Nutrition facts and fictions

by Gideon Lasco, MD, MSc

It takes some faith to be a modern eater. In the past, most people knew exactly what they were eating, because they themselves planted and harvested the rice, raised and slaughtered the chicken; picked the fruits and plucked the leafy vegetables. But today - at least in much of the lowlands - the sites of production (i.e. the farms) - and processing (i.e. the factories) - are far removed from the site of consumption (i.e. our dinner tables) and oftentimes we rely on food labels to tell us what exactly we are eating.

But can food labels be trusted? Are nutrition facts and ingredients intelligible enough for most consumers to help them make decisions? These questions, fundamental as they are for consumer rights, are even more relevant today as more and more people are getting sick because of the food they eat, and as food companies increasingly market their products to health-conscious consumers. In this essay let us look at food labels and examine what they reveal (and conceal).

Pick a random item in any supermarket and first thing you see are the illustrations: luscious strawberries, Dutch windmills, New Zealand cows. Cast off these images! In this exercise, and in our everyday food shopping, we need to focus on the fine print, for it gets us to closer to the truth of what we are about to eat. 

First, look at the generic name of the product, because it can make a whole world of difference in nutritional content. Many people would consider juices to be healthier than softdrinks, but juice, by industrial definition must come entirely from real fruits. In reality, most of the so-called juices in the market are actually “flavored juice drinks”: beverages with little or no actual fruit juice, and a lot of flavors and sweeteners. 

Another example: “Condensed milk” and “evaporated milk” are, by definition, milk where water is removed, and, in the case of the former, sugar is added. But many of the products we assume to be condensed or evaporated milk are actually “creamers”: in place of real milk are vegetable oils and milk powders. Nutritionally speaking, this substitution is very alarming, in light of the long history of these products being used as infant formula.

Second, food labels can trumpet a certain kind of health benefit, but can mislead in terms of what that benefit actually means, and distract attention away from unhealthiness of the product as a whole. Most “whole wheat bread” in the market does have some whole wheat, but still has enriched flour - and the inevitable sugar - as ingredients. One 75-g pack of junk food boasts that it has “0g trans fat” but the fine print shows that its saturated fat content is 7.5g - a whopping 39% of the recommended daily allowance! “Organic” is great, but organic chocolate will still make you fat if you overeat it. 

Finally, although manufacturers are required to list their ingredients and nutrition facts, these seemingly-objective parameters can also mislead, as when serving sizes do not correspond with the actual quantity of a product that is commonly consumed in its entirety. A serving of one popular junk food has 170 calories, but there are actually 4 servings in a 100g pack, making for a total of 680 calories - equivalent to over three cups of rice! 

***

For the food to be in the supermarket in the first place, nutritional sacrifices have to be made, such as the addition of chemicals and the removal of certain nutrients for longer shelf life. There is also the imperative to make the products affordable, hence many of the “cheese foods” we think of as real cheese are actually made of water and oil more than “natural cheese”. Alas, what remains within the budgets of many Filipinos are foods that are rich in flavor but poor in substance; high in calories but lacking in nutrition.

The good news is that there are healthy and affordable foods out there - healthy eating is (and should not) be regarded as a province of the rich. A glass of pure dalandan juice costs just P15 - cheaper than those sugary, dalandan-flavored beverages. Kamote and saging na saba remain affordable and great snacks, even though it takes some patience for our taste buds to rediscover the deliciousness of natural foods - having been made pihikan (picky) by artificial flavors. While the specifics of healthy eating may change with new research, the core tenets are timeless: Choosing foods that are low(er) in sugar, salt, and fat and as unprocessed as possible (the fewer the ingredients the better); going for variety; and eating in moderation. 

But how will consumers be able to tell? This is where the government should step in. In Ecuador, food products are required to prominently display the levels of fat (graza), salt (sal), and sugar (azucar) in “traffic light labels” that show green for low, yellow for medium, and red for high. A similar move in our country would be very much in the spirit of our own Food and Drug Administration’s call for food labels to help people “acquire the knowledge necessary to be informed consumers”- but sadly, this call has largely been ignored by the market.

Alongside our plea for government action, we can equip ourselves - and others - with a critical eye for food labels, ingredients and nutrition facts. In an age when profit margins are oftentimes more valued than product quality, and when many of our lifestyle diseases can be prevented by a healthy diet and regular exercise, we must add to our common sense the ability to differentiate between nutrition fact and fiction.

The apocryphal Fernando Pessoa and the imagined Pope Francis

I admire Pope Francis greatly, but the “Being Happy” passage attributed to him and going viral in the Philippines is not by him, but is the English translation of a Portuguese text entitled "Palco de vida" attributed to the Portuguese poet Fernando Pessoa (1888-1935). Interestingly however, his authorship of this work has also been questioned, and Portuguese scholars believe that the text took a life of its own, beginning with a few lines written by a Brazilian blogger named Nox (see this link for a discussion in January 2006 about the authorship of this text). Rui Araújo writes:

Apparently the phrases took own life and spread throughout Lusophone internet with variations in scoring and attribution of authorship. Then someone decided to take a poem (possibly Augusto Cury, author of Ten Laws to Be Happy), paste such a small piece at the end and distribute everything as if it were the work of Fernando Pessoa. It did not take long for my three phrases start popping the network attributed to Portuguese poet (after all, it is always nice quote a famous Portuguese writer who almost unknown Brazilian blogger).

Fast forward to September 2015, and the Facebook page of a Missionary Community of St Paul the Apostle and Mary, Mother of the Church, Catholic group in Kenya, shared the same passages, attributing to Pope Francis - in, as far as I've seen, the first time it's been ascribed to him. See this link for the original post.

This reminds me of the Pope Francis' supposed response to Duterte's "cursing" him. Though it was disclaimed to be "fake news" (see the original source here), the same fake news website noted:

It was made clear by the unknown source that the news regarding the reaction of the Pope to Duterte was all fictional. But that doesn't stop Filipinos from quoting the said website and spreading images of the Pope with the caption:

"I was amazed by the fact that a politician who is aiming at the highest position could be this honest. It was a first encounter for me to see a politician being honest about his concerns for his country other than kissing my hands for the sole purpose of getting the support of the majority of the Catholic population."

If we admire the Pope, let’s not put words in his mouth. And let us be vigilant in this world of social media when all you need is a face and a phrase to put words on people’s mouths.

Here are the original sources of the supposed "Being Happy" words of wisdom by Pope Francis (sourced from this link and checked against other sources):

PALCO DE VIDA (Attributed to early 20th century Fernando Pessoa but widely disputed by scholars)

“Você pode ter defeitos, viver ansioso e ficar irritado algumas vezes,
mas não se esqueça de que sua vida é a maior empresa do mundo. E você
pode evitar que ela vá à falência.

Há muitas pessoas que precisam, admiram e torcem por você. Gostaria
que você sempre se lembrasse de que ser feliz não é ter um céu sem
tempestade, caminhos sem acidentes, trabalhos sem fadigas,
relacionamentos sem desilusões.

Ser feliz é encontrar força no perdão, esperança nas batalhas,
segurança no palco do medo, amor nos desencontros.

Ser feliz não é apenas valorizar o sorriso, mas refletir sobre a
tristeza. Não é apenas comemorar o sucesso, mas aprender lições nos
fracassos. Não é apenas ter júbilo nos aplausos, mas encontrar alegria
no anonimato.

Ser feliz é reconhecer que vale a pena viver, apesar de todos os
desafios, incompreensões e períodos de crise.

Ser feliz é deixar de ser vítima dos problemas e se tornar um autor da
própria história. É atravessar desertos fora de si, mas ser capaz de
encontrar um oásis no recôndito da sua alma.

Ser feliz é não ter medo dos próprios sentimentos. É saber falar de si
mesmo. É ter coragem para ouvir um “não”. É ter segurança para receber
uma crítica, mesmo que injusta.

Ser feliz é deixar viver a criança livre, alegre e simples, que mora
dentro de cada um de nós. É ter maturidade para falar “eu errei”. É
ter ousadia para dizer “me perdoe”. É ter sensibilidade para expressar
“eu preciso de você”. É ter capacidade de dizer “eu te amo”. É ter
humildade da receptividade.

Desejo que a vida se torne um canteiro de oportunidades para você ser
feliz… E, quando você errar o caminho, recomece, pois assim você
descobrirá que ser feliz não é ter uma vida perfeita, mas usar as
lágrimas para irrigar a tolerância.

Usar as perdas para refinar a paciência.
Usar as falhas para lapidar o prazer.
Usar os obstáculos para abrir as janelas da inteligência.

Jamais desista de si mesmo.
Jamais desista das pessoas que você ama.
Jamais desista de ser feliz, pois a vida é um espetáculo imperdível,
ainda que se apresentem dezenas de fatores a demonstrarem o contrário.

Pedras no caminho? Guardo todas… Um dia vou construir um castelo.”

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

“You may have flaws, live anxious, and sometimes get angry, but never forget that your life is the biggest company in the world. And you can keep it from going bankrupt.

There are many people who need, admire and cheer for you.

I wish that you always remember that being happy is not having a sky without storms, paths without accidents, work without fatigue, relationships without disappointments.

Being happy is finding strength in forgiveness, hope in battles, security in fear, love in disagreements.

Being happy is not only appreciating the smiles, but reflecting on the sadness.

It is not just celebrating the success, but also learning lessons in failures.

Not only having joy in applause, but finding joy in anonymity.

Being happy is recognizing that life is worth living, despite all the challenges, misunderstandings and periods of crisis.

Being happy is no longer being a victim of the problems and becoming an author of history itself. It is crossing deserts outside of yourself, but being able to find an oasis in the secret of your soul.

It is thanking God every morning for the miracle of life.

Being happy is not being afraid of your own feelings. It’s knowing how to talk to yourself.

It’s the courage to hear a “No” and be confident enough to receive criticism, although sometimes untrue.

Being happy is to let the child living within us to live free, happy and simple.

It is having the needed maturity to say “I was wrong”.

It is having the essential courage to say “forgive me”.

It is having the indispensable sensibility to say “I need you”.

It is being able to say “I love you”.

It is having the humility of receptivity.

I want life to be a hotbed of opportunities and that you be happy. And when you go astray, start again. This way, you will find that being happy is not having a perfect life, but using tears to irrigate tolerance. Using losses to refine patience.
Using failures to reach prayer.
Using obstacles to open the windows of intelligence.

Never give up hope.

Never give up the people you love.

Never give up on being happy, because life is a no-miss obstacle, even if it gives you dozens of reasons to demonstrate the contrary.

Stones on the way? I keep them all … One day I’ll build a castle!”

Notes on Malinowski's contributions in anthropological thinking

Malinowski in the Trobriand Islands 

by Gideon Lasco, MD, MSc

Bronisław Malinowski, widely regarded as one of the greatest anthropologists of the 20th century, and one of the founding fathers of the ethnographic tradition. His ethnographies, set in Papua New Guinea during World War I, are classics because they are remarkably detailed and comprehensive, setting the standard for anthropologists. Although he is closely associated with the functionalism school of British anthropology which he founded, I can see many ways to relate his work to various schools of thought such as psychological anthropology and neoevolutionism.

Psychological anthropology is an attempt to weave together ‘self’ and ‘culture’, which was previously the exclusive projects of psychology (ala Freud) and anthropology (ala Boas) respectively. Its early exponents were students of Franz Boas: Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, and Edward Sapir. One early idea was that culture was ‘personality writ large’ and that cultures can have distinct personalities, and modal personalities do exist for particular cultures. Mead’s contribution was that childhood development was a crucial aspect of personality, and therefore is an important stage where culture is inscribed.

I can think of three contributions of Malinowski to this effort. First, methodologically, he calls for ethnography not just to focus on the ‘organization of the tribe’ and the ‘imponderabilia of actual life’ but also the ‘typical utterances, items of folklore and magical formulae’ as ‘documents of native mentality', a nod to the importance of psychology in anthropology. James Frazer, in his preface to Argonauts, recognized the significance of this methodological turn:

He [Malinowski] has wisely refused to limit himself to a mere description of the processes of the [kula] exchange, and has set himself to penetrate the motives which underlie it and the feelings which it excites in the minds of the natives. It appears to be sometimes held that pure sociology should confine itself to the description of acts and should leave the problems of motives and feeling to psychology. Doubtless, it is true that the analysis of motives and feelings is logically distinguishable from the description of acts, and that it falls, strictly speaking, within the sphere of psychology; but in practice an act has no meaning for an observer unless he knows or infers the thoughts and emotiions of the agent; hence to describe a series of acts, without any reference to the state of mind of the agent, would not answer the purpose of sociology, the aim of which is not merely to register but to understand the actions of men in society. Thus sociology cannot fulfil its task without calling in at every turn the aid of psychology. 

Second, he paid attention to the childhood and adolescence of the islanders, foreshadowing Margaret Mead’s Coming of Age in Samoa. From this work on young people, he gives his third contribution, which is to debunk the universality of the Oedipus complex. In Sex and Repression in Savage Society (1927), he presents an entirely different kinship system - matriarchal uncles as "father figures" for boys - as the context in which psychosexual development is different; boys do not develop sexual jealousy for their fathers.

In searching for a number of rationales – from the material to the symbolic - that underline the Kula system, he also foreshadowed the interest of neoevolutionists and cultural ecologists in looking at materialist explanations for social phenonenoma. Moreover, as Moore says in Visions of Culture (p. 144):

Malinowski has been very influential, particularly on lines of anthropological theory emphasizing the adapative significance of culture. The ecological anthropology of the 1960s and 1970s took Malinowski’s basic insights, recast them as hypothesis, and tested them with quantitative data…

Moreover, Malinowski’s functionalist perspective was adopted by Leslie White, with the key difference of looking at the needs of the species instead of the needs of the individual.

Truly Malinowski’s influence is significant and can be seen across various subfields and schools of thought in anthropology.

REFERENCES

Malinowski, B., & Frazer, J. G. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific, an Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea, by Bronislaw Malinowski,... With a Preface by Sir James George Frazer,... G. Routledge and sons.

Moore, J. D. (2000). Visions of culture: an introduction to anthropological theories and theorists. AltaMira Press

Reflections on the Nancy Scheper-Hughes vs. Roy d'Andrade debate

Nancy Scheper-Hughes in action (Photo: Viviane Moos)

by Gideon Lasco, MD, MSc

One can feel the disgust of Roy d’Andrade in his denunciation of the seepage of a “moral model” in anthropology, especially in the wake of Scheper-Hughes’s Conrad-ian battlecry. It it as if he were a churchgoer made to be feel guilty of not making a donation - or a pedestrian made to feel bad at not giving alms to the homeless when all the others are giving five-dollar bills. “I’m still a good person!” he protests.

In this short response, I will focus my critique on d’Andrade’s usage of “morality”, his simplistic view of what critical anthropologists have been doing all along, and his failure to offer an alternative.

The world is a moral terrain and navigating it doesn’t necessarily make you a “moralist”. d’Andrade’s critique of “oppression-as-badness” conflates “moralizing” with simply seeing things as they are. Oppression is “bad”, but its badness can be incidental to its existence. “Since when is evil exempt from human reality?” as Scheper-Hughes counters.

Moreover, as ethnographers have demonstrated time and again, writing about “oppression” or “suffering” do not generate a “negative view” of the world that d’Andrade fears, but actually, a more textured view of power: there is resistance, contestation, struggle, and unexpected trajectories. Here, d’Andrade forgets that the very strength of anthropology is its microscopic view, its power to animate the ‘field’ but showing its complexity.

More glaring is his carte blanche denunciation of these “moral models” without providing any kind of viable alternative. His piece would have been more powerful had he followed a “show, not tell” approach, that is, by using ethnography to argue for his points, and in doing so, provide a model for the “value free”, “objective” anthropology that he has nostalgia for (here, Scheper-Hughes scores more points). Neither does he reflect on how we can arrive at “empirically demonstrable truths.” Then as now, a thoughtful consideration of what “interpretation” means in anthropology would have been most welcome. But in failing to offer a credible alternative, he himself is guilty of his critique of having  a “model [that] is almost entirely negative in character.”

In fairness to d’Andrade, I think he is warranted in his concern in an "unreflexive assumption that one is a member of an elect that by natural grace knows what is right, and this elect consists of those who hold the current moral model.” A priori assumptions based on clear agendas can definitely diminish the power of anthropology, not just methodologically but in the way people will receive our work. Which is why, in short, neither can I subscribe to Scheper-Hughes view at the opposite pole of this debate.

My stand is to see ethnography not just only a methodology, but also an episteme of my morality/politics as an anthropologist. By simply discovering and then illuminating “what is at stake” for our informants (Kleinman, 1997), I believe that we can preserve our “moral authority” (d’Andrade) but at the same time fulfill our “ethical obligation” (Scheper-Hughes). Let me end, however, with the caveat that given the immanence of politics in the production of knowledge (i.e. in selecting topics for research), this is easier said than done.

St. Louis, Missouri
April 2015