Questions in Consumption

We can be a picky bunch.

Some of us pore over tech reviews before picking out a laptop.
Many will confer with a knowing neighbour before trusting a tradesman.
But rarely do we consult a nutritionist before picking food off the shelf.

One may perceive this as a strange paradox, considering how the thought and trust invested into the purchase of a product looms large in comparison to the scant regard often afforded to the food we eat each day. Of course there is rarely a need to consult a nutritionist should you have a basic understanding of the staple food groups and their benefits, yet it seems that western society has developed a vulnerable level of trust in the contemporary food industry’s sourcing and processing of the food that we eat on a daily basis.

There are many possible influences upon this shift in the way we see, buy and eat our food, whether it be its marketing; the overwhelming range of products available; how and where we buy our food; or the increase in readymade foods consumed on-the-go. But there is another underlying factor that may subconsciously affect our decisions.

And that is the thought-to-investment ratio that is leveraged into our decision making process. Because regardless of how often we use or employ said items/services, it would appear that the (more costly) things we buy from time to time, yet use often e.g. a new laptop or bicycle,  seem to command much more consideration than those purchases made on a weekly, daily, or even hourly basis. And this pattern of purchase may be illustrated in a ratio that places the:

Degree of thought relative to financial outlay and frequency of purchase

Of course a large financial investment merits much thought but the level of ‘real’ investment surely leverages upwards when considering food as a product that is actively ingested and digested as part of the body’s basic biological functions. Our food is both a fuel and form of sustenance, thus it requires the fitness for purpose that we so eagerly seek to guarantee on any other products bought.

It is this consideration and perspective that drives many towards going as far as following a vegetarian or vegan diet - stimulated by an increased awareness and concern for where and how their food is sourced and/or processed respectively. It could be said that they invest a similar degree of care with food to that of someone buying a car: considering its sourcing, mileage history, safety for use, fuel intake, and performance specifics.

This analogy may be a rudimentary comparison yet it does provide a valid basis for assessing the various features of food sourcing that we may take for granted when taking our purchased food out of its packaging. The branding and labelling of the products seems to have engineered a trust that lets us assume that the 'Low-Fat' or 'Sugar-Free' foods are undeniably good for us (Diet Coke anyone?); and that the traffic light signposting on the packaging will guide us down the right nutritional path to fitness and vitality.

Of course, nutritionists inform us that such indicators cannot be trusted at face value and emphatically so for the fad diets that lead weight-conscious people into an unbalanced notion of Good vs Bad food groups that so often compromises their efforts. Such labelling and approaches have greatly accelerated our alienation from the organic nature of cultivating food; effectively quantifying the calories and physical make-up of food products with pie charts to such an extent that fresh produce free from packaging is suspicious in its shortcomings for nutritional information guarantees.

It is that divide that needs narrowing. The divide between fresh produce and bar-coded products. Furthermore the treatment of animals that lies in the middle, murky ground of this divide is without a doubt the most shocking, yet culturally acceptable, oversight that is afforded to the contemporary meat-eater. For never has our conscious ignorance of our meat’s sourcing been so profitable to the large-scale industry’s false economy of 'pile them high and sell them cheap' approach to yield - with such little consideration given to the animals’ wellbeing, let alone the quality or safety of the resulting meat, in doing so. Yet with each visit to a fast food restaurant, or with each purchased piece of meat from the supermarket, we place our blind trust in these items.

A blind trust that shuts out the potential environmental, ethical, nutritional, and physiological costs of eating this processed food without questioning its origins. Maybe its history is worth more consideration within the aforementioned thought-to-investment ratio.

For food is a pure fuel that we extract from the plants, trees and animals around us: the more we interfere with it before we ingest it, surely the more this food may interfere with us once digested?

Daniel Bowen.