Is Ottolenghi right? Do we just need to ‘go back to basics’ and forget nutrition?
I appreciate the sentiment of this piece - where Yotam Ottolenghi says lets just go back to basics and forget about nutrition. But it falls into some common traps when talking about nutrition.
Why We Can’t Just ‘Forget About Nutrition’
In a world full of food rules, conflicting dietary advice, and an overwhelming focus on what we should or shouldn’t eat, there’s something appealing about stepping back and just enjoying food. However, while his argument has an emotional pull and I agree with the sentiment, it also falls into several common traps when discussing nutrition. Let’s break them down.
1. "It Didn’t Work for Me, So It’s Useless"
Ottolenghi shares that he didn’t enjoy fasting, and therefore seems to dismiss it altogether. That’s fair—fasting isn’t for everyone. I don’t like fasting either; it makes me hungry. But personal experience doesn’t equate to universal truth. Just because something doesn’t work for one person doesn’t mean it’s ineffective or useless for others. Some people find fasting beneficial, and there’s robust population-level data suggesting various metabolic benefits. The key is understanding that individual preference doesn’t negate scientific evidence or the experiences of others.
2. Forgetting Privilege in Food Choices
One of Ottolenghi’s core arguments is that food choices should be natural—just as they were when we were growing up with our families. But this assumes a universal experience that doesn’t exist. Not everyone had a wholesome, home-cooked upbringing. Many people were raised in poverty, where food choices were dictated by availability and affordability rather than preference. Others grew up in diet culture, with food being a source of anxiety rather than nourishment. Some had parents who lacked the time, skills, or resources to cook balanced meals. Suggesting that we should all just “go back” to a way of eating that wasn’t accessible to many ignores the realities of diverse food experiences and systemic inequities.
3. "Nutritionism Is Flawed, So Nutrition Science Is Useless"
Ottolenghi critiques “nutritionism,” the reductionist approach of breaking food down into nutrients and applying them in isolation. He’s right that this approach can be problematic. Focusing too much on individual components—like demonizing fats or glorifying antioxidants—can miss the bigger picture of dietary patterns and food culture. However, the flaw lies in how the information is applied, not in nutrition science itself. The fact that nutritionism has led to misguided food trends doesn’t mean that studying food composition, metabolism, and health outcomes isn’t valuable. We just need to use the information responsibly and in context.
4. "We Don’t Know Everything About Food, Therefore We Know Nothing"
Yes, there’s still so much we don’t fully understand about food, nutrition, and health. But that doesn’t mean we throw our hands up and declare all dietary guidance meaningless. Science is always evolving, and we refine our understanding as new evidence emerges. Waiting until we have complete knowledge before making dietary recommendations isn’t practical. Instead, we should acknowledge the uncertainties and limitations in nutrition science while still using the best available evidence to inform our choices. The issue isn’t that nutrition advice exists; it’s that it’s often presented as rigid rules rather than evolving guidelines.
The Bottom Line
Food is more than just nutrients—it’s culture, tradition, and personal preference. But dismissing nutrition altogether ignores the reality that our dietary choices do impact our health, and not everyone has the same food experience or access. The goal shouldn’t be to abandon nutrition but to approach it with nuance, flexibility, and an understanding that science is a tool—not a set of unbreakable rules. Enjoying food and making informed dietary choices aren’t mutually exclusive.
