MA Thesis Carlijn Nanette Popelier University of Amsterdam
Date: 03 February 2016 Word Count: 18,295
Supervisor: Dr. Jan Tuerlings
The Modern Construction of Health in the Age of Biopolitics
CARLIJN POPELIERDepartment of Humanities, University of Amsterdam
Abstract. This thesis analyses the shifting nature of dietetics in modern government and how health is constructed in the Dutch magazine Allerhande. In this essay, the modern construction of health is displayed through a historical analysis of dietary advice in the U.S. followed by an interrogation of the dietary logics used in Allerhande. Dietary logics are explained in light of governmentality, which is concerned with the free individual and the mechanisms in which public and private institutions are able to regulate his or her conduct from a distance. This thesis argues that Allerhande uses biopower to produce the self-reflective, autonomous individual as well as a self-discerning population as a body, whilst avoiding responsibility for behaviour by rendering health through the consumption of food. Five editions of the Allerhande magazines from the 2015 collection are used in order to contextualise how dietary recommendations and dietary logics are proposed in an attempt to gain control of the body and regulate the population.
Keywords. Governmentality, Biopower, Dietary Logic, Dietetics, Allerhande, Health Construction, The USDA
Table of Contents
TITLE PAGE 1
ABSTRACT 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5
CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW 6
Introduction 7
1800s 9
1900s 10
Figure 1.1 Dietary Goals 1977 13
Figure 1.2 USDA Dietary Guidelines 1980-95 15
1990s 16
Figure 1.3 Eating Right Pyramid 17
Organic Foods 17
CHAPTER TWO: GOVERNMENTALITY 21
Foucault Discourse 22
Sovereignty to Governmentality 23
Epistemological Break 26
Health as Energy 27
Health as Balance 28
Health as ‘Eat More’ and ‘Eat Less’ 29
Health as Eating as Much of one Category 29
Health as Organic 30
CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS 33
Context of Allerhande 34
Dietary Logics, As Seen in Allerhande 35
Health as Energy 36
Health as Balance 37
Health as Eat More X 38
Health as Eat Less X 40
Figure 3.1 40
Health as Eat as Much of one Category 42
Health as Organic 42
Figure 3.2 44
Health as Replacement 46
Self-managing Individuals 46
CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION 49
Governmentality and Biopower 50
The Ideology of Nutritionism 50
Self-governance versus Regulation 51
Dietary Logics 52
Dietary Logics in Allerhande 52
Self-Governance as Personal Responsibility 54
REFERENCES CITED 58
Acknowledgements. There is only one person that I would like to thank and that is my supervisor and Foucault-wizard Dr. Jan Tuerlings. Jan has been very patient with me as a student, selflessly accepting the extension of my thesis due to my family circumstance and tolerating the emails, text messages and Skype calls in-between Congo, Amsterdam and Cambodia. Writing this thesis from start to finish with a delay after having finished all my other classes at the UvA has been extremely challenging and Jan is the one who guided and motivated me whenever I needed. Thank you Jan for helping me obtain my master’s
Chapter One
Food and health: two of the essences of life for all human beings. Health is a universal goal that continually changes in meaning and is constructed differently all around the globe. It is a process that can only be achieved by the individual through self-control as he or she is the owner of his or her own body. The pleasure of eating is a celebrated and widely appreciated part of life that has been associated to culture and their relationship to nature long before it became about bodily health (Pollan 8). Regulating health through regulating eating is a contemporary phenomenon that was established in the last two hundred years and inaugurated the notion of dietetics. The conception of health or how to realise it is not a static ideal. With the adaptation of agricultural technologies, food science and strong influences from powerful institutions, new dietary logics are constantly emerging that formulate the basis of healthy eating. Dietary logics attempt to influence the eating habits of consumers by constructing a particular notion of health and the methods needed to achieve it. With the amount of new food products created each year reaching 17,000 (Pollan 133) and contrasting discourses of health existing across all sorts of mediums, it becomes challenging for the consumer to recall the prerequisites to a healthy diet.
In the last two hundred years alone governmental advice and dietary guidelines in the U.S. have changed dozens of times, micromanaging the eating patterns of populations. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) initiates dietary guidelines to help Americans make healthy food choices every five years. The USDA provides programs and services on food safety, organic agriculture, wildlife conservation and any other topic that relates to healthy eating. All these initiatives contribute towards the construction of health but the definition of health is never absolute. An insight into the last two hundred years of dietary advice in the U.S. exhibits the distinct dietary logics used to influence the eating habits of individuals. Dietary logics as a method of constructing health are fixed but the information that is administered changes. These logics do not replace one another but rather, they overlap and amalgamate to produce self-governing individuals. Regulating populations through the management of social bodies, Michel Foucault argues, is a form of power called biopower and is heavily active in the enterprise of constructing health. This theory is explained in the second chapter, which is concerned with governmentality and biopower.
The pleasure of eating has been replaced by the complexities of nutritionism, moral
has been a crucial part of human existence. Throughout the world there is a vast historic and cultural variety in what humans eat. Food comes in all sorts of textures and flavours with an ever-growing list of products and more recently, with corresponding nutritional information. Since the advent of nutrition there has been a strong focus on using nutritional information to improve health, which Scrinis calls “the ideology of nutritionism” (2). This is characterised as recognising produce for the qualities that are beneficial for health and transforming these factors into dietary advice. With this modern construction of food (Scrinis 26-27):
...we can adequately explain the health implications not only of individual foods but also of dietary patterns simply by looking at their macronutrient profiles.... once the ideal macronutrient ratio has been established, the actual foods we choose to eat... are more or less irrelevant.... foods are primarily viewed as interchangeable vehicles for the delivery of isolated nutrients.
This demonstrates the tremendous shift in the approach to food and the urgency that is placed upon nutrients in the succession to health. The ideology of nutritionism establishes discourses of health that transgress the unwritten privacy of the individual and induce feelings of personal responsibility with regards to transforming their health. The pleasure of eating is fading into the background in the approach to food as it becomes much less
prominent in the advertisement of foods and the moral asceticism to eat healthily is increasing. This can be documented in the dietary advice present in U.S. governmental implementations from the nineteenth century onwards.
Through an exploration of the food industry and governmental dietary advice in the U.S. over the last two hundred years this thesis provides the context and framework to support the categorisation of existing dietary logics. These logics are further developed through an analysis and discovery of contemporary logics in the Albert Heijn Allerhande series of 2015 as a primary source. Absorbing the history of the food industry in the U.S. and its relationship with citizens provides insight into the changing nature of dietary logics. In order to comprehend the logics present in modern society it is beneficial to realise their emergence and observe the transformations of eating recommendations. The primary focus of the history in dietary logics is on the U.S. due to its presence in dietetics and the
construction of health and its influence on the rest of the world. This thesis looks no further into the past than the nineteenth century as it marks the epistemological break that
1800s
Before food became enmeshed in the state of healthiness, food was a part of culture and tradition and a dietary necessity in order to stay alive. Hundreds of years ago tribes consisted of hunters and gatherers collecting and providing food for their fellow members in order to survive. There was no regard for the specific beneficial health factors of foods apart from as a source of energy. In the 1800s there was still no correlation between specific food groups and health but rather between food and hunger. This is because there was little scientific discourse about food meaning there was no focus on eating habits as a means of health to the human body. Families ate grains, dried meats, fresh meat and fish, fruits and vegetables, dairy, potatoes and any other food that was accessible to them (Cummings 22). Health in this era is defined as staying alive through sources of energy, manifesting the first dietary logic of this thesis. The variety and trouble-free intake of foods illustrates the dietary logic of food as energy considering this was the only concern for eating. Once the calorie revealed which foods were higher sources of energy, the only other contributing factor to choice was flavour. This logic lasted for decades until developments in science discovered the presences of nutrients in in foods around the 1890s.
The USDA was formed in 1862 to benefit both the food industry and the health of the people. Currently the USDA provides dietary advice to citizens, regulates agriculture and farming strategies and executes policies around food. When it emerged the entire notion of a department like the USDA was new and necessary as it supervised the agricultural revolution and urbanisation that was taking place in the U.S. Justus von Liebig produced some of the “most influential work in early nutrition” (Coveney 59) “helping to garner federal support for the establishment of agricultural research stations in each State” (Coveney 60) in the U.S. This funding allowed chemistry professor Wilbur Atwater to research how much protein and energy a person needs and in 1875 he became the first to discover the amount of “mineral matter” (Atwater 4), calories, protein, fats and
carbohydrates in foods. Atwater measured food as an input for energy to the human body and labour as its output, allowing him to create “nutritious and economical menus for families” (Coveney 61). These ‘menus’ demonstrate one of the first shifts in the pleasure of eating to the ideology of nutrition. The USDA was deeply impressed by Atwater’s work and without hesitation transformed his scientific research into a more legible and colloquial version for the average citizen (Davis and Saltos 33). This led to the creation of the
The Farmers’ Bulletin is a primary insight into nutrients classes, the caloric value of foods, the composition of food materials and a calculation of daily dietaries (Atwater 3). In retrospect this is an important moment in food history as Atwater’s discoveries are extremely prominent in the modern construction of health (Coveney 60). Atwater’s
discovery manifested the value that was placed on scientific discourse in regards to dieting. The end of the nineteenth century marked a key time in nutritional history, as American citizens started becoming dietary reformers and observing the relationship between food and health. Arguably, Sylvester Graham was the first to establish a movement in the U.S. although his motivations were based on spiritual beliefs and wholesome ways to administer the body (Coveney 56). This consisted mostly of a plain food diet, with natural fresh foods and the total elimination of meats and spices, as they were believed to rouse a sexual appetite and cause aggressive behaviour (Coveney 56). This demonstrates that Graham’s motives to regulate eating habits were based on intangible beliefs derived from his
Presbyterian background as minister. All the same, Graham remains “far ahead of his time” (Cummings 44) by implementing dietary logics in order to regulate the consumption of food. Several different logics were at work such as 1) avoid substances, 2) decrease intake, 3) moderate intake of substance and 4) increase in a specific category. Graham’s diet is a precursor of what the U.S. government came to do with dietary logics based on scientific disciplines. Similarly in 1825 cook Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin declared in his book The Physiology of Taste that a healthy-diet may include all food sorts in “moderation” (Higman 203). These are only two examples that symbolise the dawn of dietary logics and the relationship between food and health that would develop.
1900s
The changing nature of eating habits in the twentieth century was largely due to
implementations by the USDA. Diets and eating habits were predominantly changing in the mid-nineteenth century as agriculture was the largest occupational group (Burnett 52) and the “lower food prices” (Cummings 76) were increasing the sales of produce. These developments suggest changes in food production because more foods in general and a wider variety of products were available to citizens. Increases in agriculture propose an adaptation to the population’s diet. By the twentieth century this had led to the development
first USDA Food Guide, which mainly targeted young age groups appeared in 1916. The purpose of the food guide was relatively clear (Davis and Saltos 35):
The food guide translates nutrient intake recommendations into food intake recommendations. It provides a conceptual framework for selecting the kinds and amounts of food, which together provide a nutritionally satisfactory diet. It is an advisory manual that propagates specific notions of health. It categorised food into the five groups that are still relatively familiar today. These are “milk and meat, cereals, vegetables and fruits, fats and fatty foods, and sugars and sugary food” (Davis and Saltos 35). This was very new at the time and became the precedential innovation to kick-start decades of guiding citizens in their food choices. Food guides contained several dietary logics over the decades all in an attempt to construct health. The aims of the food guide above demonstrate the implementation of 1) food as energy/nutrition, 2) eat more or less of specific food and 3) avoid or eat as much of certain foods. Food guides regulate eating behaviours and the dietary logics make it possible to construct health.
Throughout the 1920s food guides continued to be updated and distributed with recommendations on how much food to buy each week with dietary recommendations based on the five food groups. Even during the economic constraints of the Great Depression the USDA managed to recommend food plans that would target all the
nutritional needs of the human body (Davis and Saltos 35). A combination of dietary logics can be used during any time period, as the introduction of a new one does not necessarily eliminate the others. Food guidelines are constantly adapting to the framework of the society it is advising but the main dietary logics generally keep reoccurring. This means that a dietary logic of health as energy can continue to exist but that simply the source of energy will change over time. Dietary guidelines can change due to circumstance of war, the political economy, and influence from the media or scientific revolutions.
In 1940 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences established a committee called the Food and Nutrition Board to advise the government on recommended daily nutrient intake. The concern with health and the human body had become very significant, increasing the involvement of the USDA and their methods of control. The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) was established, affecting the USDA’s dietary guidelines. RDA is revised every five years and adapts to food resources, population size and health trends. RDA highlighted “specific recommended intakes for calories and nine essential nutrients”
(Davis and Saltos 35), these nine essential nutrients are no longer present. The dietary logic at work here is to eat more or less of a specific nutrient in order for the individual to be categorised as healthy. The instructions of dietary advice were becoming more specific ranking nutrients according to healthful benefit. This was possible due to Atwater’s discovery of nutrients in foods. Never before had citizens been wary about nutrition deficiency, causing a guide of food products and their nutrients to be created.
In 1956 the USDA established the Basic Four to highlight the minimum allowance of food groups in order to still achieve the daily-recommended need of nutrients. The Basic Four constructs health by regarding everything outside of the Basic Four as unhealthy and to be avoided. It also implements suggested daily serving sizes for each category followed by “or more” (Davis and Saltos 38) (italics in original). So it seems, the Basic Four implements the dietary logic of eat as much of one category. The Basic Four Daily Food Guide also established larger serving sizes in order to avoid nutrient deficiency causing “milk and meat producers to appreciate its “eat more” implication” (Nestle 37). There was a large emphasis on the importance of protein to accelerate growth in children and to counter the “protein malnutrition” (Scrinis 56) problem that was discovered in Africa in the 1950s and 60s. Notice that The Basic Four does not promote specific foods but rather categories in its entirety and specific substances that are required for health. Creating a minimum allowance for a food group is a new method of constructing health as it suggests that not obliging this guidance is deemed unhealthy. This structure of recommending food was used for several decades to avoid malnutrition but did not anticipate the consequences of overconsumption. The 1960s are when American nutrition scientist Ancel Keys discovered a direct
relationship between saturated fats and the increased risk of heart disease (Scrinis 34). This brought great concern to the USDA and called for a stronger focus on calorie
overconsumption and the study of bad nutrients. As a consequence “much greater emphasis was now put on an individual’s behaviour as a cause of disease” (Coveney 97). This meant that stricter guidelines had to be created and in much more detail in order to regain a national stability of health (Welsh, David and Shaw 6). In 1969 the White House
Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health took place to discuss the solutions for health issues such as malnutrition, overconsumption and chronic diseases. The solutions came in
nutrients that are linked to chronic diseases. The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, The American Heart Association and the National Cancer Institute all supported the Dietary Goals (Scrinis 2). The recommendations were extremely nutrient specific,
implementing a number of dietary logics to control the overall health of the population (see figure below).
Figure 1.1- Dietary Goals for the American People 1977
Clearly there is a stronger focus on nutrition specifics removing the conception of diet even further from the pleasure of eating. The logics introduced here are 1) Increase of specific nutrient, 2) Maximum of a specific nutrient, 3) Reduction of specific nutrient, 4) Equal distribution across specific nutrient group (fats). There are strict rules surrounding the construction of health avoiding suggestions of overall moderation in the dietary as this is too vague. The appearance of maximum allowances is very significant here as it was a time that chronic diseases were extremely prevalent and needed to be controlled. Identifying maximums sets boundaries for citizens who are supposedly autonomous and concurrently upsets food producers.
The method of constructing health experienced a major development as the avoidance of specific mineral matter emerged. Previously, advice to avoid substances was in relation to a food group but chronic diseases and nutritionism led to instructions to avoid nutrients. Nutritionists and dietary reformers decided that dietary advice needed to shift from the “prevention of nutrient deficiency to [the] prevention of chronic diseases” (Nestle 37). This could be achieved by implementing Dietary Goals that avoided the consumption or
overconsumption of dangerous substances such as fats. Pollan states that during this time “a whole way of thinking about food and health underwent a momentous shift” (24), which
• Increase carbohydrate intake to 55 to 60 percent of calories
• Decrease dietary fat intake to no more than 30 percent of calories, with a reduction in intake of saturated fat, and recommended approximately equivalent distributions among saturated, polyunsaturated, and monounsaturated fats to meet the 30 percent target
• Decrease cholesterol intake to 300 mg per day • Decrease sugar intake to 15 percent of calories • Decrease salt intake to 3 g per day
refers to the shift away from wholefoods being used in the construction of health. Dietary goals consisted of a strong focus on nutrient specific recommendations for diet and a reduction of recognising foods as a whole. This is because the overall message of dietary advice became “speak no more of foods, only nutrients” (Pollan 24) (italics in original). Nutrients are the substances that make up food therefore being able to differentiate between good and bad substances was a stepping stone for scientific discourse in the construction of dietary advice. With all the changes that are occurring foods from an (Pollan 24):
entirely different taxonomic class, are now lumped together as mere delivery systems for a single nutrient.
Foods are recognised for their beneficial nutrients and categorised by this rather than their taxonomic class symbolising a change in what food has become.
The USDA caused quite a stir in 1977 after releasing the report on Dietary Goals for the United States due to the changes in food selection and preparation it suggested. Products such as meat, eggs and non-fat milk suddenly had to be controlled making the producers of those foods furious with Congress. It was the first time that Congress labelled food
products as bad for health, causing food producers to worry about the economic prosperity of their agricultural terrain. It was especially meat producers who opposed the Dietary Goals and demanded that the recommendation “to decrease meat consumption” (Nestle 41) be removed. This triumphed as at the end of 1977 a renewed version of Dietary Goals was released stating to “choose meats, poultry, and fish which will reduce saturated fat intake” (Nestle 42). This was released in February 1980 and was called the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which adopted the term “avoid too much” (Nestle 46) (italics in original) (see table below, on next page).
Figure 1.2- The USDA Dietary Guidelines from 1980-95 (Davis and Saltos 45)
Several food producers still opposed this less direct method of advice but the USDA needed to fight a battle against chronic diseases and advising a controlled diet was the best way to do this. These guidelines proposed to (Nestle 46):
Eat a variety of foods; Maintain ideal weight; Avoid too much fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol; Eat foods with adequate starch and fiber; Avoid too much sugar; Avoid too much sodium.
Here there are two logics that have been implemented; 1) Overall variety and 2)
Moderation of specific substances. Through dietary logics the USDA is able to construct health and influence consumers eating habits. This table shows that there is a large focus on the consumption of specific nutrients rather than foods. This advice gave rise to both nutritional labelling which warned consumers of the ingredients inside food products and
the health claims made on food products. If people were advised to stop over-consuming foods and control their intake of specific nutrients, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had to develop a way for consumers to be aware of the amounts they are consuming.
1990s
In the 1990s the Nutrition Labelling and Education Act, which falls under the FDA in the U.S. “mandated the use of nutrition information on virtually all packaged and processed foods” (Davis and Saltos 44). This way people could know exactly what they were eating, which was necessary due to the raised concern regarding artificial ingredients in food (Coveney 119). Nutritional labels also contain serving sizes, which adopts a dietary logic of maximum allowance. Nutritional labels instruct the individual to read them from a dietetic point of view so that they will regulate their consumption of healthy and unhealthy foods. A serving size contains a figure that is a healthy amount to eat, meaning it creates a boundary and this insinuates that consumption outside of this boundary is unhealthy. Nutritional information became very complex and a major attribute to food choices. The early 90s witnessed a return to the construction of health through food groups rather than nutritional substances. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines were still in place but the purpose of the Food Guide Pyramid (see figure 1.3, on next page), was to help consumers in
following them (Nestle 52). The pyramid came to be known as the guide with “variety, proportionality and moderation” (Davis and Stalos 42) and was widely accepted amongst professionals, the public and food producers. These were the three key concepts of the guide to provide an efficient and easy-to-use graph for users (Welsh, Davis and Shaw 33). These dietary logics instigated moderation and variety but it was limited to within the five food groups that were advised by the Food Guide Pyramid. Notice the serving sizes in figure 1.3 that provide minimum and maximums of serving sizes in order to guarantee the
consumption of nutrients needed. Eating habits are being regulated in a specific way to produce the modern healthy citizen.
Figure 1.3- The Food Guide Pyramid
The Food Guide Pyramid is a simplified version of the Dietary Guidelines in the U.S. and all the nutrients that are associated with health. Issues of the Food Guide Pyramid do not go unnoticed to some, as critics claimed that it does not “assign foods to groups, define serving sizes, or distinguish “good” from “bad” kind of fats” (Nestle 68). Perhaps the pyramid is oversimplified, as it does not specifically categorise each and every product, which is why the nutritional labelling act is so important. With the help of the pyramid and nutritional labels consumers can calculate the exact intake of their nutrients.
The transformation to “speak no more of foods, only nutrients” (Pollan 24) is not favoured anymore and wholefoods are idealised. Obsessing with nutritionism and regulating the intake of specific ingredients that are in processed foods in order to be healthy has become extremely complex and has triggered the reappearance of organic foods (Pollan 141). Between 1997 and 2005 there was a dramatic increase in organic food products with U.S. organic farmland increasing from 1.3 million acres to 4 million acres (Dimitri and
Oberholtzer 10). This increase in size demonstrates the reappearance of organic farmland, which takes the place of farmland that could be used for processed foods. Organic dairy products also saw an increase with “annual growth rates of retail sales ranging from 16 to 34 percent between 1997 and 2007” (Dimitri and Oberholtzer 16). This data is significant as sales double in ten years which is rare considering the associations dairy have to health. Rather than scrutinising dairy for the fats or sugars they contain this dietary logic welcomes it as it is a part of the organic food group that is substantiated as healthy. In 1990 Congress mandated “the creation of a clear national standard for certifying and labeling organically grown products” (Paarlberg 168) contributing to the rapid expansion of sales. Organic products developed a higher standard and were regulated by law therefore they became notorious as superior in health which signifies this dietary logic. In the 90s civilians were protesting the processed and chemically created food products available to them (Richards 46). Agricultural revolution has instigated a dietary logic that is almost cultural in the way it defends the original version of food and desensitises food science. It is much more about accepting the natural food product as a whole rather than controlling nutrient deficiency and the overconsumption of bad nutrients.
Organic itself can be viewed as a dietary logic, namely a method that influences certain food consumption behaviour, as it promotes natural food as opposed to processed. There has been a huge increase in the demand for organic products, emphasising the importance consumers place on non-refined, natural products. There is no concern for serving size, variety, food type or even moderation. There is no maximum allowance of a food or specific nutrient but rather the advise to eat anything that falls under the category of being organic. Although similar to ‘eating as much of one category’ it differs in the outlook on the process of healthy eating or the relationship to food. Organic food producers want citizens to support locally grown food as a means to maximising health and “escape the Western diet and the ideology of nutritionism” (Pollan 142). The Western diet is everything that includes foods that are more processed and industrial than of nature and are “fast, cheap, and easy” (Pollan 145). Pollan wants citizens to step away from the lifestyle of counting calories, eating products that make health claims and the act of avoiding specific nutrients. This dietary logic invites consumers to transform their approach to dieting and value the natural and organic foods of our past.
Dietary guidelines change due to a combination of factors that can be societal, scientific or even economic. Life expectancy in the early 1900s was no higher than forty-seven due to the appearance of infectious diseases, malnutrition and poor living conditions. A
culmination of war, diseases such as xerophthalmia and malnutrition transformed dietetics in the twentieth century after the human body became “recognized by governments
throughout the world to be of public concern” (Cummings 7). This is a contributing factor to dietary change as the government realised the guidance citizens needed in order to stay healthy at such a difficult time. Atwater’s discovery of the nutrients available in foods also caused an enormous shift in the habit of eating. Eating became based on nutrients rather than food groups and called for educational programs, reports and guidelines for the public to understand what they needed to be looking for on food labels even more.
The transformation from the pleasure of eating to “a government of nutrition” (Coveney 63) can be traced back to Atwater’s discovery of thermodynamics in the human body and the mineral matter in foods. Food was understood for the first time within a scientific discipline contributing to the biopolitical methods of regulating the subject. Coveney claims that (62):
As a technology of power/knowledge, therefore, nutrition was productive in that it provided a new understanding of food with the potential to improve health.
Nutrition has adopted a level of authority as it has the power to produce contemporary constructions of health and the dietary recommendations that follow. It is almost as if health could be measured and calculated through food, consequently eliminating the “role of flavour or indeed pleasure in the diet” (Coveney 63) as it did not matter as long as it was “healthy and digestible” (Shapiro 81). According to Batchelor and Stoddart “for the first time, people started reading and studying food labels” (80). Nutritional discourse started with Atwater and continued to develop with the emergence of the USDA and several other social institutions. According to Coveney nutritional discourse is not the only consideration of food choice that has lasted as (110):
a radical change in the nature of the food supply – especially the increase of ‘convenience’ foods – ushered in a discourse on a new nutrition pedagogy.
This statement demonstrates that the emergence of processed foods brought about a change in the concept of nutrition, ushering in the re-emergence of organic foods.
The attention to food and its value to health is instigated by the dietary logics that surround eating. Dietary guidelines that recommend a minimum allowance of vitamin C or the instruction to avoid certain fats are dietary logics. There are several different logics that have been highlighted that can be found in modern constructions of health. The
introduction of dietary logics in the last two hundred years is not meaningless as it signifies the epistemological break of the conception of food and resonates the appearance of
governmentality. Governmentality is a term created by Foucault to describe the ways in which institutions exercise control over the physical and political bodies of society without using force. Recommending to eat more or less of a product might seem beneficial to health but it is also a form of control that attempts to create the docile body. Biopower is the practice used to regulate populations through the human body and dietary logics allow institutions to achieve this. The meaning of dietary logics and their relation to
Chapter Two
Two hundred years of changes in dietary habits and the controlling nature of dietary logics demonstrate the involvement of the U.S. in advocating health. Dietary logics are not repressive or forceful but rather initiate forms of self-control that are desired by public and private institutions. The desire of the institutions to regulate populations through the human body is a contemporary phenomenon that currently defines our state of being. The
biopolitical logic of health is crucial in maximising the health of the individual but it does not do this through a sovereign mode of power. It is a new mode of power known as biopower that superimposes the fading nature of the sovereign as it is “no longer in the dominant position” (Nealon 28) of power. The notion of governmentality helps understand the theoretical context of dietary logics and their place in modern society. This chapter uses governmentality literature to substantiate the descriptions of health discourse in the
previous chapter. It highlights the epistemological break that occurred with the
transformation of eating and the discourses that surround it. Rather than simply mentioning the dietary logics that are present in history I relate them to biopower and how they tie into the notion of self-control and the regulation of society. The transition from a sixteenth century monarchy to governmentality is a large aspect of Foucault’s work when explaining the eruption of biopower. Governmentality is juxtaposed to sovereign rule for their stark difference in nature further develops the conception of the former. Finally, this thesis provides a formulation of discourse and episteme in order to understand Foucault’s theories.
Foucault Discourse
Governmentality works through the production and propagation of discourse, which
according to Foucault is interrelated with knowledge and power. Discourse is described not as language but “as a system of representation” (Hall 44) through which meaning is
produced. Sentences are produced through language but they have no meaning without discourse. Discourse is about the changeable representations of life through knowledge and its powerful practice in constructing meaning (Hall 44). Foucault stresses that a discursive formation is not permanent and holds most true at that certain point in time. He believed that (Hall 46):
in each period, discourse produced forms of knowledge, objects, subjects and practices of knowledge, which differed radically from period to period, with no
If meaning is socially and historically constructed then objects, habits and practices will obtain new meanings depending on the social and historical context. The different discourses in the construction of health exemplify this as there is regularly a new method in doing so. The point is that information is extremely valuable and can hold a lot of meaning during a point in time. In terms of dietary logics it is important to understand that there is no right or wrong because at a point in history that information is regarded as absolute. Historical context and social discourses that surround an object or theory give it meaning and is crucial to recognise considering the changing nature of constructing health. It is important to recognise that there are radical breaks in history as new information is produced, which can be better understood through Foucault’s analysis of the sovereign.
Sovereignty to Governmentality
There was a turn in history when another successful mode of governing was created which first appeared in sixteenth and seventeenth century political theory (Golder 164), referred to as governmentality. Governmentality is “concerned with the maintenance and control of bodies and persons” (Butler 52) through a self-governing and internalised mechanism of power. The state focuses less on repressing society and concentrates on regulating internal motivations that will contribute to the prolonging of life and health. The effects of
governmentality are simultaneously beneficial and optimising for the individual, the collectivity, and the state (Coveney 104). The absolute monarch’s accession to the
sovereign rules “his territorial subjects through laws and edicts” (Golder 164) and has “the right to take life or let live” (Foucault Society 241). Sovereignty registers solely the will of the absolute monarch and is a “repressive, prohibitive, punitive, coercive and imperative” (Ferreira et al. 115) modality of governance, which is no longer the case. The most remarkable change to observe from the shift of sovereignty to governmentality is the transformation of governing through discipline and punishment with external and negative forces to self-governing through internalised and positive forces. Perhaps to modern citizens it is self-evident that the state manages their lives in this way but it is a fairly new phenomenon known as biopower.
Biopower is the practice through which state and non-state institutions regulate life through a number of techniques to subjugate the body with the intention of increasing the longevity of life. Biopower consists of two poles which Foucault calls anatomo-politics and
bio-politics. As mentioned in the literature review, civilians in previous centuries obeyed laws created and executed by the monarch for fear of the tyrannical threat of deduction. The government controlled the society with “a right of seizure” (Foucault Right of Death 136) to anything, “time, bodies, and ultimately life itself” (Foucault Right of Death 136). This is where anatomo-politics are integrated to focus (Foucault Right of Death 139):
on the body as a machine: its disciplining, the optimization of its capabilities....the parallel increases of its usefulness and its docility, [and] its integration into systems of efficient and economic controls.
These are the anatomo-politics of biopower, the attempts to maximise the physical
productivity of the social body and integrate it into an organised system. In this system the social body is not repressed or dominated through slavery or serfdom but “works by constituting and structuring perpetual grids and physical routines” (Lemke 36), such as dietary logics. Dietary logics conceptualise healthy eating habits in a non-coercive manner that are instigated to maximise the health of the individual and regulate the behaviour of populations. These are further induced with a combination of biopolitical controls. Biopolitical measures function through overall mechanisms of “biological processes” (Foucault 247) to maintain life and regulate the social body. This is contrary to disciplinary mechanisms, which focus on training the individual. Biopower purports “regulatory control of the population” (Lemke 36) to form a social body; translated as the investment in the mechanisms of life. Biopolitics refers to the emergence of structural implementations that contribute to the longevity of life without referring to the human body. For example (Ferreira et al. 113):
various disciplinary and regulatory mechanisms: health insurance or retirement income systems; hygiene rules to ensure longevity; pressures that the city organization puts on sexuality; procreation and family hygiene; [and] schooling.
The natural attributes of life such as birth, morbidity and morality are taken into account and registered in regulatory mechanisms to further increase the stability of human
existence. These initiatives invest in life and oppose the single sovereign that had the right to take lifeand rather promote “making live and letting die” (Foucault 247). In the modern government the prospect of living is valuable and controlled through regulating the health
implementations come across as logical but they were new phenomenon’s that changed the structure of life.
Increasing the health of individuals is a huge factor of biopower and it is done through the proliferation of discourses and the instalment of correct attitudes vis-à-vis one’s body and the food you put into it. There is no discipline and control but invitations to self-govern and inherently desire the norm that the state desires. This means that “choice is not based on pleasure but on rational considerations” (Coveney 93). Through the industry the
governmental logic is spread and a norm is created by a higher power, such as a dietary logic, that simultaneously leads individuals to believe they desire the norm that they
themselves did not construct. For example dietary logics aimed at consumers to eat more of vitamin x and y seduce the reader to maximise his or her health in general. It is important to understand that a dietary logic is not forced rather it is a strategic power that organises behavioural aspects of citizens in disguise. This mechanism (Coll 210):
targets the vital characteristics of subjects and invites them to develop a consciousness and a care of themselves.
Through modern biopolitics “rather one is encouraged, or made responsible” (Carnera 72) for government implemented societal pressures and expectations to achieve. Healthy eating and body fitness is a modern example of the state governing at a distance. The government gives the impression to alleviate power but instead it forces the responsibility of the social body onto individuals “to ensure, maintain, or develop its life” (Foucault Right of Death 136). Citizens are subjected to mental, physical and societal pressures to exceed
governmental expectations.
A failure to withstand government expectation i.e. unemployment, homelessness and malnourishment leads to both failure and guilt and is alluded to be solely the fault of the individual, not the surrounding institutions (Hamann 44). Biopolitics is a mode of governance that emphasises the “full responsibility” (Coveney 119) of the individual to self-govern what was previously the prerogative of the state (Hamann 40). Biopolitics regulates life through the “disciplining and cultivation of the mind” (Nadesan 94), placing great importance on human health and consistently providing recommendations on how to achieve this. It is the core of biopower that allows institutions to micromanage individuals through mental manoeuvres. Governmentality is focused on “self-discipline of oneself in general” (Coll 214). This plays a big role as the overarching system gratifies civilians with
feeling autonomous, while our choice “is no more than a compensation for our actual loss of intimacy with food production” (Zwart 125). This loss of our intimacy with food can be traced back to the epistemological break that occurred in the nineteenth century.
Epistemological Break
Foucault’s notion of episteme does not dichotomise ideas as being true or false, rather it is the invisible and unidentifiable structure that determines the foundation for knowledge that is accepted at a particular time in history. It is an unspoken stratum that establishes the preconditions of historical a priori of that time. Foucault distinguishes several epistemes in the field of culture all of which only one can exist for each historical period (Foucault Order of Things 183):
In any given culture and at any given moment, there is always only one episteme that defines the conditions of possibility of all knowledge, whether expressed in a theory or silently invested in a practice.
This means that within the existence of an episteme, knowledge can only be produced in light of the theory and practice that is present in that episteme. This does not mean that all individuals believe the same but that “the range of possible opinions is structurally
determined” (Cutrofello 86- italics in original). Each episteme follows a form of discourse and method of classifying, which in turn manipulates language and what it represents. The most well-known example is that of the ‘madman’ and the transformation of its meaning and procedure between the Renaissance episteme and classical episteme. The madman in the sixteenth century was exiled for behaviour that was “an effect of the moon or having been possessed by the devil” (Danaher, Schirato and Webb 20). This differs from the eighteenth century when the madman is endowed with a new meaning and is “‘owned’ by disciplines such as psychology, psychoanalysis and psychiatry” (Danaher, Schirato and Webb 22). This example sheds light on the epistemological break that occurred in the approach to food, shifting from being a source of energy and pleasure to a source that propagates health. Food in its entirely never transforms but the episteme that surrounds it creates meaning and what food represents.
Before dietary logics were structured in order to influence the way individuals consumed more healthy foods, the production of food consisted of eating for pleasure and hunger.
marks a turning point for knowledge production and redefines discourses. The entire dietetic health discourse is an episteme in itself as it completely differs from the previous approaches to food. Within this episteme there are different competing visions on what is healthy and what is not that are propagated through the dietary logics. Biopower is engrained in the modern system showing that the industry follows the modern governmental logic set out by the state.
These competing dietary logics are often supported by scientific breakthroughs such as Atwater’s discovery of nutrients to create the perfect conditions for the human ‘machine’ to perform. The discourse of science plays a role that is largely accepted in the current
episteme and leads to “legitimate knowledge claims” (Ward 3). Scientific knowledge manifests itself in society as an absolute truth because it is the best information available at that moment in time. This is powerful because what people believe is true will become true as it is gradually enmeshed into everyday life (Hall 49). Dietary logics that construct health will be believed at that moment in time and become a part of a person’s reality. The aspect that holds true throughout all these dietary logics is how involved both public and private institutions (Coll 210) are with maintaining order in society through bodies and health. Dietary Logic 1: Health as Energy
Governmentality makes use of knowledge to legitimise and rationalise its interventions. The first discourse of dietary logics and perhaps the least common since the
epistemological break of dieting, regards food solely as a source of consuming energy. In the 17 and 1800s “dieting seemed abnormal” (Wolin and Petrelli 3) as people were not concerned with health or diet but simply the intake of energy. Food was regarded as an essential product of life but there were no laws or moral pressures surrounding what to eat and not to eat. People ate certain foods such as potatoes, vegetables or meats because they were available to them and provided energy, not because they guaranteed health. Foods in this dimension differ in value based on the energy they contain and is the only contributing factor when deciding what to eat (Brown 2). The literature review highlighted the
construction of health in reference to energy; it is surviving that is healthy. This symbolises the dietary logic of health as energy as the only purpose of eating is to consume enough energy to live.
Even after the epistemological break that transformed the approach to food this dietary logic still exists. A calorie is the unit of energy food is calculated by and has been displayed on all packaged foods since the nutritional labelling act in 1990. This dietary logic
generally overlaps with eating ‘more’ or ‘less’ due to the way food is categorised by its nutrients. The USDA recommends the daily intake of calories but this has become much more complex due to the nutrients that have to be consumed within this amount of calories in order to be healthy. It is rare to see foods recommended purely for its calorific value and constructed as healthy without added comments about vitamins or feeling full for longer. Anatomo-politics have identified the concern with the human body maximising the individual’s health to its full potential. After the discovery of nutrients this is largely why health as energy has faded because institutions can regulate the human body much more accurately by basing recommendations on scientific discoveries (Coveney 51). The fact that this logic only sees food as a calorific value suggests that health as energy has no concern for differentiating between good and bad calories.
Dietary Logic 2: Health as Balance
The government’s primary concern is maintaining the healthiest and most productive “tools of economy and capitalism” (Carnera 73) and this is possible through the control of the body through implementing several dietary logics. The earliest suggestion of the second dietary logic of eating in balance is in 1908 when dietary guidelines proposed to “eat a variety of foods” (Nestle 46). Between the discovery of mineral matter and this proposition there is little evidence for health as balance throughout the USDA’s dietary regimes. In 1956 the Basic Four was created which categorised food products into food groups and recommended the necessary intake of each for a healthy diet. These recommendations points towards a balanced diet but the balance is still limited within the four food groups that The Basic Four suggests. This can also be found in The Food Pyramid. Maintaining a balanced diet and approving the consumption of many food groups supports autonomy in individuals, which has become dangerous in the age of processed foods. This dietary logic is on a definite decline in the construction of health due to the desperation of institutions to guide citizens in the right direction. Eating a balanced diet or eating in moderation has become too vague and does not help to slow down the increase of chronic diseases that exist in the U.S. Foods have become categorised by the nutrients they contain making the
illuminate the motivations of biopower to maintain docile bodies much more than constructing health through a balanced diet, as it is more specific.
Dietary Logic 3 and 4: Health as ‘Eat Less’ and ‘Eat More’
The dietary logics of eating ‘more’ and ‘less’ have been grouped together due to their resemblance in regulating the specific consumption of nutrients and foods. If biopower is implemented correctly the population will be under control by the government and it will follow recommendations and dietary advice accordingly. As previously mentioned
governmentality thrives off self-governance and defining health through the foods that are consumed. After the discovery of mineral matter in foods institutions had a new and improved method of regulating the health of citizens. The last fifty years have seen many scientific discourse such as dieting, calorie counting, fat reducing, nutritional labelling and government implemented dietary goals that all fall under the dietary logic of eating less. What is meant by eating ‘less’ is the reduction or avoidance of consuming a specific food product or mineral. The avoidance of fats is a good example of this. The FDA approved new low-fat, 0% fat, reduced sugar and lean food products which are all a representation of an ‘eat less’ logic. Eat less sugars, carbohydrates, cholesterol and fats define this logic and were initiated by the U.S. congress as they set dietary goals for the entire population. The process of eating ‘more’ is the same as consumers learn the prerequisites of health. It is not relevant what these recommendations include because the notion of health is constructed through the statement itself. The advise to eat more of x or less of y insinuates that health is not yet achieved and cannot be without following these specifics. Nutritionism became an ideology (Pollan 142) that is meticulously followed and obsessed about, constantly changing the nutrient that maximises health. This dietary logic is extremely present in contemporary health constructions and is often combined with portion control and serving size.
Dietary Logic 5: Health as Eating as Much as Possible of One Category
The fifth logic apparent in the U.S. history of food is to eat as much as possible of one category. This logic regulates the consumption of food in the construction of health for the individual much like the others. The purpose of this logic is to entice citizens to self-reflect and self-govern their health through food. Eating as much as possible of one category accepts the entire spectrum of an approved food product as a whole. This dietary logic can be universally seen as institutions rarely set limitations for something that is regarded as
healthy such as vegetables or nutritious vitamins. These institutions are more concerned with deficiencies rather than an overconsumption of something that is healthy. For example in regards to vegetables “the intake of a wide variety of plant foods” (Potter 10) helps to prevent cancer, approving the entire plant-based spectrum of eating. If it is beneficial for the body then there is no limit as to what can be eaten or how much of it as long as it falls under the overarching title. Superfoods are the latest trend in nutrition that demonstrate the accepting nature of a whole food category in the construction of health. Wolfe goes as far as to say “when it comes to real nutrition, only superfoods can meet and exceed all
requirements” (3). Observe the claim that the entirety of superfoods is credited rather than a singular nutrient or food product within superfoods. The current dietary logics that
construct health all seem to overlap and can be borrowed within other dietary logics. A dietary logic slightly different to the aforementioned is the return to organic foods. Dietary Logic 6: Health as Organic
The re-emergence of organic foods symbolises much more than the previous construction of health as it denies the ideology of nutritionism that eating has become. It still falls within the episteme of correlating health to food as the motivations of institutions remain the same. Once again the elements of this dietary logic contribute to the consolidation of the subject and subject of collectives with the politicisation of food. It discourages the consumption of processed foods and venerates the organic food industry. Within this spectrum of organic foods there is no penchant for organising dietary habits based on nutritional ingredients, simply the fact that it is organic deems approval. The return to organic foods is primary of the last two decades and maintains a wider reach due to the change in lifestyle it promotes. The abolishment of counting calories, eating processed food and dieting all contribute to the dietary logic of organic eating. It involves a mind-set of returning to basics and making an extra effort to do so considering it is a difficult process in the modernised food industry. Self-governance and self-reflection becomes challenging in a different manner as the consumer needs to change his or her diet to strictly organic foods, which are often quite difficult to get by.
There has been a transition in the approach to food generating an epistemological break in history contributing greatly to biopower. Superimposing the sovereign, biopower
measures. The body is politicised as docile and regarded as an urgent component in the construction of a liberalist state with autonomous individuals. Coveney emphasises (18):
what is needed for this approach to be successful is a reflective, self-regulating individual with the correct concern for themselves. For the social model too the requirement is for a self-reflective individual, but one who, in this case, actively participates in the community in order to identify problems and reflect on the consequences for themselves and for others.
Here Coveney refers to the implementation of scientific discourse in relation to food and constructing health as well as the social factor that plays a role in developing consensus in society. Observe the urgency that is placed on the role of reflection and
self-governance in order for this approach to be successful. Governmentality functions through this structure and therefore implements tactics such as dietary logics in order to govern from within.
Theorists such as Crotty (1995) and Clements (1986) disagree about the emergence of nutrition and how it can be improved to be more representative and beneficial for society. These discussions are not relevant within the scope of this thesis but they do provide
references to discussions that admit the “politicisation of health” (Coveney 16). Tesh brings most to the table by suggesting that health promotion (Tesh 161-162):
is ideological in that it promotes individual rights and individual choices on the basis of scientific fact.
Tesh is alluding to the fact that people’s rights and choices are being constringed to the discourse of science when actually the purpose of governmentality is to self-govern and be autonomous. This is largely why the pleasure of eating has disappeared and nutrition has become “the application of scientific facts about foods to health problems in the
community” (Coveney 17). Deeming the reason for dietary advice as solutions to health ‘problems’ is a matter of opinion and not the answer to why this shift occurred.
The construction of health has a habit of idealising scientific fact and using this to regulate the lives of free individuals (Coveney 102). Constructions of health are often based on scientific fact but not supported by it in the dietary logics that advise the citizen. The six dietary logics that have been described above are the broad categorisations of regulating the body that can be seen in the last two hundred years of health construction.
Each logic functions in a different way but the overall purpose throughout remains the same. Biopower does not rest and maintains regulating the body of the individual as well as the population as social body, but it does this through the aforementioned dietary logics. The discourse of constructing health through the food that one consumes is the subject of this thesis but undeniably there are a superfluous amount of tactics that biopower elicits in order to regulate the population. The governmental manipulation is as present as the decades before due to the way it is transforming society to be healthy through methods of self-governance. According to Coveney (23):
the combination of science and moral conduct – which in many ways forms the basis of governmentality – are never so apparent as in nutrition.
The application of nutritional information to the construction of health and consequently inviting individuals to behave in certain ways is the basis for governmentality.
Governmentality does not only exist in history, as it is very current and present in
institutions outside of the U.S. too. The Netherlands is an example of this and will be the modern example for demonstrating the ways in which health construction manifests within a society through the use of dietary logics. The discovery of new dietary logics that have not already been highlighted will be introduced. By moving from a diachronic to a synchronic analysis I show that all of the aforementioned dietary logics can operate
simultaneously. Furthermore, it will demonstrate the ways in which dietary logics from the Allerhande magazine invite citizens to self-govern as opposed to the repressive methods of the sovereign. The furtiveness of governmentality is the way it injects morality and social pressure within a society while avoiding all responsibility and accountability for failure and this will not be overlooked.
Chapter Three
Analysis of Allerhande
A study of Foucault’s governmentality, biopower and the changing discourses of health in the last two hundred years provides the theoretical support needed to analyse the
contemporary dietary logics in the Allerhande magazine. The examination of eating habits and dietary recommendations in the U.S. over the last two hundred years has helped contextualise the use of dietary logics in the regulation of subjects. Similar to how I have argued that the USDA exhibits control over its citizens eating habits, I am interested in discovering how the Allerhande magazine does the same. Ultimately, this section evaluates how Allerhande magazine uses techniques similar to the USDA in controlling its citizens, or its readership, by influencing their eating habits. Through a theoretical and research oriented perspective I observe and explore the underlying meaning of statements or dietary logics, throughout. Whether the claims to health are right or wrong is of no concern but rather what they are saying and implying in relation to biopower. I will demonstrate the ways in which Allerhande demonstrates aspects of twenty-first century biopower to gain control of the body as it lionises certain dietary logics that are currently in play. Everything that Allerhande proposes makes an argument for their promotion of health, no matter which logic is used. Their promotion of health varies in dietary logics but their overall consensus is the same. The exact reference to health is not relevant per se, but instead the ways in which Allerhande uses vocabulary and dietary logics to declare what is best for the consumer.
Context of Allerhande
Allerhande is a free monthly magazine created by Albert Heijn which first appeared in 1956 to promote its products, suggest recipes and inform consumers about anything related to the Albert Heijn brand. It is generally around 150 pages in colour, with introductions to the people who create the foods, photographic displays and advertisements. Allerhande uses mostly earthy tones and clear-cut shapes to make the page look more aesthetically appealing to the reader. A photograph to entice the viewer or give an idea of what it should look like accompanies most recipes. Allerhande often recommends seasonal products or even entirely new products that seem to be their favourite by providing descriptions about the healthful benefits, the ways it can be prepared and the price. There are different themes in the magazine such as fifteen-minute kitchen, vegetarian or baking without sugar.
that are all available in the supermarket. Step-by-step instructions are provided and finalised with nutritional details such as its kilocalories, grams of fat and finally the price per person. Most of the statements made in Allerhande, which have been used as direct quotes in this thesis surround the recipes on the page or are on individual pages that promote a specific product or food type.
There is a table of contents at the start with the main categories in that edition but there is never an introduction describing what Allerhande wants to achieve. Allerhande makes no claim to being a food guide for health demonstrating the invisibility of regulative forces in the modern conception of health. Allerhande does not guarantee health but it purports to glorify a healthy lifestyle and associate the contrary with guilt. It is a private magazine that releases information to the public in a non-repressive manner and abides by the
self-governing individual.
Dietary Logics, as Seen in Allerhande
The previous chapters have highlighted the contemporary approaches to food and the shift that occurred in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. I use mainly these discoveries throughout my analysis when framing the dietary logics found. This thesis focuses on the construction of health in Albert Heijn’s monthly magazine, Allerhande. It will look at the entirety of five magazines that were released in 2015, including the advertisements of products throughout. These five magazines do not conclude a representational sample but rather introduces qualitative research for the dietary logics that are found. Previously I have highlighted six dietary logics that are present in society. This chapter identifies and
addresses the dietary logics that have been mentioned and highlight how they are all at work. This analysis introduces new dietary logics that are found in Allerhande that also contribute towards the construction of health. Each example that is referenced from the Allerhande magazine will be analysed and help stabilise the claim that dietary logics exist in governmentality as a mode of power and invite subjects to self-govern. I am highly aware of the ‘nutrition landscape’ and how it (Coveney 102):
shifts and changes form in response to certain influences. For nutrition, these influences have usually come in the form of ‘new’ findings about, on the one hand, food and its effects on the body resulting from biomedical science and epidemiology and, on the other, social and moral concerns about certain lifestyles.
The nutrition landscape is not of concern but rather the ‘influences’ that change it, which are the dietary logics working together to continually construct a contemporary conception of health. The remaining influences that alter the nutrition landscape are the social and moral concerns about living a healthy lifestyle, which surround the dietary logics in Allerhande in order to increase the effectiveness of the health discourses provided. An analysis of the ways that Allerhande frames the individual to desire a healthy lifestyle and induce feelings of guilt in an attempt to motivate self-governance is provided in the conclusion. The man-made correlation between health, happiness and lifestyle needs to be addressed as it has “extended the influence of nutrition much further than had previously been the case” (Coveney 98). The dietary logics will be analysed by category with direct quotes from the magazines left in their original format and language.
Dietary Logic 1: Health as Energy
This dietary logic is defined by the denial of statements that allude to the importance of calories as a form of energy that contributes to health. Throughout the five magazines there are no initiatives to eat for the purpose of gaining energy, which every human in actuality needs in order to survive. Constructing healthy eating as the necessary intake of calories and/or energy seems to be a dietary logic most prominent before the transformation to the current approach to food. This can be seen in the first chapter. Two hundred years ago the main concern for food was to satisfy hunger and gain energy for mental and physical
strength. Energy does not seem to be an important aspect of the modernised dietary lifestyle anymore and has been replaced by the ideology of nutritionism.
Most surprising is the introduction of meal replacements “om de plek in te nemen van je ontbijt, lunch of diner” (Allerhande Januari 19). This demonstrates the lack of concern for health as energy as the meal replacements contain a much smaller amount of calories than regular meals. Previously meals were based on caloric value but all of a sudden calories have gained a negative appeal causing them to be avoided when promoting health (Scrinis 38). Meal replacements address the fact that bodies need energy, which is the perhaps the closest that Allerhande comes to acknowledging the need for energy. The meal
replacements will be helpful “in de strijd tegen de after-kerstkilo’s” (Allerhande Januari 19). Once again the notion of health is advertised through a reduction of calories and
transition to food as a nutritional solution to health is very apparent and makes the surrounding dietary logics even more significant.
Finally, the fact that there are recipes that offer a maximum of 450kcals reiterate the shift away form the appreciation of calories as 450kcal meals are not generally regarded as energising meals. These meals are advertised as healthy. This maximum limit
acknowledges the need for energy but only supports it to a certain extent because Allerhande insinuates that energy is only needed up to a maximum of 450kcal. Three of these portions in a day come to a total of 1350kcal which does not seem like enough energy to last the whole day. Allerhande even suggests liquid meals “om de plek in te nemen van je ontbijt, lunch of diner” (Januari 19) in order to reduce calorific intake. In the past a liquid diet would not have been regarded as healthy due to their lack of calories but in Allerhande it is openly recommended as a source of health. This dietary logic is constructing the meaning of health by changing it from the past and supposedly helping individuals in their self-governing affair of eating. In 2015, anything above 1350kcal per day gives the
impression of an unhealthy calorific value while in the 1900s Atwater recommended eating as much as 2500-3000 (6) calories a day.
Dietary Logic 2: Health as Balance
The earliest suggestion of the second dietary logic of eating in balance is in the 1900s when the USDA recommended a variety of foods within the food groups that they had created such as the Basic Four. The obsession with maintaining a balanced diet, which erupted in the 1970s, with a strong focus on the Food Guide Pyramid or the Dietary Guidelines in the U.S. cannot be found in the Dutch Allerhande magazines. Apart from the range in available recipes noticed at first glance, there are few clear recommendations to eat food in variety. Allerhande does not seem to support a balanced diet perhaps due to the lack of control it permits. The dietary advice to eat a balanced diet or eat in moderation is simply too vague. In order for dietary logics to permit governing at a distance they have to be direct in their instructions, which this logic simply is not.
A spread in the September edition (14-15) of Allerhande provides nine forms of “het nieuwe eten: volgens allerhande” none of which recommend a balanced diet. The
construction of health avoids balance and largely focuses on “meer van het goede, minder van het slechte” (Allerhande September 15). The health discourse of eating as balance does
