Good Food, Bad Food, And Dietary Relativism

• Tweet
• Sharebar

• Tweet

I’m sure many people who are passionate about nutrition and health have been guilty of a sort of dietary absolutism. That is, that a food is either good or bad. I know it sounds ludicrous, but I’ve found myself blurting out in conversation that such and such food is bad, or you shouldn’t eat that because it’s bad.

Dude #1: I had a BLT sandwich for lunch today which tasted amazing!

Dude #2: Nightshades are bad!!!

It’s certainly easy to fall into this kind of behavior when espousing certain kinds of elimination diets like the paleo diet. Cordain makes it clear that one should avoid particular types of food because they did not fall into the domain of paleolithic dietary nutrition. But, while it is easy to find some kind of negative quality about a food when you are specifically looking for one, I don’t think it automatically negates any positive benefits.

That is why foods can’t easily be labeled as good, or bad. In reality foods exist on a continuum, with absolutely good on the right, and absolutely bad on the left. What we as humans can consume will exist somewhere in the between, closer to the right or left depending on their intrinsic qualities.

In a sense, this is a kind of dietary relativism. Moral/ethical relativism stipulates that there is no universal constant guiding the rightness of actions, rather the determination of whether an action is right is dependent on the situation or the context. In a similar manner, I think we can say that food can rarely, if ever, be considered either universally good or bad. The obvious exceptions would be those things which are deathly toxic to human beings, like poisons and neurotoxins. We generally don’t regard those types of things as food. But then, there is fugu. See how complicated this concept is? I can’t even classify a poisonous fish as a absolutely “bad food” because there is a thriving market for it in Japan.

You can apply this type of concept to more mundane food choices like whole wheat bread or milk. Sure, the fiber from the wheat might make you pass bowel movements like a champ, but that gluten is not particularly good for you. Or with milk, the lactose and casein can cause all manners of gastrointestinal issues, but whey is a pretty amazing protein.

As I delve more into nutritional science and dietary practice, I’ve come to realize that telling people what foods are good and which ones are bad requires more than a simple and clear cut answer. Everything we eat will have some pros and cons depending on our individual circumstances and the nature of the food itself.

I just want to eat, tell me what is safe to eat, tell ME!!

If you want to gain some degree of personal certainty about your diet and the kinds of foods you eat, I’d suggest practicing some basic observations. Look at yourself and the food you have been eating. Does it appear to have had a positive effect on your health? Look at your community or friends and the foods they eat, do you see a positive connection? Examine the food that your culture or society traditionally ate. How has it changed, and what was the net effect on overall health?

As well, examine all of the qualities of a food. If you are able to determine the good and bad qualities a food may present, then just do a simple comparison and determine if it’s worth it. Soy is a good source of protein if I don’t want to eat animal meat, but I don’t like the idea of endocrine disruption and early onset dementia, so maybe I will choose something else. That is, unless the thrill of potentially damaging your body is an exciting culinary experience for you.