Op-Ed - Do We Really Need Nutrition Science?

Have you ever seen an obese lion in the wild? I’m guessing not. A lion can take down an animal twice its weight without a dietitian advising it to watch its calorie intake, yet it somehow avoids obesity. Like all animals, lions instinctively know exactly what and how much to eat - without reading a nutrition study. For most of human history, we were the same, guided by instincts toward nourishing foods. So why, today, do we rely on nutrition experts and dietary guidelines?

While expertise has allowed our species to achieve unimaginable feats in engineering, discovery, and athleticism, in the case of human nutrition, we might have been better off leaving it to nature.

By turning human nutrition into a scientific endeavour, we’ve opened the door for corruption and corporate interests to reshape our understanding of food. The narrative that we need “experts” to tell us what to eat has turned an instinctive part of life into a billion-dollar industry. At its core, nutrition science suggests that the evolutionary wisdom guiding us for millennia is flawed and untrustworthy - like suggesting we need research studies to tell us how to breathe.

The existence of nutrition science as a field, backed by regulatory bodies, implies that we believe evolutionary instincts are inferior to expert knowledge - or that our food environment has become so toxic and nutritionally void that we need experts to navigate it.

While I agree that today’s complex food system may seem to justify the need for nutrition experts, this approach is flawed. Why? Because the very corporations that created this toxic environment are the ones funding the research that’s supposed to help us escape it. Food companies fund studies to highlight the safety and benefits of their products, shaping dietary guidelines and public perception to favour their interests.

Nutrition science is a symptom of our broken food system, not a solution. Isn’t it curious that the more we “learn” about health, the more human health seems to decline? Nature will always know best. Even the most enlightened nutrition researcher with decades of academic insights will ultimately end up more confused about what to eat than our Neanderthal ancestors, who didn’t even have writing.

Instead of relying on complicated science to dictate what we should eat, perhaps we need a return to simplicity. If we removed the artificial, ultra-processed foods that dominate our shelves, would we still need professionals to tell us what’s healthy? Likely not. A natural, whole-food diet wouldn’t require a degree or an advisory board to decipher. The irony is that we’ve overcomplicated something our bodies already know how to handle - if we would just shut up and listen.

In the end, nutrition science, as it stands, is a symptom of a larger problem: the commercialisation of our food system. By existing, it both highlights and perpetuates our reliance on experts to navigate a toxic food landscape, all while ignoring the role of corporations in creating that very toxicity. Rather than investing in more studies funded by food conglomerates, perhaps the real solution is to reclaim our food environment - and with it, our instincts for health.