A commercial I saw recently made an interesting blanket statement, one which seems to embody a common belief in our society, and one which I want to examine in a little more detail, and that is the statement that the less a foodstuff is processed, the "healthier" it is.

There are two complimentary ideas involved here. First, the idea that processing always removes nutrients, and, second, the environmental concept, that man;s involvement is always detrimental. As you can see, the two beliefs reinforce one another, with the idea that man's actions are harmful explaining why processing removes nutrients, while the removal of nutrients providing supposed support for the idea that human intervention is harmful¹.

However, common as this belief might be, and as old as its pedigree², is it true? And, whether true or not, does it follow that we should avoid processed foods? Or favor food which has been processed as little as possible?

I can see three arguments, or rather three different situations, arguing in favor of human intervention being beneficial and processing being unfairly maligned.

The first situation is the most obvious argument. Take, for example, tapioca, or the original potatoes (and some wild potato strains still), or fugu. These foods, without processing, are not foods but poisons.Without processing they have no nutritional value, as no one would eat them. In these cases processing is clearly not just harmless, but positively beneficial. Even when not toxic, many foodstuffs contain substances which make them unpleasant to eat without processing, be it a thick skin, a surfeit of small bones, nauseating chemicals or other sources of discomfort. However, as this blends into our third argument, I will come back to it shortly.

Our second argument are those foodstuffs where processing might eliminate some nutrients, but makes others available. For example, nixitamalization of corn. This process does remove some of the fiber from corn, and may remove some nutrients, but it makes others more readily available. Such processes, though in one way they fit with the basic premise, in another go against it. Rather than being a purely harmful human intervention, the processing in these circumstances has both a positive and a negative outcome. And so, as with the first case, where food is inedible without processing, those foods which gain nutrients with processing also argue for processing as something which can be beneficial.

And that brings me to my third situation, and one which will be the most controversial.

We discussed earlier those foods which are poisonous without processing. And we went farther, and talked about food which is not poisonous, but nauseating or painful without processing. (Eg. Pike eel without the many tiny bones being broken.) However, let us take that argument one step farther and ask, what about foods which are not dangerous or even painful, but which are simply unpleasant when not processed? Granted, they may be more nutritious when not processed, but how is that beneficial if no one eats them? Or simply eats too little?

And that is my argument for processing which is likely to meet the most resistance, but which is still valid. Unlike those who make of food a mystical experience, who insist on modifying their diet to match their beliefs, such as those who are stringent macrobiotics, or ardently pursue only organic foods, most people prefer food they find pleasing. And so, they will tend to eat more of a given food if it is pleasing, and less if it is unpleasant. Since they refuse to see eating as a test of endurance, the nutritional value of a food is tied to how palatable it is. By which I mean, no matter how nutritious a food might be, individuals will not eat sufficient amounts if it is not pleasing.Which means, choosing between an unprocessed food which is twice as nutritious, but unpleasant to eat, and a processed version which is half as nutritious but tasty, the final nutritional value of the latter will be higher, as it is unlikely one will eat enough of the first, while he will easily eat the additional amount of the second required by the reduced nutrients.

And that is, in the end, my argument against this basic premise. While I do not agree with the concept that all processing removes nutrients or otherwise damages food, even if I did, it would be irrelevant, as nutrition is but one factor in an individual diet, and to stare at that one goal to the exclusion of all else is the same problem as an reductionist theory which tends to ignore balancing test. ("The Problem of the Small Picture", "Absolute Values", "Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmentalism") To establish a diet which will not only provide adequate nutrients, but is also likely to be followed by an individual, we need to consider not just nutrients, but flavor, and so, in many cases processing ends up being beneficial by making it easier for individuals to eat enough of a nutritious foodstuff, even if it slightly reduces the amount of nutrition in each individual unit of food.

================================================================================

1. I won't be discussing it in any detail here, but the fear of chemicals in food represents a similar belief. Just to briefly explain, first, there is no difference between a chemical from a synthetic source and the same chemical "naturally" found in food., and, second, many chemicals, either preservatives or supplements, make food more beneficial or less harmful than "natural" food. But that is another essay, which I likely will write in the near future.

2. Mssrs. Graham, Kellogg and others held similar beliefs in the previous century, popularizing the "whole grain" concept long before it is popularly believed to have existed.  Nor were they even the first. The idea that food in a natural state has some innate (sometimes mystical) benefit has appeared again and again throughout history, usually in the same eras when romantic movements have thrived. (As one would expect -- cf. "Rousseau's Foolish Legacy", "Happiness", "Juvenile Intellectuals", "The Lie of Environmentalism", "Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmentalism") Oddly, the one dietary movement most strongly favoring whole grains, macrobiotics, bases their suggestions not on an environmental belief, but on a completely independent (though equally irrational) basis.