To the Editor:
Re “Stop Worrying, and Learn to Love Industrial Food,” by Jan Dutkiewicz and Gabriel N. Rosenberg (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 8):
In a country already dominated by industrial food, Dr. Dutkiewicz and Dr. Rosenberg seem to feel that even the tiny residue of small farmers selling directly to consumers represents a dire threat that needs to be crushed. Talk about punching down.
No one seriously believes that small farms can supply all or even most of our food. But eating “real food” is not some latter-day MAHA invention; it has long been recommended by leading nutrition experts. Being able to buy some of our food from small or local farmers makes life better in myriad ways: It gives us access to fresher and (often) healthier food than can be found in grocery stores, it creates community and it sustains diversified agricultural landscapes that many people value.
As for two male authors dismissing cooking from scratch — arguably one of the skills that made us human — as “a task that involves unpaid labor and tends to fall disproportionately on women,” all I can say is, how sad. For many people, including me (a man!), cooking is one of life’s great joys — not to mention a way to control what I put in my body, express my creativity, explore different cultures and bring friends and family together.
If such benefits elude the authors and they prefer a diet of Trader Joe’s frozen meals, that is, of course, their choice. But there’s no need to drag the rest of us along with them.
Gabriel Popkin Mount Rainier, Md.
To the Editor:
Jan Dutkiewicz and Gabriel N. Rosenberg conflate ultraprocessed foods with industrially produced foods. While there is no universally accepted definition of “ultraprocessed,” consumers generally understand the term to refer less to the scale of production and more to what is added to food: refined ingredients, additives and substances rarely used in home cooking.
Presenting foods such as bagels and cream cheese as nutritious is misleading. These foods are primarily composed of refined carbohydrates and saturated fat, and are calorie-dense while lacking protective nutrients such as fiber and antioxidants. A more accurate contrast would be oatmeal, which is industrially produced yet nutritious. The distinction lies not in industrialization itself, but in ingredient composition.
The authors also defend the current industrial food system without adequately acknowledging its well-documented effects on public health. For decades, this system has relied on chemical additives — flavor enhancers, dyes, sweeteners and preservatives — to drive overconsumption. Framing this model as benign or even healthy is troubling, given rising rates of diet-related chronic disease.
While I appreciate the authors’ point about the affordability of industrially produced food, escalating health care costs linked to chronic illness now burden the nation by trillions of dollars. Preserving the status quo is not a solution. We need not dismantle the industrial food system entirely, but we must fundamentally reform it to prioritize health over hyperpalatability.
Alice Wang San Diego The writer is a nutritionist.
To the Editor:
The food I choose to eat has nothing to do with what might have sustained or killed some of my ancestors. It has to do with healthy choices, both for me and for the environment.
Yes, it is a great accomplishment that our farming practices have helped diminish the proportion of our population that goes hungry. But there are costs involved. Jan Dutkiewicz and Gabriel N. Rosenberg give no real consideration to these costs or to their effects on human health and on the environment.
Our industrial food system does not reflect real costs in consumer prices, which is one reason local, organically grown food is expensive by comparison, as it more closely reflects the costs of production. A real cost analysis of ultraprocessed foods would be more helpful than the authors’ promotion of our broken food system.
What we choose to eat is a matter of priorities. Given the option, many people will choose to spend less on food today, and deal with the consequences tomorrow. We see those consequences all around us, from the chemicals leaching out of the fields into rivers and aquifers to the obesity epidemic.
Making a pitch for industrial food is tantamount to making a pitch for the health benefits of social media: It won’t harm you, as long as you don’t digest too much of it.
Joshua Greene Washington, Mass. The writer is a journalist focused on sustainable farming practices in the growing of grapes for wine.
The post What Our Industrial Food System Can’t Do appeared first on New York Times.
