Dr. George: Foodless Foods are a Problem

Dear Dr. Meinig:

You recently had an article about how our bodies were programmed to keep us well and said that the eating of junk food is the biggest challenge that causes a breakdown of the system. Everyone talks as though they know all about junk foods but I have never seen the term defined or spelled out. Until now I have been too embarrassed to ask this question but in view of its importance to the message of your previous article, I believe your coverage of the subject would be worthwhile. —S.N

Dear S. N.:

You are right. The term junk food is loosely used. The reasons are more complex and involved in political shenanigans than the public realizes.

It has been the development of our industrial food complex and its production of mammoth numbers of food-less foods that has made it difficult to recognize just what distinguishes a good food.

Once these foods have been eaten and found pleasing, it is hard to believe they can’t be good for us. We feel confident the government wouldn’t allow the production of such items if they were harmful.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn’t make that sort of decision because way back, the producers of our original junk foods had such political muscle and money that they influenced politicians to stop FDA investigations of their products.

One of the ways this is done is to give commonly used large groups of foods, beverages, and drugs a classification called GRAS. The term GRAS stands for “generally recognized as safe.” Hiding behind this provision proves to be easier and easier, the more the public becomes enamored by the use of such items.

You shouldn’t be embarrassed about your question. It is one hardly anyone really understands. What, then, are junk foods? They are defined in the Manual of Clinical Nutrition as foods that are relatively high in calorie density, and low in nutrients.

For the most part, they look appealing, have pleasing tastes, mostly because of the high use of sweeteners, and they always are promoted by high powered advertising that proclaims and glorifies their nutritional goodness. However, most of them are abominably worthless as foods and prove harmful because they furnish loads of energy without providing the nutrients our cells need to perform.

Americans are subject to so many of these “foodless foods” that it is impossible to list them all. Examples of the major categories include all of the things done to green foods (wheat, rye, oats, corn, rice, etc.); to sugar cane and sugar beets; to fats and oils; and to beverages. “All the things done” to these foods refers to high heat and pressure processing, to shooting food from guns, the excessive use of chemicals and sweeteners, and the myriads of fabrication techniques.

Over the years I have answered questions from readers about many of these products and manufacturing systems but single articles are inadequate to get to the depth of the food problems that now confront us.

Take what has happened to wheat since the turn of this century. Before that time it was used in lots of different ways but always as the 100 percent whole grain.

When high speed milling came along, bakers found the white flour that was produced could be purchased by the boxcar load as it didn’t spoil like whole wheat flour.

Nutritionists usually state that the nutrients lost in this rather simple procedure involve two-thirds of wheat’s original food value.

Let me tabulate just what that means, that is, just what amount of vitamins and minerals have actually been robbed from the original wheat the farmer produces:

From Dartmouth Medical College: Nutrient and Percentage Loss in White Flour

Thiamine (Vitamin B1)–77.1
Riboflavin (Vitamin B2)–80.0
Niacin–(80.9)
Vitamin B6–71.8
Pantothenic Acid–50.0
Alpha-tocopherol (Vitamin E)–86.3
Calcium–60.0
Phosphorus–70.9
Magnesium–84.7
Potassium–77.0
Sodium–78.3
Chromium–40.0
Manganese–85.8
Iron–75.6
Cobalt–88.5
Copper–67.9
Zinc–77.7
Selenium–15.9
Molybdenum–48.0

Similar losses of nutrients also occur during the processing of the other grains, of the common fats and oils, sugar cane, and the beverages. In the case of sugar, there is an absolute total loss of all nutrients except calories.

These so-called foods have become even junkier and more dangerous by the use of new sophisticated fabrication equipment and by the addition of chemicals and other non-food items. Over 3,000 chemicals have been approved for use in foods.

All this means everyone must learn how to read labels in order to recognize just what non-food substances these foods really contain. Don’t be fooled by their long list of vitamins. Pay attention to all the other items on the label.