Talk:Nutritionism

Untitled
Disagree with the idea suggested merger into the Nutrition article. Nutritionism as an ideological stance (though perhaps one not affirmatively committed to by its adherents) deserves a page of its own. As an ever increasing phenomenon due to increasing global and local consciousness with regard to issues surrounding food, interest in (and contributions to) an article on nutritionism can only grow. Boldymumbles (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yahnahwoodby.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't Merge
I think that nutritionism should remain separate from nutrition since it's an ideology rather than a science. However, I think it would be good to have a reference to or section about nutritionism on the nutrition page (129.123.156.57 (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)).

NPOV
This seems to be a term that is applied to others but never oneself, much like extremism. How do we go about presenting a neutral view of a thing that is only named in criticism? MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Faulty Citation
the following is part of "defense of nutritionism": One criticism is that while many scientific studies of nutrition, or the conclusions extrapolated from them by both scientists and journalists have been bad, we should not reject a scientific approach to food altogether.[4]

If you read the article linked to in [4] (actually titled "Science and the fiction of nutrition") there is no defense of nutritionism, and in fact the author uses the term nutritionism critically (of the nutrition industry) several times. The author argues that there is little that science can currently tell us about nutrition beyond basic dietary advice like eat more vegetables. Rather than being antithetical to the critique of nutritionism, this article raises many of the same points as Pollan does in "In Defense of Food". It should be noted that no one is discouraging the use of good science in guiding nutrition, merely that almost all advice pandered as 'scientific' when it comes to nutrition is anything but, and that there is little evidence to support a dietary focus on individual nutrients as opposed to whole foods. The author of the article agrees that nutritionism is bad, and says so, thus it doesn't make much sense to include it as a citation under the section "Defense of Nutritionism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.161.210 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I will attempt to fix the article based on this talk
I hope to be finished in a few days. Daniel Kellis (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)