I’ve been wondering what it is that so irritating about a certain type of food and health writer, the sort that moralises and pontificates about the food that the population should be eating. Media-hyped examples would be Gillian McKeith and her Abundant Foods list that includes vinegars and Tamari (who considers them to be food rather than ingredients?), or Patrick Holford and his low GL recommendations that can involve about £9 worth of berries per person, per day. Holford claims that people who are optimally nourished don’t become ill and don’t need medicine.
McKeith and Holford both stress that people should eat organic fruit, vegetables, meat or eggs. Given that they target a comparatively affluent market demographic and recommend a diet that is studded with supplements, it is possibly irrelevant to them that this is neither affordable nor sustainable for much of the population. Continue reading
Expert PR people will tell you that the best form of advertising is that which looks like editorial rather than advertising. It is comparatively cheap and in ‘advertising value equivalents’, it is invaluable to the pundit whose work is thereby promoted because it enhances not only their pundit brand equity (‘Pundit Z – as featured in The New York Times‘ etc.) but can lead to increased book sales and sales of related products. It seems that people trust editorial more than advertising because the perception is that the material overcame close scrutiny to make it into the main part of the paper/broadcast, rather than purchasing advertising space.
Tara Parker-Pope recently posted one of those ever popular lists: The 11 Best Foods You Aren’t Eating. As soon as HolfordWatch saw the title, we suspected that we were about to read a list from a nutritionist rather than a Registered Dietitian, Continue reading