One benefit of this lock down is that I have been able to get slowly make my way through my reading list. Eventually I stumbled upon Ruby Tandoh's book "Eat Up" in which she analyses how food impacts every inch of our being from politics and identity to capitalism and the diet industry. However, one chapter that really knocked me was that on the idea of food and worth.
Tandoh argues that there is a common trend within the English language that creates the impression that we have to be morally worthy or deserving to eat certain foods. For example, when we refer to sweet foods we describe ourselves as naughty or after a work out or long day of work we justify what we eat by saying that we are deserving of said food. We have worked for it, proven ourselves and therefore are worthy of such delicacy.
Tandoh relates this idea back to religion suggesting that the rhetoric of sin has been applied to control what foods we can and cannot eat. She demonstrates this through the group weight watchers in how use of the term "syn" to measures calories. Although weight watchers argue that "syn" is short for "synergie" it is no big leap to see the link to sin, creating a morality complex around food.
I was stunned after I read this chapter, mainly because I know that I still carry this complex around food. It was the main driver of my eating disorder; I could only eat "good" foods and painstakingly avoided "bad" foods. But why do I still follow these rules? My nutritionists have always advised me that there is no such thing as good and bad foods as we can have too much of both. We can make ourselves sick from drinking too much water as well as eating too much chocolate. I like to remind myself that my father nearly had a potassium overdose from eating too many bananas, what is considered a super food almost proved to be lethal for him.
I was constantly reminded that its important for us not to exclude certain food groups because it increases our chances of getting ill. When we were nomads, we had to eat whatever was available to us and because of our constant wandering, we had an incredibly varied diet. However, if we start cutting out certain foods and then a certain crop suddenly dies out, it will effect our diets tremendously. For that reason it is better to eat widely.
Furthermore, Tandoh argues that by placing worth on certain foods, a hierarchy consequently develops. When we value vegetables as being morally superior to dairy or crisps, we then criticise those who are unable to get hold of said superior food thereby viewing these people as weak or succumbing to sin for "indulging" in bad foods.
Unfortunately, because of the health gap, the working class have to eat less healthy food because it is cheaper and can be bought in bulk. This feeds into the individualist Neoliberal narrative on health, allowing them to avoid responsibility because they can argue that it is their fault for buying "bad" food. Any health problems that follow can therefore be blamed on these weak individuals rather than the establishment, who receive monetary gains from these economic choices.
Therefore, we cannot allow the establishment to dictate to us what is "good" and "bad", we can only trust our own appetites and intuitions to guide us on what our body needs. Until the government can make all foods available to everyone, we cannot scorn the diet choices of others. Only we can be the true judges of our worth; and we are all worthy to eat what we desire.
Tandoh, R (2018) Eat Up: Food, Appetite and Eating What You Want.
If you are worried about a loved one or yourself please call the Beat hotline: 0808 801 0711 or 0808 801 0677.
Σχόλια