed that all that was necessary for proper nutrition was the adequate consumption of what were known at that time as the essential nutrients and they therefore considered it impossible to obtain any benefit from any food containing yet to be discovered nutrients. In other words, scientists considered at that time that their knowledge of nutrition had already attained the level of perfection and their was nothing more to learn about micronutrients (Science Today, Quackery Tomorrow).

In those days the the consumption of top quality foods or health foods was a matter of such grave concern that the following warning appeared in the American Journal of Public Health in 1952 (17):

Of the other types of food faddism described by McBean and Speckman (16), organic foods (18) and vegetarianism are also now known to be very healthy forms of faddism (19):

As has been pointed out by Rosemary Stanton, it is time to support organic farming rather than condemn it (20):

 The term health food then, can be defined thus: a food which is natural, pure, and unadulterated and which, as far as possible, has had none of its nutritive or health promoting constituents removed, altered or degraded, and which therefore has maximum health benefits for the consumer.

Health Foods & Vitamins - Strictly for Quacks & Food Faddists.

In spite of the optimism of the World Bank regarding the enormous potential health benefits of vitamins and minerals, it is clear that for the past century, in the real world, those who sold, promoted, or consumed, health foods or vitamins have been scornfully dismissed as food faddists or quacks (1,2,6,16; see also But Isn't Holistic Medicine Just Quackery?, The Birth of Modern Science and the Death of Common Sense) by mainstream medicine and nutrition. It is indeed interesting to note that Maberly has chosen to cite the above World Bank paper regarding malnutrition in the third world to justify the addition of folic acid to flour in Australia and New Zealand.

It is a tragedy that so often today money and profits rather than public health considerations and compassion are the driving force behind health reforms. As has recently been pointed out by the World Bank (21): "micronutrient deficiency -- the lack of proper vitamins and minerals in diet -- is a hidden epidemic that leads to low birth weight, impaired cognitive development, impaired immunity, and compromised life expectancy. These concealed outcomes have a disastrous effect on human capital, which is a key to improving both individual lives and to fostering the growth of national economies." According to Tekefi and Jarvis (22): "in terms of markets, consumer purchasing power is directly correlated to earning power, which is, in turn, linked to education. If children are unable to adequately learn because of the health impacts of chronic vitamin and mineral deficiency, the potential for them to earn more as adults, and consequently spend more, is diminished. This trend has a long-term bearing on the demand for goods and the potential for growing markets in developing countries."

While one would hope that public health initiatives would have rectified simple nutritional disorders long before business even becomes aware of the economic consequences of malnutrition, sadly this is not the case. And although the above concerns expressed by the World Bank relate primarily to developing countries it is clear that the same attitudes exist in Western countries, and there is also an increasing awareness through recent breakthroughs in nutrition, that Western countries too are far from immune to these nutritional problems (Nutrition Breakthroughs, Nutrition and Megavitamins, B Vitamins, Nutrition is For the Birds, The Folic Acid Lesson, Doctors Discover Malnutrition in the Elderly.....Again, Experts say dietary supplements may save $billions in health care costs!!).

While economists and business leaders continue to express concern about the enormous costs of malnutrition, traditionally those in the conventional mainstream health care industry have considered it necessary to resort to name calling and derogatory terms to describe persons who sold or consumed health foods or vitamins. They apparently considered it insufficient to  simply correct the misguided perceptions of those who were unaware of the alleged 'scientific facts' confirming the unimportance of nutrition. Scientists had confirmed the importance of drugs by double blind trials (Medical Evidence or Medical Ignorance?) and yet there were still those who persisted with their wild and scientifically unproven ideas that nutrition was somehow related to health. After scientists carefully developed ways of removing 'unnecessary' vitamins and other nutrients from foods with advanced food processing techniques, some consumers even sought to 'reassemble' or restore these foods by purchasing removed constituents from health food stores, apparently believing that the 'whole' or 'natural' food possessed nutritional health benefits which were superior to processed foods. Of course this was considered quackery or food faddism because scientists claimed they knew all the nutrients necessary for human health and the processed foods contained just the right amount of each nutrient for everyone. Even in 1986 Robinson and colleagues stated in their authoritative nutrition text (1a): "a second danger of food faddism is economic. About $1.5 billion is spent annually for 'natural', 'organic', and 'health foods.' Such foods are neither more nor less nutritious than their counterparts available in supermarkets." Of course at that time the supermarkets did not stock the range of health food shop products they do today, but this change has been bought about by consumers, certainly not health authorities or doctors.

For the past century almost the entire scientific world displayed a determination to persecute, insult or condemn anyone who dared to suggest that micronutrients and health foods could have special health benefits.

This attitude was based upon an absolute preoccupation with pharmaceutical drugs combined with the arrogant belief that following the discovery of the classical vitamin deficiency diseases scientists new all that there was to know about the health benefits of micronutrients (Nutrition and Megavitamins, Nutrition is for the Birds). For most of the 20th century virtually the entire scientific world believed that the only use of vitamins in foods was to prevent the classical deficiency diseases such as rickets, pellagra, beri-beri, and scurvy, diseases which scientists previously thought were caused by infections because of their preoccupation with microbes following the discoveries of Pasteur (23). Beyond this vitamins had no use whatsoever (Nutrition and Megavitamins, Nutrition is for the Birds). According to this belief it was not possible to have a sub clinical or chronic vitamin deficiency disease since any vitamin deficiency would result in one of the full blown classical deficiency diseases (Nutrition and Megavitamins, Nutrition is for the Birds). It was also considered impossible for food to contain other as yet undiscovered health promoting micronutrients since scientists arrogantly believed they knew all there was to know about micronutrients. The bottom line according to modern science was, it is absolutely impossible for anyone to benefit from any micronutrient in foods if they did not have one of the fully developed classical deficiency diseases. Difficult though it may be to believe, these simplistic primitive attitudes formed the fundamental basis of medicine's attitude to nutrition for almost 100 years.

Given medicine's constantly changing beliefs however, they should have known that perfection in nutritional knowledge was a very long way away indeed. (Science Today, Quackery Tomorrow, Nutrition and Megavitamins, Nutrition is for the Birds). Indeed, as has recently been pointed out by Rosemary Stanton in regard to nutrition and GM foods (20), we "should be humbled by our lack of knowledge" (20):

It was not until the last decade of the 20th century that modern science and medicine could no longer ignore their ignorance about nutrition and the accumulating evidence that other micronutrient deficiency diseases were possible apart from the classical deficiency diseases (Mainstream Medicine Plays the Catch-up Game, The Folic Acid Lesson). In February of 1992 a revolution in medicine and nutrition began as virtually the entire scientific world began to attempt to reverse their false and simplistic notions about nutrition with a conference held by the New York Academy of Sciences entitled (24), "Beyond Deficiency: New Views on the Functions and Health Effects of Vitamins". As I have stated previously (Mainstream Medicine Plays the Catch-up Game):

The folic acid story (The Folic Acid Lesson) played a fundamental part in the resurgence of nutrition because it proved that women whom doctors considered nutritionally normal (ie. they did not suffer from any of the classical deficiency diseases, including folic acid deficiency anemia), could give birth to deformed babies and yet these deformities could be largely prevented by adequate nutrition. This has proved an exceedingly difficult lesson for the scientific world and a very costly and tragic lesson for public health. It underlined the incredible nutritional naivety of virtually the entire scientific world.

But to reverse the false and primitive nutrition beliefs of the previous 90 years was a mammoth task indeed and one of the primary considerations for the scientific world was that they somehow avoid the humiliation of losing face. Somehow they must covertly embrace the teachings of scientists like Roger Williams, Linus Pauling and Abram Hoffer while at the same time avoiding the embarassment of admitting that virtually the entire scientific world had been teaching quackery for nearly 100 years. They could never concede that these scientists were teaching the truth although mainstream medicine condemned this truth as quackery (Nutrition & Megavitamins).

Whereas scientists like Roger Williams spoke of all kinds of nutritional deficiency diseases beyond the classical deficiency diseases recognised by medicine (Nutrition & Megavitamins), medicine sought to avoid dignifying such beliefs which they previously regarded as quackery by stating during the 1992 conference that micronutrients had suddenly been discovered to have effects "beyond deficiency"(11,24,25,26). In other words nutrients were having some drug like effects as distinct from nutritive effects (Nutrition & Megavitamins). More recently however, the fact that these effects were in fact nutritive effects resulting from nutrient deficiencies became more indisputable as scientists continued their research into the human genome. This research revealed the individual nature of nutritional needs with many people being shown to have a genetically increased need for certain vitamins (Nutrition Breakthroughs, Nutrition & Megavitamins), a discovery made by Roger Williams, but regarded as quackery by modern medicine, almost 50 years earlier (9,23; see also Nutrition & Megavitamins). Although Williams pioneered the terms "biochemical individuality" and "genetotrophic concept" to describe this genetic nutritional uniqueness (9,23; Nutrition & Megavitamins), once again scientists chose to avoid using these terms and so they invented the new term "nutrigenomics" to describe their discovery of the concepts taught by Roger Williams 50 years earlier.

Interestingly, although the concept of optimum cellular nutrition and the potential health benefits of ensuring all the cells in the body are supplied with optimum amounts of nutrients was central to the work of Roger Williams 50 years ago (13,13a; see also Nutrition & Megavitamins), this idea was rejected by a drug obsessed medical profession who thought vitamins were only useful for beri beri, pellagra, and scurvy. In spite of this, remarkably, according to Bendich during her memorial tribute to Lawrence Machlin in 2001 (27): "Larry Machlin epitomized the very best in nutrition research because he used his position in industry to guide and nurture exploration in the new field that he called 'optimal nutrition'."  It is an absolute tragedy that Roger Williams has never been given the widespread credit he deserves for his pioneering work in nutrition from a medical community which totally abandoned nutrition and regarded any suggestion that nutrition was related to health as quackery. Although Williams continued researching nutrition after medicine had all but abandoned the field, discovering pantothenic acid and naming folic acid (Nutrition & Megavitamins), according to Machlin (28) "vitamin research appeared to languish" following elimination of the classical deficiency diseases. As I have stated previously however (Mainstream Medicine Plays the Catch-up Game):

Following the 1992 conference evidence of the health promoting and disease preventing effects of nutrition and natural whole foods, or health foods, has continued to accumulate so that even many of the more biased of medical scientists now accept the tremendous potential of the health food industry (Nutrition Breakthroughs, Nutrition & Megavitamins). As was noted during the European Academy of Nutritional Sciences Workshop in 1997 entitled "Functions of Vitamins Beyond Recommended Dietary Allowances" (29):

Of course reference to such scientifically meaningless terms as the "basic needs of vitamins" and "classical vitamin deficiencies" merely serves to disguise the traditional ignorance of science regarding the full extent of nutritional effects. When for instance does a vitamin need cease to be basic? And when is a vitamin deficiency non-classical?

Food Standards Australia has recently indicated that the trend now is towards what they term "appropriate nutrition", apparently believing that the practice of nutrition in the past was inappropriate (30):

Although Roger Williams expressed his concern about medical scientists neglect of nutrition in cancer research more than three decades ago in a presentation he made to Congress (Nutrition & Megavitamins), his views, and his research revealing the importance of cellular nutrition in cancer research, were dismissed by a drug obsessed medical profession. Now however, with estimates that up to 50% of cancers and 50% of cardiovascular diseases are diet related (31), it has been estimated that (32) "about 25 000 different chemical compounds occur in fruits, vegetables and other plants eaten by man" and "more than 500 compounds have been identified as potential modifiers of the cancer process." It is hardly surprising that Milner has stressed the importance of nutrition and health foods in the current climate of the expanding knowledge of nutrition (32): "unquestionably, strategies that optimize nutrition by the use of foods or supplements are highly commendable and considered by many to be appropriate for improving the overall quality of life."

Medicine's disinterest in nutrition is hardly surprising given the fact that medical science, in stark contrast to alternative medicine, is devoted to the study of disease rather than optimum health and wellness, a point I have made elsewhere (Nutrition and Megavitamins, Orthodox Medicine, Integrated Medicine, Darwinian Medicine). In fact, this fundamental difference between orthodox medicine and alternative medicine was emphasised during the White House Commission on Alternative Medicine in 2001 which conceded that medicine's traditional disgraceful disinterest in health and wellness is such that (33), "wellness and health promotion have, for the most part, been left to the initiative and discretion of the individual." Of course, as I have already stated, attempts by individuals to maintain health and wellness with health foods and supplements have traditionally been vigorously condemned by doctors who even resorted to personal insults to prevent such a practice.

In view of the enormous potential of nutrition there remains a huge problem for the pharmaceutical industry; how can drug companies capitalise on the enormous potential of nutrition and health foods when intensive efforts by scientists around the world to reduce the holistic benefits of nutrition to a single magic pill have been a complete failure (34)? If drug companies are to continue to flourish they must be able to reproduce, concentrate, and monopolise, the enormous benefits of nutrition and health foods in the products they produce. If they cannot meet this challenge then drug companies face the possibility of a continuing decline in profits (35,36) as the revolution in nutrition and natural foods leaves them behind. But pharmaceutical companies are already cashing in on the new health foods or functional foods (5).

Let us see what the medico-pharmaceutical juggernaut is doing to meet this challenge.

From Nutrients to Nutraceuticals, from Health Foods to Functional Foods, & from the Genetotrophic Concept to Nutrigenomics - new names as science endorses quackery.

In order to embrace accumulating evidence of the enormous potential health benefits of vitamins and health foods without losing face medical science had to invent new names for 'nutrients' and 'health foods' which for so long they had described as quackery and faddism. The same is true for the concepts of genetic nutrition and personalised nutrition due to increased need for one or more nutrients, and the importance of optimum nutrition at the cellular level. Pioneers of nutrition such as Roger Williams and Linus Pauling have used terms such as orthomolecular nutrition, optimum nutrition, biochemical individuality and the genetotrophic concept to describe these concepts which have only just been discovered by mainstream medicine.
 

Nutrients Rediscovered as Nutraceuticals

The term 'nutraceutical' was developed in 1989 because of medicine's growing awareness of the health promoting effects of foods and food constituents and to establish a clear link between 'nutrients' and 'pharmaceuticals' (37,38,39). Although initially the term nutraceutical referred to (37) "a food (or part of a food) that provides medical or health benefits, including the prevention and/or treatment of a disease" and therefore included both foods and food constituents, this was later changed so that a nutraceutical today is regarded as a food constituent as distinct from a whole food (40,41). According to the Nutraceuticals Institute for instance (41): "nutraceuticals (often referred to as phytochemicals or functional foods) are natural, bioactive chemical compounds that have health promoting, disease preventing or medicinal properties." Such a definition is also embraced by Health Canada although it seems that no one is really clear on precisely what a nutraceutical is (42):

While the experts who are more concerned about names struggle to create a new definition for those constituents of foods which have a nourishing, health promoting effect, until the scientific difference between a nutraceutical and a nutrient has been scientifically clarified, I will use the old fashioned term 'nutrients' even though it may not be so popular with pharmaceutical companies. A nutrient (or nutraceutical) is after all, a (41) a natural, bioactive chemical compound that has health promoting, disease preventing or medicinal properties", irrespective of how it is sold. A nutrient nourishes. A nutraceutical nourishes. A pharmaceutical does not.

Nutraceuticals and functional foods are already exceedingly profitable (37) but as (41) "the newly merged pharmaceutical/agribusiness/nutrition conglomerates" emerge we can see a wonderful future with purple carrots, wood pulp in margarine, fish oil in ice cream, and many foods genetically altered (5,20,39,43,44,45). The wonderful new 'foods' which are emerging include (5,46,47,48,49,50): orange flavoured drink for heart disease, Oh Mama bars fortified with folate, Vita Ball vitamin gum balls, Joint Juice with glucosamine, Right Direction Chocolate Chip Cookies with soluble fibre and plant sterols to lower cholesterol, and Simply Nutritious Mega Green and Mega Antioxidant drinks.

Just as modern science made herbs more toxic by concentrating and purifying them so they now wish to do the same to nutrients.

Health Foods or Functional Junk Foods With Added Nutrients?

These were the startling words of Adelle Davis 40 years ago (51), often regarded as a quack or faddist by mainstream medicine although now it seems that it was her detractors who were the real quacks. Scientists are only now starting to acknowledge the threat posed by hydrogenated trans fats which (52) "may be responsible for between 30,000 and 100,000 premature coronary deaths per year in the United States", and may also lead to blindness (53). It is an absolute tragedy that mainstream medicine and nutrition could not see what was happening until 40 years after she made these statements.

The whole story of hydrogenated fats and trans fats is another massive nutritional mistake which has been relegated to the dustbin of history although many will continue to suffer and pay the price for years to come. Man made trans fats, which are now considered the worst type of dietary fat, being worse than saturated fat (54,55,56), were an invention of food technologists which was aimed at making food more marketable by improving taste and texture and acting as a preservative (54,55,56). Nutritionists even thought trans fats possessed the same health benefits as natural vegetable oils and they were benefiting the health of consumers by using this man made fat instead of saturated fat (54,56), a belief which should be of grave concern to those who are very vocal about quackery. The hydrogenation of oils grew into a (57) "15 million tonnes per year business" as these products were used to produce (57) margarines and other foods, industrial lubricants, cosmetics, soaps and fabric softeners. As food technologists removed natural food constituents from our foods such as vitamins, they also added toxic products such as trans fats and other chemicals.

While the words of Adelle Davis were dismissed as quackery by a drug obsessed medical profession 40 years ago, similar sentiments have recently been expressed by renowned nutrition scientist Professor Bruce Ames (13):

Ames concludes (13):

Of course if he had said these words a few decades ago he would likely have been labeled a quack or food faddist and suffered the consequences!

The 'need' for nutrient rich foods clearly stems from our nutrient poor diets and the catastrophic failure of our health care system with a never ending spiral in the incidence of chronic diseases (Health Trends, Global Trends in Health Care). Foods containing the same micronutrients that are available in commonly available dietary supplements in health food stores (58) are being seen as the potential saviour of our health care system (23,59,60). According to Guesry (59), "‘Functional Food’ is not a new concept but it became more important recently due to the collapse of most social health systems because ‘Functional Foods’ allow low cost prevention of numerous diseases." Similarly, in the words of Aart Jan de Heer (23), "in societies with high health care costs, functional food is a promising concept. Functional food is expected to prevent a great deal of modern life style diseases, and to enable consumers to self-care, thus diminishing the increase of public health care expenditures."

The fact that the nutrients which were dismissed as quackery by scientists and nutritionists throughout the world only a few years ago are now seen as the possible saviour of our health care system represents an amazing revolutionary reversal in medical thinking. Significantly, as politicians, scientists and food manufacturers pave the way for addition of health promoting dietary supplements to foods, simultaneously governments are working towards restricting the retail availability of these same health promoting dietary supplements which have the potential to save our ailing health care system (Australian Government Seeks to Control Supplements in NZ, The FDA in America, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Codex in Australia, Pan Crisis & Future of Alternative Medicines, Pan Crisis, Nutrition Breakthroughs).

The term 'functional food' clearly has (32) "arisen from a general belief in the health benefits of foods" and therefore refers to those foods which are considered to be especially beneficial (42,61,62,63,64,65,66), although, like the term nutraceutical, no one seems to know exactly what a functional food is (42,61,67). As has been pointed out however (32), all foods have health benefits and therefore all foods are functional, facts which have been known to the Chinese for thousands of years (59,68). Yoghurt for instance, is now claimed as a functional food (58,59,68,69) though nutritionists previously regarded the alleged health benefits of yoghurt as food faddism (70). People have been experiencing the benefits of yoghurt for hundreds if not thousands of years but they did not realise they were consuming a yet to be discovered functional food!

Put simply, functional foods are considered to be those foods which (62,63) "may provide a health benefit beyond basic nutrition," although the term 'basic nutrition', which implies there are different levels and degrees of nutrition, still awaits precise definition. According to the Dietitians Association of Australia, functional foods may be defined thus (64):

The Dietitians Association of Australia continue (64):

Of course the "new and exciting way" referred to by the association is simply the nourishing of people by providing nutrients, even if they are so called non-traditional nutrients.

Similarly, according to Health Canada (42): "a functional food is similar in appearance to, or may be, a conventional food, is consumed as part of a usual diet, and is demonstrated to have physiological benefits and/or reduce the risk of chronic disease beyond basic nutritional functions." And in the words of Food Standards Australia functional foods are (63,69) “...similar in appearance to conventional foods and intended to be consumed as part of a normal diet, but modified to serve physiological roles beyond the provision of simple nutrient requirements."

The confusion about the definition of the terms 'functional foods'  and 'nutraceuticals' is indeed strange. It seems the names have been developed before the substances or concepts have been defined, perhaps this is a new trend in science. So desperate are attempts to define the term functional food and distinguish such foods from normal foods that resort is repeatedly given to the use of vague meaningless terms such as "basic nutritional functions" or "simple nutrient requirements".   But how can functional food be defined by the use of terms which themselves are indefinable and scientifically meaningless? What for instance is a "simple nutrient" and how are such nutrients distinguished from non-simple nutrients? And how can a food have benefits "beyond basic nutrition"? What is basic nutrition and at what point does nutrition cease being basic? To further complicate the picture it seems that according to the Dietitians Association of Australia functional foods may contain (64) "traditional nutrients" or (23) "new substances that are not generally known as nutrients". But what is a "traditional nutrient" and how are these differentiated from "non-traditional nutrients"? And why the need to divide nutrients into categories such as traditional or non-traditional? After all, all nutrients are nourishing.  And if the "new substances that are not generally known as nutrients" have a nourishing effect also then they too are nutrients so why pretend otherwise? But these same substances which are not generally known as nutrients have been named as "physiologically active food components" by the American Dietetics Association (66). If they are physiologically active however, they are either nutrients, if they have a nourishing effect, or otherwise they are drugs or herbs, so why the confusion in terminology?  Then there is the confusion between the terms nutraceuticals and functional foods with some authorities using these terms interchangeably. 

The problem of defining functional foods has been dealt with in some detail by Katan and De Roos (58) who point out that in Japan, where functional foods originated, there has been a refusal to adopt this term because all foods are functional. Katan and De Roos favour a definition which emphasises the commercial nature of functional foods and therefore may specifically exclude traditional natural foods or health foods (58): a functional food is a branded food which claims explicitly or implicitly to improve health or well-being." These workers also cite the similar definition of Nestle (86) who described functional foods as “products created just so that they can be marketed using health claims.” These commercial considerations are highlighted by recently introduced regulatory changes in Japan where special food categories include (52,54) "foods for specified health uses (FOSHU), foods with health claims (FHC) and foods with nutrient function claims (FNFC)." According to Ohama and colleagues (52) this classification system was deemed necessary because of exploitation of the "new functions of foods" by food manufacturers. Although the function of foods and food constituents has always been to promote health and prevent disease by nourishing the cells and tissues of the body now it seems, to doctors and scientists at least, these are newly discovered functions of foods.

But the American Dietetics Association (66) goes further, suggesting that "functional foods have evolved as food and nutrition science has advanced beyond the treatment of deficiency syndromes to reduction of disease risk." Once again there is this reference to the shadowy past of nutrition science and the false and simplistic notion taught by scientists, nutritionists and doctors for almost 100 years that micronutrient nutrition had no relevance beyond the classical deficiency syndromes. Implicit in this statement by the American Dietetics Association is the vague claim that food constituents or nutrients are now known to reduce disease risk "beyond the treatment of deficiency syndromes". However, if food constituents are having biological effects though there is no bodily deficiency then this suggests they are being used as drugs and not nutrients. This is also a fundamental contradiction of the fact that nutrition science has taught for more than half a century that if the body is supplied with the RDA of essential nutrients then taking extra will provide no health benefit.

This same point is made by the Institute of Food Technologists Expert Report into Functional Foods which claims (73): "strictly speaking, all food is functional, in that it provides energy and nutrients necessary for survival. But the term “functional food” in use today conveys health benefits that extend far beyond mere survival. Food and nutrition science has moved from identifying and correcting nutritional deficiencies to designing foods that promote optimal health and reduce the risk of disease." The term "beyond mere survival" seems to imply that prevention of heart disease and cancer are unimportant while the suggestion that optimum health through food consumption can generally be achieved by some mechanism other than by correcting nutrient deficiencies is without scientific foundation. In fact, this claim contradicts the new science of nutrigenomics which has confirmed that many people have an increased need for certain nutrients in order to avoid a deficiency. In spite of these claims however, the Institute continues by noting that additional research is needed before optimum levels of nutrients can be determined (73):

Since the increase in statistical life expectancy referred to by the Institute is due predominantly to a reduction in infant deaths and not because we are living longer (Health Trends), the influence of food technology and nutrition would seem highly debatable to say the least. After all, it was during this period that nutrition was considered so unimportant that women were advised to practice semi-starvation during pregnancy in order to have a smaller baby and an easier delivery (1,2). As I have pointed out elsewhere (Nutrition and Megavitamins, Medical Rationing, Darwinian Medicine, Nutrition is For the Birds), this advice would be expected to have dire health consequences for the child in later life, consequences which it is now known could be passed to succeeding generations (Nutrition Breakthroughs).

Although the Institute also claims (73) "food and nutrition science has moved from identifying and correcting nutritional deficiencies to designing foods that promote optimal health" now they claim that the optimum levels of nutrients are unknown and in need of further research. Reference to "frank deficiencies" of course raises the problem of defining "non-frank deficiencies," while reference to "traditional" nutrients creates even more questions about "non-traditional" nutrients. The term "basic nutrition" is of course a euphemism for the nutritional ignorance which typified the bad old days of anti-nutrition bias (Medical Bias, Nutrition and Megavitamins, The Folic Acid Lesson). Nutrition scientists still struggle to conceal the fact that their long held conclusion that so called classical vitamin deficiency diseases were the only deficiency diseases possible was incredibly naive and simplistic and amazingly premature. How could such a conclusion possibly be made before science had developed ways of assessing optimal nutrition, particularly at the cellular level?

Any assertion that the so called new food substances or physiologically active food components are not being used to treat nutrient deficiencies is premature and sheer nonsense until effective means of defining and diagnosing optimum nutrition and total body or cellular deficiencies of these substances are in routine use throughout the world.

Notwithstanding these simple facts the Institute of Food Technologists continue (73):

Once again, though nutritional deficiencies in the individual person, particularly at the cellular level, still cannot be diagnosed, the Institute still claims nutrients are being used today "beyond preventing deficiency disease". The claim that "consumers have learned that food has a greater impact on health than previously known" is also an invalid generalisation since users of dietary supplements and health foods have reported health benefits for many decades but these benefits were dismissed by disinterested doctors, nutritionists and scientists as "anecdotal" (Nutrition and Megavitamins, B Vitamins). Stated more correctly: nutritionists, doctors and scientists have learned that food has a greater impact on health than they previously realised and they have confirmed many of the benefits long reported by supporters of dietary supplements and health foods.

The Institute does concede however, that current developments in nutrition will (73) "challenge traditional nutrition approaches" which of course is simply a euphemism for we got it wrong or we have been teaching quackery:

The fact that personalised nutrition or nutrigenomics may "disrupt established ways of thinking about nutrition is of course due to the "rigidity" of  traditional nutrition approaches" and the rejection of Roger Williams' concept of biochemical individuality for the past half century. Unfortunately, although Roger Williams, Linus Pauling, and other pioneers of nutritional research tried diligently to correct the rigidity of traditional nutrition approaches more than half a century ago, their efforts were in vain (Nutrition and Megavitamins). Interestingly, the Institute tries to distinguish the "new" nutrition by implying recent breakthroughs are confined to so called non-traditional nutrients, pointing out that (73) "epidemiological studies have repeatedly demonstrated that better health and lower incidence of chronic disease is associated with higher intake of whole grains and multiple servings of fruits and vegetables. These beneficial effects cannot be explained by traditional nutrients alone." If one accepts the existence of undefined traditional nutrients this may be true but the Institute also points out (73): "Emerging science clearly indicates that the functional foods currently on the market represent a small fraction of the possible products. The scientific literature reports almost daily on new insight into the role of existing nutrients, advances in identifying bioactive compounds and their health benefits, and the intersection of genomics and nutrition science in personalized nutrition." So how can the full potential of the health benefits of so called existing or traditional nutrients be defined while scientific knowledge is so incomplete that scientists are learning new insights daily? And why use the term "existing nutrients"? Is there such a thing as non-existent nutrients?

A similar theme is expressed by Bender who claims that (74) "in most developed countries vitamin deficiency is no longer a problem." However, Bender also points out that since medical science has no way of assessing "optimum health" there is also no known way of ascertaining how much intake of each nutrient is required in order to attain optimum health or protect from chronic diseases. But if the optimum levels of nutrients are unknown, how can anyone say, in most developed countries vitamin deficiency is no longer a problem"?

While the American Dietetics Association (66) correctly points out that the importance of functional foods has been realised because of advancements in nutrition science, a fact which is quite obvious since nutritionists believed antioxidants, health foods, and vegetarianism were faddism or quackery only 2 decades ago (1,1a,2,4,5), according to Katan and De Roos (58) this is not so: "a new functional food typically does not represent a breakthrough in nutrition research—these are few and far between—but rather a creative combination of existing nutritional knowledge with new food technology and marketing." Apparently, in spite of the fact that health foods have long been regarded as food faddism and quackery, it seems the relationship between nutrition and chronic diseases has long been accepted but now there is a "creative combination of existing nutritional knowledge with new food technology and marketing." 

It is interesting to note that according to Katan and DeRoos (58) functional foods have been demanded by consumers: "functional foods are the food industry’s response to the consumers’demand for foods that are both attractive and healthy." In spite of this claim however I have never heard of anyone demanding functional foods. And I was also unaware that traditional consumers of health foods had expressed dissatisfaction with the term health food or a desire for new functional foods. Katan and DeRoos (58) also point out that "the same active ingredients that go into functional foods can also be sold in a capsule as a dietary supplement" but I am not aware of any push by consumers to have dietary supplements added to their foods and thereby effectively remove their freedom to choose the specific supplement or dose they require. This approach dictates that if a consumer wants more of a supplement then they will be forced to eat more and more of the required food! Is this modern science?

It is clear that like traditional health foods, which medical science has long regarded as quackery and food faddism, functional foods are also claimed to be nutrient rich foods intended to promote health. The motivating force behind consumption of health foods however, has been to promote health by maximising the dietary intake of natural nutrients and beneficial food constituents while minimising consumption of pollutants and chemicals. To a certain degree functional foods are intended to serve the same purpose. There are however, three vitally important differences. Firstly, functional foods are more commonly considered to be processed foods or (75) "junk (food) with added nutrients" and not necessarily natural foods and they make no claims about purity or freedom from chemicals and pollutants. As has been so aptly pointed out by Katan and DeRoos (58):

In other words, instead of reducing the 'bad' constituents of foods such as fat, cholesterol, and sugar, extra amounts of the health promoting nutrients will be added to convert junk foods to health foods (43,75). This of course is a marketing ploy (76) which is intended to convince us to purchase junk foods and revitalise the global junk food industry, especially when manufacturers are permitted to make claims that their former junk foods can be used to prevent chronic diseases.

Secondly, and not surprisingly, the push for functional foods is intended to make huge profits for food manufacturers (23,43,61,77,78,80) with the prediction that (78) "the most successful health foods of the future are likely to be functional", such foods expected to be worth $47.6 billion annually (77) and as much as $167 billion by 2010 (81). The introduction of functional foods therefore, is being driven predominantly by marketing companies rather than public health authorities. The National Centre of Excellence in Functional Foods for instance, was created to (82) "to support the Australian food industry in the development of a functional foods market by integrating knowledge from a range of sources," and provides (82) "a one stop shop for accessing relevant R&D expertise and capability for the development and commercialisation of functional foods in domestic and global markets."

The commercial nature of functional foods has also been emphasised by Rosemary Stanton who points out that if food manufacturers were sincere about health then they would reduce the production of junk foods (20):

Finally, functional foods or (83) prescription foods have been described as (83,84) "second generation" genetically engineered foods which will pave the way for the increasing medicalisation of foods (5,20,67,69,80,83,84,85,87,88,89) even perhaps resulting in (83,89) edible vaccines. Although food processing may significantly reduce the antioxidant properties of foods (90,91), functional foods are merely "medicalised processed" foods (5). But, as has been noted by Stanton (91), antioxidants are considered by nutritionists to work together, hence the addition of one or two selected antioxidants to a processed food would still not be expected to have the health benefits of unprocessed antioxidant rich health foods (91):

It is indeed interesting to note that according to Guesry (59), one of the advantages of functional foods is that such foods will "give back to the individual the responsibility to maintain their health" but the obvious question is; who removed this responsibility in the first place and why?

Transfer of Dietary Supplements from Health Food Stores to Functional Foods & Loss of Freedom of Choice.

But what has science learned from 100 years of humiliating mistakes? Have they learned to respect nature and the natural nutritional requirements of man?

Unfortunately it seems, science has learned nothing since now they wish to medicalise foods in utter disregard of the lessons of history and their own statements that nutritional balance is the key and single nutrients are ineffective if not dangerous. Repeatedly scientists have been made aware of the dangers of applying medicine's reductionist philosophy to nutrition but still they believe the answer to optimum nutrition will be found in a test tube or a cash register. As has been pointed out by Gaier (80):

But the unpopularity of first generation genetically modified foods or so called 'Frankenfoods' (93,94,95), which were intended to provide longer shelf life and various agricultural advantages such as pesticide resistance (58,83,84,93,94,95,96), has now given way to second generation functional or prescription foods intended  for specific health benefits (23,58,83,84,97,98), the profitability of which may be unlimited when food manufacturers are permitted to make the health claims they desire about their products (23,31,58,81). As moves are made in Australia and around the world to restrict the retail availability of allegedly 'dangerous' dietary supplements (Australian Government Seeks to Control Supplements in NZ, The FDA in America, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Codex in Australia, Pan Crisis & Future of Alternative Medicines, Pan Crisis, Nutrition Breakthroughs), at the same time the Australian and New Zealand governments are preparing the way to add these same dietary supplements to foods (79,