Food Essentialism and the Appeal of Raw Milk

Food Processing Influences Feelings

Raw milk seems to be making a comeback. Social media influencers of all shapes and sizes are touting a myriad of vitality-boosting benefits from gulping this white nourishing beverage.

This is something that we should be concerned about. Granted, raw milk is a protein-, energy- and micronutrient-rich food that might, indeed, contain beneficial microbes otherwise absent from its pasteurised counterpart, and consuming it could be associated with a slightly reduced likelihood of allergic reactions. But there’s also an increased risk that your drink will contain pathogenic bacteria, massively escalating the probability of food poisoning. In fact, raw milk is one of the riskiest foods we can consume, and pasteurisation massively reduces the risk of contamination [1]. Pasteurised milk is equally rich in protein, energy and micronutrients, and you can improve your gut microbiome by consuming fermented and fibrous foods. Is it really worth risking serious illness for the sake of the remote chance of minor health benefits?

I have a more cynical view as to why people like to neck raw milk. I think this “wellness” fad has little to do with any objective health benefits. Rather, it’s a perspective that leans into the appeal to nature fallacy, which favours minimally processed foods over those that have been treated in ways deemed to take away from their “naturalness”. There’s tremendous appeal from the rawness associated with nature and perceived goodness inherent in foods “untouched” by processing: a concept referred to as “food essentialism”.

What Is Food Essentialism?

Food essentialism (FE) is the belief that foods have innate and immutable properties. People might think of foods as having inherent and unchanging properties that define their category. As a lay belief, essentialism may inform judgements intuitively, especially in the absence of expert or scientific knowledge. People hold essentialist beliefs in domains of social categories (e.g. race and gender) and for natural kinds, such as plants and animals [2], but less so for man-made objects [3]. FE could be an important determinant of the way consumers feel about processed foods. Yet, considering how important knowledge of food behaviour is to the food industry, there’s been surprisingly limited investigation of FE’s role in food-related perceptions.

Food Essentialism Research

In a recent paper titled “Food essentialism: Implications for expectations and perceptions of the properties of processed foods,” published in Food Quality and Preference, the authors outlined the background and importance of understanding FE [4]. They proposed that “individual differences in consumers’ lay beliefs about foods having underlying essences that produce their unique properties … systematically predicts judgments about how processing affects diverse characteristics and acceptability of foods (naturalness, healthiness, functional properties, taste, and liking)”.

The paper describes two studies with a combined cohort of nearly 600 participants. The researchers examined whether individual differences in beliefs about foods as having essences are related to perceptions of foods retaining more of their natural characteristics (sensory and nutritive properties) despite the level of processing. Participants rated food items on a 100-point visual analogue scale (VAS) and their perceived sensory, nutritional and hedonic properties. How subjects felt about the foods’ nutritiousness (how nutritious is this food?), naturalness (how natural is this food?) and the degree of processing (how processed is this food?) were assessed. The author’s novel Food Essentialism Scale (FES) measured lay beliefs about foods having innate and immutable essences that may provide the food its functional characteristics. Their data collection also looked at the degree of neophobia about food technology and how subjects felt about food’s “naturalness”, and they incorporated this with how much nutrition knowledge subjects felt they had, as well as both objective and subjective social-economic status.

They found a greater degree of processing to be associated with lower perceived naturalness, nutritiousness, sensory and functional characteristics and acceptability. Those who endorsed stronger FE perceived a weaker relationship between increased food processing levels and retention of natural characteristics of their source products. Somewhat paradoxically, however, they found that higher FE beliefs were associated with perceptions that characteristics of natural foods are more resilient to effects of processing, even in highly processed food products.

Other notable findings include:

• Modifications affecting a food’s perceived natural essence contribute to corresponding changes in fundamental characteristics, and “unnatural” or man-made items are generally seen as lacking essences.

• Changes to a food’s underlying composition, such as through chemical or biological modification, are seen as reducing its naturalness to a greater extent than physical methods like grinding.

• Intuitions about foods transferring functional properties to those who eat them – you are what you eat – depend on beliefs that a food’s essence is transferred, maintained and expressed within the consumer.

• Stronger FE beliefs assume that the innate essence and attributes of a food are more likely to endure despite disruptions introduced by human intervention through physical, chemical or biological processing that the food undergoes.

• Variations across categories – some foods are perceived to possess essences that are more robust despite more processing. Interestingly, this includes milk-based products.

• FE beliefs determine consumers’ expectations of how human intervention, such as processing, affects natural properties of foods.

• Across diverse food categories – meats, vegetables, fruits, legumes and dairy – higher levels of perceived food processing were associated with lower perceived naturalness, nutritiousness, natural taste, functional post-ingestive benefits and acceptability.

Food’s Essential Properties

Debates about food processing are contributing to the confusion about what’s healthy. I’ve discussed this at length in previous articles, such as Processing Terminology [5]. As health and environmental pressures multiply, future food systems are becoming more and more dependent on processed foods. For sure, the excessive consumption of cheap, high-fat, high-sugar, low-fibre, calorie-dense, hyperpalatable foods are contributing to increasing rates of non-communicable diseases [6]. Yet, tackling food security for a growing population mandates processing techniques that help improve affordability, shelf life, safety and nutritional quality, as well as addressing concerns relating to welfare, environmental and food waste.

Some people perceive foods as having certain qualities relating to their healthfulness, naturalness and even organoleptic qualities, and they do so with little acknowledgement of science research. This can lead to processed foods being seen as less healthful and less natural, despite there being no accepted definition of “natural” when it comes to food. Foods’ essential characteristics appear to be slightly diminished with each step of processing. Despite the benefits that processed foods can have on health, sustainability and food security, consumers vary in expectations about and preferences for processed foods.

People who hold stronger FE beliefs are less likely to associate the processing of a food item with its naturalness, nutritiousness and taste. Understanding the contributions of essentialism to consumers’ food-related cognitions and attitudes may be an effective approach for future research to help shift consumer acceptance of processed foods and the acceptance of novel products and technologies that can address global challenges to sustainable and secure food systems.

A Raw Confession

FE is an interesting new concept applicable to a bunch of food-related behaviour. An article on FE without an enticing example risks boring readers. What better example than the hot topic of raw milk with all its essentialist characteristics? I confess to using the topic as an excuse for an eye-catching graphic and an alluring title!

Drinking milk straight after it has come out of a cow’s udder might remind us of how our ancestors once behaved, with all its gritty appeal of naturalness and perceptions of health and vitality. Could it be, even, that the risk of drinking raw milk with the chance of pathogenic contamination is part of this appeal?

References:
1. CDC Public Health Law Research Anthology: Raw Milk. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/php/publications/research-anthology-raw-milk.html (Accessed: 20 December 2024).
2. (a) Gelman, S.A. & Hirschfeld, L.A. (1999) ‘How biological is essentialism?’ In Folkbiology (403-46) The MIT Press; (b) Haslam, N. et al (2000) ‘Essentialist beliefs about social categories’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(1), 113-27.
3. (a) Keil, F. C. (1989) Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. The MIT Press; (b) Neufeld, E. (2022) ‘Psychological essentialism and the structure of concepts’, Philosophy Compass, 17(5), e12823.
4. Cheon, B. K. et al. (2024) ‘Food essentialism: Implications for expectations and perceptions of the properties of processed foods’, Food Quality and Preference, 117: 105173.
5. Collier, J. (2024) ‘Processing Terminology: Processed Food Confusion Is a Problem of Language’, Thought For Food, 8 May. Available at: https://jamescollier.substack.com/p/a-processed-mindset (Accessed: 20 December 2024).
6. Numerous meta-analyses, for example: (a) Pagliai, G. et al. (2021) ‘Consumption of Ultra-Processed Foods and Health Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’, British Journal of Nutrition, 125(3), 308-18; (b) Askari, M. et al. (2020) ‘Ultra-Processed Food and the Risk of Overweight and Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies’, International Journal of Obesity, 44(10), 2080-91; (c) Lane, M. M. et al. (2021) ‘Ultraprocessed Food and Chronic Noncommunicable Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 43 Observational Studies’, Obesity Reviews, 22(3), e13146; (d) Moradi, S. et al. (2021) ‘Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Adult Diabetes Risk: A Systematic Review and Dose–Response Meta-Analysis’, Nutrients, 13(12), 4410; (e) Suksatan, W. et al. (2021) ‘Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Adult Mortality Risk: A Systematic Review and Dose–Response Meta-Analysis of 207,291 Participants’, Nutrients, 14(1), 174.