Respond to prefers-color-scheme dark in app web views

Follow section front redirects in Spectrum

Enable NLP source in PCS for load testing

Switch off the News Alerts Survey Widget when we have enough responses

Poll to determine if new LUF updates are available

Allows the winning A/B test variant to be turned on without Spectrum deployment

Show infinite scrolling sections in Assembler MultiView

Show option for NLP article summaries in Action Bar

Show NLP summaries collection recirc on article pages

A general feature flag for Recipe Features that aren't yet released

Feature flag for media team features that aren't yet released

Use new Orca video player for preroll plugin in Spectrum

Show the snow tracker (instead of the heat tracker) on Spectrum

See more coverage in your recommendations

Recipes

One recipe a day, Monday through Thursday

The Eat Voraciously newsletter

I started writing this column 10 years ago this month. In that decade(!), I’ve had the great good fortune to learn about the intersection of food and science from some of the world’s leading scientists, doctors and academics. I’ve also learned that in food, as in every other aspect of our modern, complex lives, wrongness has staying power.

I’ve been trying to suss out true and false to the best of my inevitably human, imperfect ability, and for my 10th anniversary, I’m going to sum up 10 things I’m persuaded are true. Some are important, a few are trivial and all meet with staunch disagreement every time I air them.

Not that I’m keeping score or anything.

My very first column was about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and I’m happy to say it feels dated now. Back then, the argument was primarily about herbicide-resistant corn and soy (which have undoubtedly given rise to herbicide-resistant weeds). But genetic engineering has been used to create <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31182545/" target="_blank">disease-resistant cassava</a>, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/unearthed-thanks-to-science-we-may-see-the-rebirth-of-the-american-chestnut/2014/11/19/91554356-6b83-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html" target="_blank">blight-resistant American chestnut trees</a>, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28747792/" target="_blank">camelina with the long-chain omega-3 fats </a>that are otherwise found almost exclusively in marine sources, <a href="https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/genome-editing-used-create-disease-resistant-rice" target="_blank">disease- and flood-tolerant rice</a>, chickens that produce <a href="https://www.reuters.com/science/gene-tech-spares-male-chicks-cull-by-preventing-them-hatching-2023-07-17/" target="_blank">only female eggs</a> (so 7 billion male chicks don’t have to be put through a grinder every year), a more nutritious <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.1506" target="_blank">purple tomato</a>, <a href="https://www.tsl.ac.uk/news/gm-spuds-beat-blight" target="_blank">blight-resistant potatoes</a> and many more.

Technology is a tool. If I have a hammer, I can fix my neighbor’s roof or I can break his window. It’s the purpose, not the tool, that we need to focus on.

Here’s an example of a use of technology that might actually help people. If you like sweet things, but not the calories that come with them, there’s a host of artificial versions that can deliver. Unfortunately, the nutrition community hates them and has been telling you, with virtually one voice, not to use them.

Yet, despite decades of trying, critics can’t really find a problem with them. So you get studies that show, to take a recent example, that<a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903" target="_blank"> sucralose (used in Splenda) is genotoxic</a>. Scary! But dig in, as <a href="https://gidmk.medium.com/splenda-sucralose-isnt-giving-you-cancer-8ade5ad7a708" target="_blank">epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz did</a>, and you find that the sucralose dosage was the equivalent of 50,000 cans of diet soda.

So, yeah, don’t drink 50,000 cans of diet soda, and ask yourself why researchers would design a study using amounts that are orders of magnitude over what a human would consume. One possible reason: They <i>want</i> to show harm.

3. Subsidies didn’t create our terrible diets.

Yes, most farm subsidies go to corn and soy, two building blocks of cheap junk food. But economists I’ve spoken with believe that, at most, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/im-a-fan-of-michael-pollan-but-on-one-food-policy-argument-hes-wrong/2017/12/04/c71881ca-d6cd-11e7-b62d-d9345ced896d_story.html" target=_blank>subsidies decreased prices of those by about 10 percent</a>. And actual food is only about 15 percent of the cost of junk foods like, say, Twinkies. So we’re talking about a 1 to 2 percent price difference, which would be imperceptible to the consumer.

Vegetables are expensive because they’re way more expensive to grow than row crops such as corn, soy, oats, chickpeas and barley. A broccoli serving costs 10 times what a corn serving costs to grow. Ten times. Subsidies are a rounding error.

They’re expensive to grow and incredibly resource-intensive. They get <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2022/11/01/plant-foods-climate/" target=_blank>the highest level of fertilizer and pesticide applications</a>, and they deliver nutrients without many calories. In an overweight society, that’s a plus, but if you widen the lens to the whole world, where we have to feed 8-plus billion, ideally without expanding agriculture’s footprint, crops that deliver nutrition <i>and</i> calories are ideal.

Whole grains, legumes, tubers, tree fruits, nuts. Those are the backbone of a diet good for both people and planet.

I am a longtime supporter of organic agriculture. It’s<a href="https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Reganold.pdf" target=_blank> more profitable for farmers</a>, and that margin gives them wiggle room to experiment with lower-input ways of growing food, which I am wildly in favor of.

The problem, though, is the <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1612311114#:~:text=Recent%20meta%2Danalyses%20of%20plot,as%208%25%20(8)." target=_blank>yield penalty</a>. Estimates vary, but it’s safe to say that organic yields are about 20 percent lower than conventional, which means we need 25 percent more land to grow the same amount of food. Since <a href="https://unfccc.int/topics/introduction-to-land-use" target=_blank>land-use changes are a primary driver of climate change</a>, that’s a non-starter. (Yes, some studies show that some organic yields match those of conventional, but to make that comparison you have to look at the highest yields in both the organic and conventional sectors, and organic never wins.)

I nevertheless support organic because the price premium makes the sector self-limiting. If too many farmers get into it, that’ll drive the price down and it will no longer be viable. So it’ll stay a niche. A valuable niche. But it won’t feed the world.

Of all the subjects I’ve tackled over the years, this is the one where I found <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/food-deserts-dont-cause-obesity-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-dont-matter/2018/08/22/df31afc0-a61b-11e8-a656-943eefab5daf_story.html" target=_blank>the most agreement among experts</a>. When you bring a supermarket into a food desert, there are no meaningful changes in health outcomes.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t bring supermarkets into food deserts! I want everyone to have access to decent food. But it won’t solve our obesity problem.

There are two kinds of people on this issue: Those who have done blind taste tests and those who haven’t. Every blind taste test that I’ve ever seen finds that people can’t distinguish among white, brown, free-range, organic, and backyard eggs (from chickens, so don’t start ducking me). Yet people who haven’t done those tests continue to insist that they can.

Speaking of unpopular results from blind taste tests …

People <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/tilapia-has-a-terrible-reputation-does-it-deserve-it/2016/10/24/4537dc96-96e6-11e6-bc79-af1cd3d2984b_story.html" target=_blank>can’t tell it from other kinds of fish</a>. And, if you really can raise fish on poop, it’s the most sustainable food ever.

9. We know precious little about nutrition.

The tools we have to explore the connection between diet and health <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/heres-what-the-governments-dietary-guidelines-should-really-say/2019/03/25/69f86e12-4beb-11e9-93d0-64dbcf38ba41_story.html" target=_blank>are severely limited</a>. Studies that follow large groups and track what they eat, and what diseases they get, can’t connect the dots between the two, and the controlled trials that try to connect those dots are necessarily small and short-term.

What we know about nutrition is dwarfed by what we don’t know. It’s like the blind men and the elephant; the one who’s feeling the trunk thinks an elephant is like a snake, and the one feeling the leg thinks an elephant is like a tree. We can’t see the whole nutritional elephant, given the tools at our disposal. So just eat a wide variety of whole-ish foods you enjoy, in quantities consistent with the weight you want to be.

We have <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2023/09/27/low-carb-diets-why-they-work-metabolism/" target=_blank>reams and reams of evidence</a>. Low-carb diets outperform other diets by a few pounds in the short term, but all diets are equally ineffective in the long term.

I write about these issues because I’m trying to change your mind. But I’m also trying to change my own. Humans are terrible at mind-changing; confirmation bias rules our psyche, and it makes all of us lean in to wrong ideas. We’re just not wired to assess evidence and come to reasoned conclusions.

Since the column’s purpose is to assess evidence and come to reasoned conclusions, that scares the bejeezus out of me, and finding ways to avoid my own rabbit holes has been my top priority. There’s no way I can succeed 100 percent, being human and all, but I figure a decent metric of success is whether I ever change my mind.

It’s not easy! I’ve changed my mind about subsidizing fruit and veg (no to yes), whether the Food and Drug Administration should regulate dietary supplements (yes to no),  whether low-fat diets work for weight loss (I wrote a whole book about why they do, and it’s wrong), and a few other things.

Being persuadable is way harder than being persuasive, and the best tool is engaging with smart people who challenge your point of view. This seems like a good time to thank the many of you who have talked to me for the column, sent interesting studies or made solid arguments that have helped me in that effort.

Thank you. I hope we can continue the conversation.

Tamar Haspel is the author of "To Boldly Grow: Finding Joy, Adventure, and Dinner in Your Own Backyard." An oyster farmer on Cape Cod, she writes Unearthed, a monthly commentary in pursuit of a more constructive conversation on divisive food-policy issues.

Tamar Haspel

10 disputed truths about GMOs, diet soda, food deserts and more

the-washington-post

The Washington Post

Washington Post illustration; iStock

illustration for v-unearthedmyths

News

How To

Dining

Newsletter

Instagram

Food

washpost

prism://prism.query/site-not-subtype,/lifestyle/food,recipe-template&limit=20

Get the Eat Voraciously newsletter for delicious dinner inspiration, delivered straight to your inbox.

Your source for everything food and drink: recipes, restaurant reviews, dining guides, cooking for one, Tom Sietsma's column, and much more!

prism://prism.query/food-highlights/&limit=2

prism://prism.query/tag,foodherofeature&limit=1

prism://prism.query/site-articles-only,/lifestyle&limit=20

Lifestyle

Washington Post Lifestyle gives you the latest fashion and beauty trends, home d&eacute;cor pointers, food and recipe ideas and reviews, relationship advice, travel ideas, wellness tips and much more.