[This post was written by Megan Rice, Jamie Price, and Angelina Peters in response to viewing the documentary Foodmatters]
The documentary Food Matters discusses the diet of most Americans and how unhealthy we are as a group. The ultimate message of this documentary is that if you eat well you will live well. It seems simple enough. It does seem simple enough, so why did the filmmakers spend thousands of dollars creating the film? Within ten minutes of watching the film, one of the premises of the filmmakers focus is clear—advocating for a raw food diet.
When one looks back to our hunter-and-gatherer ancestors, raw foods were a major staple of their diet. However, society today cannot hunt-and-gather as our ancestors did millennia ago. A point that the film brings to light is the importance of eating foods rich in antioxidants and vitamins. In spite of the billions and billions of potential profit in the diet and medical industry, most of the initial statements seem like common sense.
Yet, the documentary also goes into lengths explaining that our medical system is not diet-oriented. Many of our doctors are trained to treat medical problems with drugs rather than proper diet. The creators of the film bring up an important and fundamental point: With the proper diet, many illnesses can be avoided and even reversed. Our society relies too much on drugs for treatment which only relieve the patent of the symptoms they do not fix the problem. The creators of the film argue that cleaning your body of toxins and replenishing your body with antioxidants, vitamins, and good diet can lead to better health and fewer doctors’ visits.
This documentary shows a sustainable lifestyle that leads to fewer doctors’ visits and a better, longer, and happier life. Also this raises the question that if we as a society could have a healthier diet, would it lower our health costs? According to the film makers, we are facing a epidemic, and medication is not going to be the answer.
We have a few critiques and questions . . .
One critique that we have is that it seems to blame doctors and others for our individual eating habits. Should a doctor really need to tell a heart patient repeatedly to eat healthy foods and stay away from fried foods, high-sodium foods, etc.? We think not. However, we do know directly about a complicated situation involving a family members’ diet and his health. One of our family member’s doctors is intricately involved with his diet but his doctor has to repeatedly tell him to stop eating these foods or he will die; however, this family member is not always honest in reporting his diet to his doctor. It seems that one problem with the medical profession—regardless if one is a medical doctor, nutritionist, or a homeopathic doctor—is that patients lie about what they eat. Does this mean that the doctors and other medical professionals are corrupt?
The film points out the role that pharmaceutical companies play in medical practices, sometimes to the detriment of a person’s long-term health. However, if someone has a problem and there is a pill that will help, shouldn’t the doctor prescribe the pill?
Another aspect of this film that sticks with us and could work against the film’s message is when the raw food diet pioneer discusses his obese cousin who lost 150 pounds on the raw food diet. This person detoxified his body, which is great; he lost 150 pounds, which is phenomenal; in doing so, he had bowel movements twelve times a day . . . ewww. We would keep that aspect as fine print.
The film also does not take into account other aspects of healthy living such as exercise, reducing stress, or many other aspects that can have a tremendous impact on a person’s health. If food really matters, shouldn’t other aspects matter as well? The filmmakers never address this aspect of healthy people in the documentary and in our opinion that makes them as guilty as doctors not, as they claim, using nutrition to help cure patients.
In the end, we feel that it is important to arm one’s self with knowledge to make health-related decisions, even if making these decisions means going against what some people might promote.
–
Sustainability History Project 
First off, I want to give credit where credit is due and give praise for a nicely written post. I feel you did a job covering most of the angles of sustainability. One thing Id like to add, lately I have seen many documentaries that all seem to argue the same things, eat nuts, eat berries and life will be better. They often make the claim that this is a more natural way of living because this is the way of our ancestors. While this seems nice to attribute our current eating habits to those of our distant relatives, this comparison is entirely inaccurate. Although it has been long accepted that early humans and hominids where hunters and gatherers, many people forget just how important hunting was for these individuals. Within the archeological data, there is plenty of evidence to support that most of the nutrients these early individuals were receiving was from animal proteins. According to the expensive tissue hypothesis, the animal proteins were a vital aspect of human evolution because they allow organs, such as the brain, which requires more protein, the ability to increase in mass. Since modern humans are characterized by cranial capacity, animal proteins were pivotal in the creation of the human mind. Expensive tissues would have been unable to thrive without the rich animal protein diets of early modern humans; therefore, with this data, one must ask, is it more natural/sustainable to eat only nuts and berries?