Oxygen: The Next Superfood

Açai, chia, quinoa, kale, and cacao — all now auditory weapons to the health crazed human. Despite their commonplace amongst menus and the grocery aisle how is it that these “Superfoods” became so popular only recently? If they are meant to be so good for our bodies, shouldn’t they have been added to our diets back in the stone age?

The contemporary prevalence for these foods has me wondering, are they really Superfoods? Or is this just super marketing?

The term Superfood is defined by Google as “a nutrient-rich food considered to be especially beneficial for health and well-being”. But where in that definition does it describe what benefit the product provides for the consumer? Is it that this “Superfood Chocolate” is better for you than this “Regular Chocolate” because not only is it rich with organic cocoa, but the packaging has a picture of a green leaf on it too which will make you believe that its natural and will shed 1kg from your ass? By definition, aren’t most foods nutrient–rich? It just depends on what nutrients the foods are “rich” in, if they are good or bad, or what you want to put in that temple of a body.

While there is a lot of research into the nutritional benefits of so-called Superfoods, how can consumers tell the difference between what is genuinely good for them, and what is marketed as being good for them? The idea of truth versus perception is highly debatable in the case of the açai berry. Despite its hugely successful and hyped popularity, a number of investigations by researchers and nutritionists into the berry have found that in comparison to other berries, açai has been suggested to lead to “weight gain and higher levels of fat around the liver”. However, if you look at the website for Brazil Botanicals, açai is actually a wonder berry with a legend behind it weaving a tale of sacrifice, unrequited love, and an Amazonian chief who uses the power of the super berry to save his tribe. Yes, seems very scientifically sound. But apparently it worked, as shown in the trend report below, açai as a commercial product was almost non-existent before 2009, and yet the product did exist. So was marketing accountable for the almost overnight sensation of açai?

(Source Google Trend Reports: Acai)

One article, aptly named Superfoods, describes Superfoods as having no specific definition, but rather a term currently being used to describe a variety of foods with a variety of functions. The article states that traditionally, the term referred to “functional” foods. This term covers a broad choice of products ranging from “foods generated around a particular functional ingredient, such as stanol-enriched margarines, through to staple everyday foods fortified with a nutrient that would not normally be present to any great extent”. However I seriously doubt most people would consider margarine a Superfood. Or could they, with the right advertising?

While consumers are scrambling over new products and foods that they are being told are the new liquid gold of weight loss and health, who is remembering the little guys? The humble carrot, the modest pea, and the unassuming onion — these original Superfoods are being rebranded by organisations to appeal to consumers in this image-conscious era. When did healthy, natural foods need to be rebranded to be more enticing and competitive? I longingly reminisce for the simple days, when the food pyramid had 5 clean and unpretentious levels. But now, I glare blankly in the health foods aisle of my local grocery store wondering where Bentonite Clay fits into my little pyramid. Surely it’s not a grain? It would be absurd to be a vegetable right? I was always told not to play with my food, but if I build a little hut out of my clay would that be crossing the line?

The other day I stumbled across evaporated coconut nectar. Now to me, that just sounds like “sweet air” but upon investigation (thanks Google) I found that it’s actually just a fancy name for coconut sugar. I’m not sure which description I’d prefer on my wrapper. Good thing the packaging also said it’s organic, must be good for me then. An article by the ABC suggests “the Superfood designation has never carried much weight with food scientists. They have pointed repeatedly to the lack of empirical goodness around most of the claims for Superfoods — that they fight cancer, boost energy or clear-fell memories of your first marriage”.

In this battle ground between marketing and common sense, when is the point were consumers can stand their ground and say to organisations that enough is enough, and a back to basics approach is the most successful tactic. If consumers continually follow blindly into the passages paved by marketers and organisations, in a world where we’ve already been sold bottled water… is oxygen the next Superfood?

Originally published at The Isthmus.