ABSTRACT
In a book about the current nutrition discourse in Western cultures, Crotty (1995) describes what she calls ‘Good Nutrition’ – that is, current views about food and health promulgated by experts such as doctors, scientists and nutritionists – as a form of social control. Crotty sees this form of social control as not necessarily a conspiratorial state of affairs, but more to do with control ‘exercised by any social institution which attempts to ensure that people follow the rules it sees as acceptable’ (Crotty, 1995: 65). Crotty points out that current nutrition strategies engender a form of control which is scientistic – where a population is encouraged to adopt specific conduct in regard to food based upon assumptions that it is a ‘sick population’ and, as such, everyone is in need of dietary reform. These assumptions are based on dietary surveys which indicate that, as a whole, the population is not following dietary recommendations. Diagnosed as ‘sick’ and ‘non-compliant’, the population is subjected to rational, scientific, dietary modifications through mass education strategies. Crotty’s argument, which is supported by others (see for example, McKie et al., 1993), is that the scientific, authoritarian rules which underpin many modern public health nutrition programmes are symptomatic of a dominant medical culture, which as well as being moralistic, sexist and class prejudiced, is highly fallible to boot. For example, according to Crotty, current theories which encourage the reduction of fat in the population’s diet are based on studies which exclude women, the elderly and children. In other words, the health problems of middle-aged men have been used as models for health problems affecting the population as a whole. Crotty goes on to say that while low-fat diets may be of use in preventing or treating diseases in the middle-aged male population, we should remain sceptical about the health benefits of these dietary recommendations for other groups. Crotty is also critical of current nutrition promotion because it ‘lacks a social perspective and compassion’ (1995: 1). It fails to take into consideration the everyday realities of life which, according to Crotty, inform food decision-making for most people.
