nutritional deficiencies: dietary advice and its discontents | jessica hayes-conroy, hobart & william smith colleges | adele hite, north carolina state university | kendra klein, san francisco physicians for social responsibility | charlotte biltekoff, university of california, davis | aya h. kimura, university of hawaii Doing Nutrition DifferentlyAbstract: This conversation is part of a special issue on ''Critical Nutrition'' in which multiple authors weigh in on various themes related to the origins, character, and consequences of contemporary American nutrition discourses and practices, as well as how nutrition might be known and done differently. In this section, authors reflect on the limits of standard nutrition in understanding the relationship between food and human health. They also focus on how nutrition practitioners are or could be creating different practices for how nutritional information is made available, shared, and absorbed. Among the different frameworks under discussion are individualized nutrition, ecological nutrition, critical dietary literacy, feminist nutrition, and technologies of humility.

This conversation is part of a special issue on ''Critical Nutrition'' in which multiple authors weigh in on various themes related to the origins, character, and consequences of contemporary American nutrition discourses and practices, as well as how nutrition might be known and done differently. In this section authors focus on the hegemony of reductionism and quantification in modern-day nutritional knowledge by discussing the historical foundations and ethical dimensions, as well as the scientific absences, in this knowledge.Reviewing various challenges to the energy balance model, they all suggest that the promotion of good nutrition is far from simple. Some authors also discuss why various ''invisible'' nutrients and measures of good nutrition continue to hold so much sway in nutrition discourse.

Along with seeking to eliminate the inhumane conditions and slaughter involved in animal protein production, alternative protein companies aspire to ameliorate its environmental impacts. They claim to do so by making edible protein from (nearly) nothing, drawing on abundant or mundane resources that will presumably not be missed or have no negative externalities, or “upcycling” byproducts that would otherwise be wasted—to de-materialize in other words. At the same time, these entrepreneurs promise their substitutes will be nutritionally analogous to or better than animal-based proteins and have only salubrious effects on human bodies. Drawing on data collected on alternative protein companies that are based in or have come through Silicon Valley, this article catalogs and examines company representations of their various de-materialization promises. We find that attempting to meet the tripartite, yet competing imperatives of Silicon Valley innovation, namely disruption, transparency, and secrecy, results in representations of processes that obfuscate more than they reveal. The resulting obfuscation is not simply the intentional veiling of pernicious processes; more than selling specific food products, Silicon Valley food tech entrepreneurs aspire to bring a new food system into being and convince their audiences that this food future is both better and achievable. Nevertheless, their representational practices make it difficult, if not impossible, for the public—or anyone really—to meaningfully assess the promises and their potential consequences, much less hold their proponents accountable to anything but pecuniary concerns.

This conversation is part of a special issue on ''Critical Nutrition'' in which multiple authors weigh in on various themes related to the origins, character, and consequences of contemporary American nutrition discourses and practices, as well as how nutrition might be known and done differently. In this section authors discuss the aims and effects of nutrition interventions. In terms of aims, various authors emphasize how such interventions act as pedagogies of citizenship, governmentalize people as metric consumers, or reflect colonial practices. In terms of effects, authors discuss how the project of nutrition works in class/race differentiation, the disempowerment of mothers, or the interest of transnational corporations. All of the authors essentially challenge not only nutrition's fundamental claims to neutrality and objectivity, but also its claims to benevolence.

The papers in the session "Food Culture and Consumer Response," show how important people's values, beliefs, aspirations and social context are to their dietary health. They also reveal several tensions that shape consumer responses to healthy food. This essay discusses the paradoxical nature of eating habits in general, and describes three paradoxes related specifically to the challenges of providing food for health in the 21st century: pleasure/health, technology/nature, innovation/nostalgia.