Can Food be “Toxic”?

“Toxic” is such an overused word these days. Yet it’s hard not to slap it on anything mildly unpleasant because it’s so top-of-mind. If one wants to describe food that makes one feel ill, one might reach for the word toxic.

This begs the question, can food be “toxic”? Some would say food can only be toxic if it is spoiled. Fair enough. But there are some foods that in an individual produce fuzzy thinking, headaches, joint pain, painful abdominal distress, and general malaise. Such food cannot be said to be fulfilling well the primary function of food: nourishment. Of course, that is not the only reason we eat; we also eat for pleasure and communal bonding, boredom and emotional distress.

The “pure” eating and “clean” eating phenomena are so overblown that it is not surprising that people roll their eyes at anyone attempting to categorize food. The latter is especially amusing because so much of “clean” food is grown in dirt. But must we dispense with all categories? Are all items of food equal? No, surely, they are not. Noticing difference is not the same as joylessly and rigidly refusing all pleasure.

We’ve gotten so twisted around on the subject of food that people have to apologize and blame the “patriarchy” if they modify their eating so as not to gain weight or not to feel a certain way. In a culture obsessed with “bodily autonomy,” what we feed ourselves or don’t can be an unpardonable political statement. There is serious disease that involves excessively restricting food that requires treatment. There is also restricting food because someone notices that Cheetos, most French fries, and Little Debbie snacks are objectively offensive to the body. Perhaps not every body, but you only have your own to worry about and the bodies of children too small to recognize their own needs fully.

Despite cultural pressure, we need not outsource thinking about food to the “experts.” Most of us seem to think one needs to be a certified nutritionist to have an opinion about what one chooses to eat. This is absurd. Everyone from time immemorial has had to eat. We can confidently assume that there is wisdom in the art of human eating, and we need not pursue the perfect macro balance defined by our certified nutritionist. Taking the nutrition angle too far seems a bit like evaluating dating through the lens of literal chemical reaction. The more obsessive we get about food in any direction, the more disordered we can become.

As is so often the case, freedom can be the cure. Instead of forbidding the eating of packaged snacks and fast food, which have their place, discern within yourself if you actually enjoy them. In order to have the answer to that, we should try good food. How does a slice of homemade bread spread thickly with good butter compare to some soggy, cardboard-textured, chemical-coated French fries? It’s not usually an either-or situation, but perhaps it’s worth examining the lifestyle that goes with breadmaking and see if it’s worth some sacrifice to eat like that instead of trying to “reward” oneself with unpleasant food that makes you feel ill.

A helpful way for many to regain attunement to their tastebuds is the practice of fasting. When considered more broadly, fasting is incomprehensible without feasting. The trouble is we are trying to “feast” every hour of every day and have lost a sense of perspective. The average person in an affluent nation can purchase a wide array of food with greater ease than perhaps ever in world history. After not consuming food for a period of time, how does a food taste and how does it make the body feel? Eating a large and splendid meal does not have to coincide with feeling ill, and life does not have to progress with steady weight gain and unnecessary anxiety about food.

People frequently marvel at the French who eat richly but are, in general, a slim people. It’s not all effortless, but it is a culture marked by great joy in its cuisine. Americans remain convinced that you cannot eat well without being overweight. It seems too good to be true that you can enjoy objectively superior food—tortillas made with lard, homemade cake, whole fat dairy products—and still be able to wear the same clothes throughout much of adulthood. Yet, for the many people of the world with whom food is not an “issue,” this is what happens.

Why is it that so many more foods have become bothersome for many? We’ve all been told scoldingly in recent months that the frog would not actually die in the water that was gradually warmed to boiling, but it remains an enlightening metaphor. Things do change subtly over time without people noticing. Products that were once dependable staples have morphed over time into subsidy-driven cocktails of high fructose corn syrup and soybean oil. If you doubt this, examine labels on the condiment aisle. While we may not be able to rightly say those things are “toxic,” we can very well say that for us as individuals, such-and-such food is highly disagreeable. Life is too short to eat things that render one sluggish and in pain.

Fasting is a lifestyle that for many opens the possibility of greater enjoyment. The solution to our food mania and neuroses must be positive. Fasting well, while it involves refraining from food for periods of time, can serve a deeply joyful, positive purpose: living well.