Gyorgy Scrinis

Functional foods or functionally marketed foods? A critique of, and alternatives to, the category of ‘functional foods’

The term ‘functional foods’ is a relatively new food category or concept, originating in the 1980s and becoming more widely used over the past decade. The ‘functional foods’ concept has been notoriously hard to define. Discussions of functional foods often begin by acknowledging that there are no generally accepted definitions of ‘functional foods’ and note the ‘ambiguity of definition and interpretation’. But the term continues to be used as if it does have a clear meaning. The term ‘functional foods’ is generally understood to refer to foods with especially healthful qualities, but there is little clarity as to what types of foods they are, what types of healthful qualities they possess and how they differ from other foods. While there is much debate over the nutritional or public health merits of ‘functional foods’, there has been little rigorous interrogation of the definitions of ‘functional foods’ nor of the usefulness and accuracy of the term itself, even from critics of ‘functional foods’. This commentary proposes that most definitions of ‘functional foods’ are inadequate – indeed that the term itself is inappropriate and misleading – and instead suggests alterative ways of categorising these foods. The examples of ‘functional foods’ commonly put forward include relatively novel food products (e.g. cholesterol-lowering margarines), whole foods that have been nutritionally modified (e.g. reduced-fat milk and genetically engineered ‘Golden Rice’), unmodified whole foods (e.g. nuts and fruit), and nutrient-fortified highly processed foods (e.g. sugar-laden breakfast cereals and ‘energy’ drinks). The diverse range of foods included in the ‘functional foods’ category is reflected in the diverse, confused and often self-contradictory definitions that are commonly espoused. Most definitions of ‘functional foods’ – and even the very term itself – suggest that these foods contain some intrinsic, health-giving, ‘functional’ components and qualities that distinguish them from other, ‘non-functional’ foods. However, I argue that there are no credible definitions of ‘functional foods’ that establish criteria for distinguishing between these and other foods (i.e. ‘non-functional foods’) in terms of any intrinsic, health-enhancing characteristics. Instead, the main distinguishing features of foods defined as ‘functional foods’ appear to be either that they have been ‘nutritionally engineered’ and/or that they are promoted with nutrient-content claims or health claims. The heavily loaded term ‘functional foods’ should therefore be rejected, in favour of other categories that more accurately describe the types of foods being referred to. The three more precise and appropriate terms I suggest are ‘functionally marketed foods’, ‘nutritionally marketed foods’ and ‘nutritionally engineered foods’. Nutritionally engineered foods are defined as foods that have had their nutrient profiles deliberately modified. Nutritionally marketed foods are defined as foods that are marketed with nutrient-content claims, and which therefore only imply particular health benefits. Functionally marketed foods are defined as foods that are explicitly promoted with health claims or as having a beneficial effect on particular bodily functions. Some foods may of course be represented in all three food categories. Other food categories that will be introduced here are transnutric foods and nutrigenomically marketed foods.

Reformulation, fortification and functionalization: Big Food corporations’ nutritional engineering and marketing strategies

In response to health concerns arising from the consumption of highly processed foods, the worlds largest food and beverage manufacturing corporations (i.e. ‘Big Food’) have responded by modifying their existing products and introducing new products with ‘improved’ nutrient profiles. Three distinct strategies used by food corporations to nutritionally engineer and market their products will be identified: the reformulation of foods to reduce levels of harmful food components, the micronutrient fortification of products to address micronutrient deficiencies, and the functionalization of products that claim to provide optimal nutrition and health benefits. These nutritional strategies gain scientific legitimacy by drawing upon the dominant nutritional ideology of ‘nutritionism’, which is characterized by a reductive focus on nutrients as a way of understanding a foods effects on dietary health. Food and beverage corporations promote these nutritional strategies as an important part of their corporate social responsibility agendas, and as evidence that they are addressing the health issues associated with both over-nutrition and under-nutrition. However, these corporations are also using these nutritional strategies to legitimize and grow the markets for their products in the global North and South.

Big Food, Nutritionism, and Corporate Power

Abstract Big Food corporations have capitalized on nutritionism—the reduction of food’s nutritional value to its individual nutrients—as a means by which to enhance their power and position in global processed and packaged food markets. Drawing on the literatures on nutrition and corporate power, we show that Big Food companies have used nutritional positioning to bolster their power and influence in the sector. Through lobbying and participation in nutritionally focused public–private partnerships, they have directly sought to influence policy and governance. Through market dominance in the nutritionally enhanced foods sector, and participation in nutrition-focused rule-setting activities in agrifood supply chains, they have gained power to influence policy agendas. And they have used public outreach and the media to present their views on the nutritional aspects of their products, which shapes public perceptions and the broader regulatory environment. Together, these strategies have enhanced the power of Big Food firms to influence policies in the food sector.

Nanotechnology and the Extension and Transformation of Inequity

While the authors that have contributed to this book believe that furthering the cause of equity is a laudable goal, there are many people who benefit from existing unequal political arrangements. In this chapter, Georgia Miller and Gyorgy Scrinis argue that many of those currently directing the future of nanotechnology have a strong incentive to maintain these patterns of unequal distribution. They note that nanotechnology is arising from actions that align it with powerful economic and political interests in the Global North. Despite paying lip service to studying the “ethical, legal, and social implications” of nanotechnology, those who are driving the rapid expansion of nanotechnology have not shown any genuine commitment to reorienting the enterprise to human needs or a more equal society.

Out of the cage and into the barn: supermarket power food system governance and the regulation of free range eggs

The highly concentrated nature of food retailing in Australia gives supermarkets considerable control over the interface between consumers and producers. Legal and regulatory commentary debates what can and should be done about the market dimensions of supermarket power. This article shows that Australian supermarkets are amassing not only economic power but also political power in the food system. The article makes this argument by reference to two major supermarkets’ initiatives in the regulatory space around food labelling, specifically the contested meaning of free range eggs. The article examines how the supermarkets are using their market power to create private standards for suppliers of own brand products that set the meaning of ‘free range’ for consumers too. This entrenches supermarkets’ market share as well as their political power as food authorities.

GENETIC ENGINEERING AND THE TECHNO-COLONIZATION OF THE SEED

Abstract This opinion piece is a condensed and updated version of an article that appeared in Arena, Australia, 1998

Concentration and power in the food system: who controls what we eat?

A Message from the Chair ................................................................................................................ 1 Organic Intensives ............................................................................................................................ 2 Book Review: .................................................................................................................................... 3 Northern Michigan Small Farm Conference ..................................................................................... 6 The Diastrous Denial of Climate Change ......................................................................................... 6 Organic “Check-Off”—Public Comment Open Now Through March 20 ........................................... 7 At Last, A New Organic Poultry and Livestock Rule ........................................................................ 7 MOFFA’s 25 Anniversary ............................................................................................................... 8 Healthy Food, Healthy Bees Connection 2017 ................................................................................ 8 A Message from the National Young Farmers Coalition .................................................................. 8 MOFFA News ................................................................................................................................... 9