RESUMEN
The term 'ultra-processed food' emerged in the 1980s, mostly used in reference to highly-processed convenience foods and snacks, often energy-dense, poor in nutrients, and inclusive of various synthetic additives such as emulsifiers, colors, artificial sweeteners, and/or flavor enhancers. Concern over such foods was part of the growing holistic and environmental health movements of the 1970-80s; yet, those who raised alarm about the encroachment of ultra-processed foods were often labeled, especially by industry and their powerful allies, as 'food faddists' and 'pseudoscientists'. Today, the topic of ultra-processed foods is generating massive personal, public, and planetary health interest. However, other than discussing the history of the NOVA food classification system, a useful tool that has allowed researchers to more accurately separate foods based on processing, most lay media and academic articles are ahistorical. That is, there is a tendency to present the term ultra-processed food(s) as a relatively new entrance into the lexicon, and by default, the idea that health-related pushback on ultra-processed foods is a relatively new phenomenon. This omission overlooks decades of determined advocacy and clinical work, much of it by pioneers within the holistic medicine (now integrative, functional, and lifestyle medicine) movement. Here in this reflection paper, the authors will use historical research and reporting to fill in the historical gap and articulate the saliency of why it matters.
Asunto(s)
Comida Rápida , Manipulación de Alimentos , Humanos , Manipulación de Alimentos/métodos , Manipulación de Alimentos/historia , Historia del Siglo XX , Historia del Siglo XXI , Alimentos ProcesadosRESUMEN
As 21st century health care moves from a disease-based approach to a more patient-centric system that can address biochemical individuality to improve health and function, clinical decision making becomes more complex. Accentuating the problem is the lack of a clear standard for this more complex functional medicine approach. While there is relatively broad agreement in Western medicine for what constitutes competent assessment of disease and identification of related treatment approaches, the complex functional medicine model posits multiple and individualized diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, most or many of which have reasonable underlying science and principles, but which have not been rigorously tested in a research or clinical setting. This has led to non-rigorous thinking and sometimes to uncritical acceptance of both poorly documented diagnostic procedures and ineffective therapies, resulting in less than optimal clinical care.
RESUMEN
The decade of Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine's existence has seen dramatic advancement of the naturopathic profession in all areas: research, quality of practice, quality of education, licensure, inclusion in the political process, and public acceptance. Naturopathic doctors are now valued in the marketplace and in policy as a legitimate part of an overall system of healthcare. Momentum, infrastructure, acceptance, and conceptualization are all foundational to the future. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine was one of the first journals to invite naturopathic doctors onto its Editorial Board (i.e., Pizzorno, Standish). Our profession thanks and applauds you for inviting us.