#1 SUPER ORIGINS The first recorded use of the term superfood was in association with, of all foods, bananas. According to an article published by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, this first instance dated back to “the early 20th century around World War I … [when] The United Fruit Company initiated an enthusiastic advertising campaign to promote its major import of bananas.” The initial marketing strategy focused on the “practicality of bananas in a daily diet, being cheap [and] nutritious.” However, the popularity of the term superfood grew only “after being endorsed in medical journals.” Therefore, while research later backed claims of nutritional value, marketing, not medicine, is credited with creating the term “super.” This marketing origin story foreshadows the fate of many superfoods today. The term has gained traction and trust among consumers, while the scientific studies backing the claims come almost as an afterthought. Instead of presenting the marketed foods with proven claims at the forefront, the term seems to be freely used in place of accredited research. In this respect, the definition of a superfood becomes paramount, inextricable from its assertion to be an essential aspect of healthy living. #2 DEFINING AMBIGUITY Defining a superfood may be easier said than done. An article published by the European Food Information Council (EUFIC) states, “there is no official or legal definition of a superfood.” When asked to put forth a medical definition of superfoods, MD Melissa Stöppler writes, the term is, “non-medical … popularized in the media to refer to foods that have health-promoting properties … [or that] may have an unusually high content of antioxidants, vitamins, or other nutrients.” As Dr. Stöppler emphasizes, “it is important to note that there is no accepted medical definition of a superfood.” With no guidelines in place, then, the label can be freely applied to product packaging and used in marketing campaigns without the requirement to prove that the food is, indeed, super. Seeking a concise definition from a dictionary has its range of variances as well. The Oxford English dictionary defines a superfood as “a nutrient-rich food considered to be especially beneficial for health and well-being.” Whereas the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as “a super nutrient-dense food, loaded with vitamins, minerals, fiber and/ or phytonutrients.” The amalgamation of these definitions, as suggested by the EUFIC article, is that superfoods are “foods—especially fruits and vegetables—whose nutrient content confers a health benefit above that of other foods.” This definition is broad, wide-ranging, and undoubtedly inclusive to foods that don’t boast of super capabilities. The term itself does not influence the nutritional aptitude of any food, whether or not it carries the label. A WORTHY #3 CAUSE If superfood is an unregulated marketing term used to play up the nutritional value of certain foods, is it worth seeking them out? The short answer is a resounding yes, with an important qualification. Best summarized by a CNET Health and Wellness article, “[superfoods] are not magic substances, but foods that are especially healthy for you, and there are dozens of them.” A statement from the EUFIC supports this sentiment, the distinction between the label and the science behind the food, “indeed, the science in this area [of superfoods] has demonstrated that certain components of food and drinks may be particularly good for you.” The inference, therefore, is that while the term superfood may be a generic indicator of health benefits, and the foods promoted as such do often provide valuable nutrients, even if not as “magical” as marketers claim. >> 66 | <strong>SLO</strong> <strong>LIFE</strong> MAGAZINE | AUG/SEP <strong>2020</strong>
AUG/SEP <strong>2020</strong> | <strong>SLO</strong> <strong>LIFE</strong> MAGAZINE | 67