Where does sustainability fall in the never-ending debate over artificial versus “natural” foods?
Lately, something that’s continually been surfacing in my world is the tension between authentic and synthetic, natural and artificial, and health and joy. It shows up in conversations about health, nutrition, and sustainability—but also in what it means to be human today. The topic is complex, a little provocative, and super thought-provoking—so let’s dive in.
Authentic Versus Synthetic
The weekend before last, I was invited to attend the Gaia Emersion Conference in Boulder. As a Boulder county resident and spiritually curious individual, I had an idea of what I’d learn at this gathering, but (of course) left with several unexpected take aways. One that really stuck with me was Blu of Earth’s reflection on her recent experience with hearing loss and the wisdom that’s brought her.
Just one of the knowledge nuggets she left us with was the emerging divide between authentic and synthetic—particularly within the digital space. Though the rise of AI is only just beginning, many are already bored of the creative content it’s producing. It’s scary how hard it can be to spot it in certain forms of media—like photos and video. But Blu talked about how easy it is for her and many others to detect it in writing—whether that be here on Substack, in social media captions, or elsewhere.
There’s a notable lack of authenticity in AI creation that many people find utterly unsatisfying. In fact, one of the most valuable things AI may be showing us is that, while tech is cool and all, nothing can replace the human connection we evolved to seek, foster, and cherish. She mentioned that she loves seeing typos and grammatical errors in people’s content as it shows just how human they really are—and as a writer and recovering perfectionist that was quite revelatory.
This notion comes up again and again throughout the spiritual community. To Be Magnetic (Lacy Phillips) and The Spiritual Investor (Elizabeth Ralph) often share on the importance of authenticity in not only growing self-worth (in the case of manifestation) but also in expanding wealth and abundance. It makes sense: the more aligned and connected we feel to what we’re doing, the better the final product will be—and the more fulfilled and enlivened we’ll feel. This naturally promotes longevity, creativity, and joy in what we do—and, in turn, brings more abundance and opportunity (hopefully).
Natural versus Artificial
The weekend before Gaia, I was in California at a nutrition conference and this same topic came up, but in a slightly different form. One of the sessions discussed the newly released Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the health-scape laid out by our current administration. A core tenant of this ethos is to drastically cut down ultra-processed food intake—a hot topic within the realm of dietetics for several years now.
If you look at the Nova Food Classification System—a system for quantifying how processed a given food is—you’ll find plenty of generally-accepted healthful foods in the higher processing categories (3 and 4 on a 1–4 scale), such as hummus, tomato paste, tinned fish, canned vegetables and legumes. It’s important to acknowledge this nuance, as it shows that the blanket terms “processed” and “ultra-processed” leave gaps in public knowledge.
However, I think it’s safe to assume that when these terms are mentioned to average Americans, they think of the classically unhealthy ultra-processed products like candy, chips, refined breads, cookies, soda, frozen pizza, and other snack-y foods. If the takeaway from the messaging is to practice moderation with these options, I think the most important point comes across.
Another element of this conference discussion was the notion of “mystery ingredients,” namely additives and preservatives that are hard to pronounce—and most often found in processed and ultra-processed options. The speakers were extremely knowledgeable, sharing the safety procedures and FDA regulatory processes in place to ensure that these ingredients are safe for the general public—when consumed in moderation. The equation risk = hazard x exposure was referred to often.
That said—while these ingredients are deemed safe for consumption—there is evidence showing that more research is needed to fully grasp some of their long-term health implications.
More importantly, are these ingredients particularly nourishing? Sometimes yes, like in the case of added nutrients in forms some people may not recognize (like ascorbic acid, aka vitamin C). But other times, no—in fact, some people respond adversely to them (like reduction in beneficial gut microbes with artificial sweetener intake, for just one example). While these ingredients are frequently found in foods with low nutrient density, they can also be found in better-for-you options like protein powder, yogurt, breakfast cereals, and more. While, again, exposure determines risk, I do think this is worth bringing up. I think it further drives home the “natural” path over the synthetic one as much as possible.
Health versus Joy
Though, this brings up the topic of joy and where it fits into the world of health and nutrition. Ask any dietitian about indulgent foods and our response will most likely include the phrase “in moderation.” Because foods that bring us joy—but not necessarily health benefits—are also important. Prioritizing joy over stress—particularly in lifestyle choices—is key to preventing chronic illness, given the many negative health implications associated with high levels of circulating cortisol (brought on by stress)
I really started to ponder this subject after reading this article published in JAMA last month which highlighted that in 18 states, certain foods like soda, energy drinks, and candy (state-dependent) will now no longer be covered by WIC and SNAP benefits as directed by the MAHA initiative.
On one hand, sugar-sweetened beverages are the number one source of added sugar in the American diet. Considering that added sugar is a major pro-inflammatory agent that is linked to chronic illnesses like heart disease, cancer, and type 2 diabetes, this move is smart from a health perspective.
On the other hand, this approach can limit the sense of autonomy, normalcy, joy, and choice those who receive government benefits feel. Perhaps they enjoy their SNAP-purchased soda as a weekly treat, as a quick source of sugar for hypoglycemia (in those with diabetes), or for reasons we can’t fully understand without being in their shoes. Even though these dollars come from the government, shouldn’t grace, freedom, and humanity still be part of the equation? I think so.
Sustainability Impacts
Let’s dive into some potential sustainability implications here.
Beyond health implications, ultra-processed foods and hard-to-pronounce ingredients have undeniable environmental impacts. They require far more manufacturing and processing to produce, which inevitably consumes more energy and resources—resulting in higher greenhouse gas emissions.
But—while not always the case—more often than not these products aren’t organic. Organic is another surprisingly contentious topic within dietetics. Is it better for someone to eat a conventionally-grown apple than not eat an apple at all because they can’t afford organic? Yes, of course.
However, if we take a bigger picture look at the effect of conventional agriculture on human and planetary health, the conversation becomes more nuanced. Conventional agriculture that uses synthetic pesticides and fertilizers can quickly degrade soil health, further increasing reliance on these agrochemicals while also polluting local air and waterways and negatively affecting communities and nearby ecosystems.
Soil health is a problem that we as healthcare professionals should be paying closer attention to as nutrients come directly from the soil. The more degraded global soils become (experts predict that we have less than a lifetime’s worth of harvest seasons left with how severely depleted global soils are), the worse off we are as a global population. While there are unique issues with organic certification in this country, overall it’s a move in the right direction in this regard. The same can be said for brands and farmers that use organic practices or low-input production techniques but can’t afford or otherwise seek organic certification.
Further (let’s get really controversial here), the agrochemicals used in non-organic products and ingredients (like the “mystery ingredients” found in ultra-processed foods) aren’t disclosed to the public. Could they possibly include glyphosate which is tied to inflammation, metabolic disorders, leaky gut, kidney disease, and (likely) cancer, even in small doses? It’s been estimated that glyphosate is already in the bodily fluids of 60 to 80 percent of the human population—as well as in our water supply—where it can persist for years on end. Although our governing body affirms that this pesticide is safe, I believe there is plenty of evidence to the contrary—and still so much we don’t know. There’s a real reason these chemicals are applied by farm workers wearing protective gear. Agrochemicals also contributes to climate change through production emissions and soil degradation with use.
Do we, as dietitians—or consumers more broadly—want to be inadvertently supporting this industry through our nutrition recommendations and food choices? What good is it if our patients are nutritionally healthy but are drinking contaminated tap water and breathing polluted air? In my opinion, this makes sustainability not only within the scope of registered dietitians but integral to our work, since our job is to help people improve their health and prevent chronic disease as much as possible.
The Bottom Line
Humans are craving authenticity, real human connection, and the truth. This spans not only interpersonal dynamics, media content, and creative endeavors, but also deeply ties into food and nutrition.
While the balance between “natural” and artificial—and health and joy—is delicate, RDs have been preaching prioritizing whole foods for as long as the profession has been in existence. This shouldn’t change (it largely isn’t), nor should it be considered a concession or expression of approval for the current administration.
The fact that businesses that are trying to capitalize on the new DGA guidance through advertising that they don’t include or have removed artificial additives and preservatives is a overall a net positive in my book—even if those foods don’t offer many health benefits at the end of the day. That said, moderation with all foods—including unhealthy ultra-processed foods and hard-to-recognize ingredients—is completely reasonable and appropriate.
Personally, I’d like to see the organic versus conventional conversation enter into larger discussions within the dietetics community. If consumers can’t afford it, of course it’s better for them to eat conventional produce and other nutrient-dense foods. However, if individuals can afford to make a better choice, shouldn’t they? If we can better inform our patients, clients, and readers about why this is actually important, shouldn’t we? The more these options are embraced and adopted, the more accessible they will become. In fact, it’s already happening due to increased demand—we’ve seen organic prices drop to more affordable levels year over year (barring inflation).
