Eat with Gratitude and without Guilt

Eat with Gratitude and without Guilt, PDF format

A Rebuttal of the “Health Food” Movement’s Errors, Lies and Killjoys

“Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man” (Matthew 15:11).

“I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing [no food] unclean of itself” (Romans 14:14). 

“For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Romans 14:17).

“But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse” (1 Corinthians 8:8).

“Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof” (1 Corinthians 10:25,26).

“God hath created [meats, i.e. all foods] to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.  For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (1 Timothy 4:1,3-5).

  How many people remember those carefree days – they seem so long ago now – when family and friends got together for a meal, and pretty much everyone ate pretty much everything?  Ah, those were happier times.  These days when people gather for a meal, it seems all we hear are voices saying disapprovingly, “Oh, I don’t eat that, it’s too fattening”, or, “You know, that’s bad for you”, or asking the hostess, “Is that low-fat?” or, “Are those vegetables organic?”  It certainly drains the joy out of meals and meal-time conversations.

  To listen to some professing Christians, one would think this matter of the food we eat should be the most important matter in the believer’s life!  Their focus has been diverted from the true, spiritual nature of the Gospel to a constant obsession with what is physical: what they put, or do not put, into their mouths.  They have fallen for a deception; a subtle trap of the Evil One. 

  There were detailed dietary restrictions for the Israelites under the Old Covenant, for a specific reason and a specific period of time (Lev. 11); but there are none for Christians under the New Testament, and anyone who creates such restrictions is sinfully adding the doctrines of men to biblical Christianity.  Note this well!  There are no dietary laws for New Testament Christians.  The Scriptures quoted at the beginning of this article are crystal clear.  The child of God is free to eat what he likes.  No food is forbidden to him, for no food is unclean to him; he is not defiled by what he eats; the kingdom of God is not about what foods we put into our stomachs – such matters are entirely irrelevant, and what we eat or do not eat certainly does not in any way commend us to God; every created thing is good, if received with thanksgiving to God. 

  The Bible is infallible, for all Scripture is given by divine inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16).  God cannot lie, and He cannot err.  His Word declares that such things as meat, salt, milk and butter are good; therefore the misnamed “health food” advocates are wrong when they say the opposite.  Let God be true and every man a liar.  God’s Word is to inform and govern every area of our lives.

This Goes Without Saying – But We’ll Say It Anyway (To Avoid All Misunderstanding)

  Before proceeding any further, lest any misunderstand the purpose of this article: it is a good thing, as a general rule, to try to eat in a sensible, “balanced” manner, within one’s income limitations and depending on where one lives and what is available.  We should take care of the bodies the Lord has given us.  As the old saying goes, “Prevention is better than cure.”  To take steps to prevent illness, where possible, is a good thing to do – and eating in a sensible manner may at times help with this.  It is sensible, therefore, not to live almost solely on sugary things, nor to douse one’s food in mounds of salt, and indeed to limit one’s intake of all things which, ingested in excessive quantities, might impair one’s health.  And even if health is not impaired, gluttony is a sin (Prov. 23:1-2,19-21).

  And for those who suffer from certain illnesses, specific diets may help to alleviate them, or even play a part in curing them.   Many people, who suffer health problems, need to avoid certain foods and follow specific diets.  There are people who cannot eat spicy or fatty foods; people who cannot drink milk; some who are allergic to peanuts; and much more.  The human body is a very complex thing, and what is good for one person is not always good for another. 

This Article’s Purpose

  However, having dispensed with the “goes without saying” stuff which nevertheless needs to be said (because there are those who fixate on a particular portion of an article and consequently misunderstand its overall purpose), let me state categorically that this article is a strong critique of sinful fanaticism in the matter of eating; of the excessive, unnecessary, silly, and quite frankly irritating obsession with so-called “health foods” and “health diets”, even to the point where this has become a religion for so many professing Christians, whose concern and focus should be on very different matters.  Its purpose is to show what the Bible says about what we may eat, and also to drum home the fact that “the jury is still out” on the possible harmful effects of eating certain things – yet the culinary killjoys zero in only on such “research” as appears to support whatever their particular no-no foods happen to be. 

  No Christian should be so gullible and undiscerning – but unfortunately so many are.

  It is one thing to avoid those foods which definitely make you, as an individual, ill; or to eat those things which may possibly help to alleviate your personal health problems.  But it is quite another thing to spend your time and energy on a never-ending crusade of condemnation against sugar, salt, fat, calories, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

The “Health Food” Religion: Idolising the Human Body

  Large numbers who profess to follow Christ and His Gospel have fallen for the false doctrines of the “health food” religion.  Religion?  Yes! – it most certainly is a religion, as far as “health food” fanatics are concerned.  Not all would go this far, of course – but it can be a very thin line, which is all too easily crossed.

  For those who take it this far, it has its own god – the human body, which is idolised.  It has its own bibles – the “health food” literature, read with religious devotion.  It has a substitute for sin – all the supposedly “unhealthy foods”, preservatives, etc.  It has its own saviour – the name of which is “health food”.  It has its own concept of salvation – saving oneself physically (no spiritual salvation here) by one’s own works of eating only what the “health bibles” tell one to eat.  It has a substitute for heaven – which is the mythical “restored Eden” for each disciple, where people eat “organic” and (theoretically only) enjoy “optimum physical health”.  It has its own ministers – the “health food gurus”, getting rich on the money of the gullible.  It has a substitute for church fellowship – the “health food” community, likeminded people who talk endlessly about the latest foods, fads and diets.  It has a substitute for spiritual sanctification – one’s physical appearance and wellbeing, more important to them than anything else.  It has a substitute for mortifying the sinful deeds of the flesh – mortifying instead the perceived fleshly “evils” of getting fat, consuming calories, sugar, salt, preservatives – sometimes even meat.

  Idolatry takes many forms.  The fact that believers are warned to keep themselves from idols (1 Jn. 5:21) shows that it is possible even for true disciples of Christ to fall into this great sin.  And many in this self-absorbed age have done just that.  They have made an idol out of the human body.

The Influence of the Seventh-day Adventist Cult and False Eastern Religions

  In addition to being itself a religion for many people, the “health food” movement is in many places, and in many respects, hugely influenced by the false teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist cult, and of various other cults and false eastern religions. 

  Ever since the time of Adventism’s false prophetess founder, Ellen G. White, in the nineteenth century, dietary issues have played a large part in this cult’s teachings; and Adventists have been very successful in getting these teachings into the very forefront of the “health food” movement, via their books, etc.  A Seventh-day Adventist doctor named John Harvey Kellogg (1852-1943) became a “cereal mogul” after inventing the Kellogg’s Corn Flakes breakfast cereal; and he greatly influenced another “cereal mogul”, C.W. Post, the inventor of the Post Toasties breakfast cereal (originally named Elijah’s Manna).  These products laid much of the groundwork for the “health food” industry in the United States (from where it spread worldwide).  Seventh-day Adventists popularised such products as soy milk, soy cheese, and meat substitutes, and they also established Worthington Foods, which became the largest manufacturer of veggie burgers and fake meat in the U.S.

  In their official literature, Adventists claim that “God’s call to holiness involves a call to physical as well as spiritual health.”[1]  No, it does not.  Holiness has nothing whatsoever to do with the things we eat, or with our physical health in any sense.  And yet this is precisely the lie which many professing Christians have fallen for: a lie promoted by an antichristian cult!

  Seventh-day Adventists teach that vegetarianism is the ideal diet; that eating meat is unhealthy; that one should learn to eliminate, or use only sparingly, foods with high fat or sugar content; that many condiments and spices are associated with various health problems;[2] etc.  Sound familiar?  It’s the kind of nonsense advocated, to varying degrees, by “health food” fanatics the world over.  And it’s wrong!  It is neither biblical nor scientific, as will be seen below. 

  But it wasn’t just the Seventh-day Adventists.  The followers of various eastern mystic and New Age Movement gurus have played a huge role as well. 

  One of them was Jim Baker, an ex-U.S. Marine who opened an “organic” restaurant in Hollywood in1957, followed by a number of other restaurants.  His food was popular with the Hollywood entertainment crowd (no surprise there – those people just love anything odd and “out there”).  Baker became a disciple of one “Yogi Bhajan”, and changed his name to “Father Yod”.  In time he preferred to call himself “YaHoWah”, his version of “Jehovah”.  Now looking like a Hindu mystic, he gathered a following (and many “spiritual wives” as well) which called itself the Source Family.[3]

  As for “Yogi Bhajan”, he had his own Golden Temple Conscious Cookies.  Then there was the “natural food” emporium of the One World Family, another group called The Farm, and various macrobiotic restaurants inspired by Zen Buddhism.  The Hare Krishna movement invested in vegetarian cookery.  All of these, and more, prospered during the 1970s, especially among the hippies of that era but not solely.  They were widely accepted in the mainstream of society as well, as the New Age Movement spread throughout America.  These false religious movements used their “health food” stores and restaurants to attract converts, and to make money for their causes.[4]  And thus the “health food” industry became increasingly acceptable beyond the fringes of strange religious movements.

  None of the above is meant to imply that we should not eat corn flakes or veggie burgers.  Go ahead and eat these things if you enjoy them.  The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.  But what is written above is to show that the so-called “health food” industry has been dominated by cults and eastern mystic religions promoting extreme and erroneous views on food and health, and that it should be of great concern to professing Christians if they have fallen for the unbiblical and faulty “health advice” disseminated by such groups, who claim (for example) that one must be vegetarian to be healthy, or that eating certain things is somehow sinful.  No Christian should heed such unbiblical nonsense.

The True Gospel: Not About What Goes Into the Belly, but What Comes Out of the Heart

  Millions of people today are obsessed with what they eat, and with their looks; and innumerable professing Christians are just as obsessed.  And they even attempt to create biblical justification for this by saying, “As Christians we must take care of our bodies, because 1 Cor. 6:19 says, ‘know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?’  Therefore we must be very careful about what we eat.”  It sounds so biblical; but it is in fact pseudo-biblical.  The body is the temple of God, but it is not food which will defile it, as the Scriptures at the beginning of this article show!

  In using this argument, professing Christians are employing the very language of Seventh-day Adventist cultism.  This is from an official Adventist work: “Not only the church but the individual Christian [they mean Adventist] is a temple for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit [and they reference 1 Cor. 6:19].  Christians, then, practice good health habits to protect the command center of their body temples, the mind, the dwelling place of the Spirit of Christ.  For this reason Seventh-day Adventists – throughout the past 100 years – have stressed the importance of proper health habits.”[5]  Except that many of Ellen G. White’s teachings on “health” were false both biblically and scientifically, and to this day many of the “proper health habits” stressed by Adventists are also false.

  This emphasis on the body, and on food, is very unbiblical.  The true Gospel is concerned with spiritual matters; with eternal things.  When the focus is removed from spiritual to physical things, this is nothing but pseudo-Christianity and a false gospel.  It is true that we should take care of the bodies the Lord has given us, provided that doing so does not become our main focus, or distract us from serving the Lord.  But we should not idolise the body (Phil. 3:19); nor should we pamper it; nor spend inordinate amounts of time and money on it; nor put the health of the body above the wellbeing of the spirit.  Yet this is what “health food”-obsessed Christians are doing. 

  As for what we eat, this article will show that things which the “health food” industry claims are bad for us are frequently not actually so; and all food, in moderate amounts, is permitted to us.

  Note these two verses, and note them well: “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Rom. 14:17); “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man” (Matthew 15:11).  Read them again.  Could anything be plainer?  The kingdom of God has nothing to do with what you eat.  Those professing believers who make an idol out of “health food” are more concerned with the foods which go into the belly than with the sins which come out of the mouth, which are born in the heart and defile a man.  “Do not ye yet understand,” Jesus said, “that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?  But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man” (Matt. 15:17,18). 

  Biblical Christianity has to do with the heart, not the belly.  Anything else is a perversion; it is a false gospel. 

The True Gospel: Living Sacrificially for Christ –Even at the Cost of Your Health if Need Be

  So many professing Christians today are obsessed with preserving their bodies in a state of what they have been led to believe is “optimum health”.  Compare their lives with that of a man like Epaphroditus, a minister of Christ in the first century.  The Scripture says “he was sick nigh unto death”, and, “for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life”! (Phil. 2:27,30).  He was so devoted to the Lord’s work that he fell ill because of the toll it took on his physical health, and he almost died.  Whatever the cause of his sickness – whether lack of proper nutrition, or (which is more likely) exhaustion from over-work – the point is that unlike so many of today’s professing Christians, he did not count his physical life so dear to himself that its healthful preservation was all-consuming and all-important.  He was prepared to die, if need be, from broken health, as long as he spent himself in the Lord’s work.  As have untold numbers of the Lord’s servants through the ages.

  One wonders how many modern-day saints would have the same self-sacrificing spirit of Epaphroditus.  The number would be minuscule.  A great many of them are far too busy trying to keep their bodies free from sugar and preservatives!  To “gladly spend and be spent” in the service of the Lord is not their first priority (2 Cor. 12:15).  Paul could say, “Neither count I my life dear unto myself” (Acts 20:26), and Epaphroditus would have said Amen to that; but so many modern-day Christians count their lives very dear to themselves indeed.

  Think of mission work.  The Gospel is to be proclaimed to all nations, all people, all countries and all cultures.  Well, the many people groups and cultures of this world eat many different things.  And when people are converted to Christ they are free to continue to eat whatever they ate before – things which may be considered unhealthy in the eyes of today’s western “health food” fanatics!  Now those who are so obsessed with counting calories and being fastidious over fat content will hardly be likely to consider going as missionaries to some foreign culture, where perhaps the natives live on a high-fat diet, or where there are no supermarkets where they can check the labels of the foodstuffs for salt, sugar, fat, or calories.  Yet this was never a consideration to missionaries of the past.  They ate what the natives ate, in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor. 10:24-33).  Compared with those giants of the faith, today’s self-absorbed professing Christians are spiritual pygmies.

  Again it must be said: it is right, within reason, to look after the bodies the Lord has given us; but not to the point that this is our all-consuming obsession, causing us to serve the Lord only if we can do it while “maintaining optimal health”, fixating on food labels, calorie counts, sugar amounts and fat content. 

  It is all so selfish; so utterly self-absorbed.  It fits well with the western world’s modern obsession with the self; with “what makes me feel good.”  This is New Age nonsense, but it is not biblical Christianity.

  If Christians who are taken in by this would spend the time reading the Bible, and good Christian books, which at present they devote to swatting up on “health food” issues, reading labels on foodstuffs and being concerned with calories and carbs, how much more would God be glorified!

They’re Right Until They’re Wrong: The Ups and Downs of the “Health Food” Movement

  Let’s examine the falsely-named “health food” movement.  If you’ve fallen for the advertising and the exaggerated claims, you’ve fallen for a lie.  It’s nothing like what they tell you it is.

  Quite frankly, even if one knew nothing at all of the claims of the “health food” fanatics, what the Bible declares on this matter is sufficient.  Still, so much of the “health food” movement is nowhere near as “scientific” as it likes to make out that it is, and when the absurd claims of the “health food” movement are debunked by science – as they frequently are – it is good and useful to know these facts.  How often have the so-called “health food experts” been proved wrong?  Times without number. 

  To provide just one example at this point (more are given later): the eating of fish oil.  “You may recall that in the early 1980s fish oil was celebrated as a virtual fountain of health.  Researchers found extraordinarily low rates of heart disease in Greenlandic Eskimos, and if it works for the Eskimos…. Well, the fish oil story turned out to be just another fish story… As Martijn Katan, a scholar from the Netherlands, explained, ‘In studies of Eskimos who, incidentally, ate seal and whale rather than fish, low rates of coronary disease were found.  But their diet and lifestyle were quite special and most of them died before reaching middle age.’[6]  Oops.  They didn’t die of heart disease because they died of other things before reaching the typical heart-attack age.  So eat your fish if that’s your wish, but do so because you love the taste, not because it’s a life-saver.”[7]

  What’s more, science is frequently unable to provide definitive answers on food-related matters – and such facts are good and useful to know also.  When we can’t be certain which “evidence” is the more scientific or accurate – that of the “health food” people or that of those who oppose them – this in itself demonstrates that we should be very cautious before accepting the many claims made.  Dogmatism is often grounded in ignorance, since in some of these food/nutrition/dietary matters “the jury is still out”, and the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other, depending on whatever the latest “studies” appear to say.

  The science, or lack thereof, behind the studies is changing constantly, and it causes the head of the man in the street to swim.  One study says one thing; another study says something completely different.  For every “health risk” blamed on something we eat, it seems there is some “health benefit” claimed as well. Studies contradict each other constantly.  “Who can possibly keep track of the yo-yoing fortunes of foods?”[8]  Who, indeed?  Not even those who spend large chunks of their lives reading endless food labels, counting calories, checking the sodium or sugar content of everything before buying it, or poring over all the latest “health food” publications and internet sites with religious devotion. 

  Here’s the thing: if there are “scientific” studies both for and against something, it has obviously not been conclusively proved to be bad for us!

  Far better to eat whatever you enjoy, in moderation, giving God thanks for it all, and don’t fill your head with endless scare-stories.  “For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (1 Tim. 4:4,5).  This is the Word of the Lord!  Let us believe the Lord, and not be slaves to the culinary killjoys and nutrition nannies with agendas they try to shove down our throats.

Tucking In to Weapons of Self-Destruction?

  The irony of it all?  Whether “health food” fanatics or eat-what-you-like-and-enjoy-it people, the Bible says the average lifespan of a man is 70 years, or by reason of strength 80 years (Psa. 90:10).  When it comes to our appointed time to die, we die.  Do “health food” fanatics live longer – or even truly healthier – than anyone else, on average?  Simple observation shows this is not the case.  Many westerners who live their whole lives long on a diet which modern “health” faddists would consider atrociously bad, live to a great old age and in good health; and many who deny themselves all kinds of foods and live on what they have been led to believe are “health foods” die at a relatively young age.  We have known people (and doubtless the reader has too) who were extremely “overweight” by the standards of “health” faddists, whose diets consisted of what has been called “junk food”, but who were active and strong and lived to a good old age – in fact, their lives were really little different from the lives of many who denied themselves all kinds of foods in the hope of living longer and healthier.

  Death comes to us all.  And no amount of chomping through lentils and legumes is going to prevent the day of one’s death coming at precisely the time appointed by God.

  Now at this point there are those who will say, “But even though we can’t prevent the day of our death occurring at God’s appointed time, we still don’t go jumping off cliffs, and we still wear warm clothing in freezing weather!  We’re not to tempt the Lord (Matt. 4:5-7).”  And they’re right.  But again I must say it: none of the above is meant to imply that we shouldn’t look after ourselves, within reason.  It is not written to condemn eating in a nutritious, balanced, sensible manner, but to condemn this notion that if we eat in a certain way which some “experts” have claimed is “healthy”, the Lord will automatically grant us great health and length of days.  This is not promised in the Bible, nor does simple observation bear it out.  Regardless of how well we eat, or how much we exercise, or anything else – there will be times of sickness for all of us, sometimes even very serious, life-threatening, or terminal illnesses.  We live in fallen bodies, in a fallen world, we have to die of something – and we will, in God’s appointed time. 

  The following statement by two anti-all-fat “experts” is typical of so many others in the “health food” movement, who would heartily echo their words.  They declared dogmatically, “We are literally killing ourselves as we tuck in our napkins.  Our wounds are inflicted with knives and forks.”[9]  Really?  Then why are we living longer, and with a better “quality of life”, healthwise, than previous generations?  Millions of starving Africans, dying in childhood or not long afterwards from malnutrition, would love to tuck into what millions of Europeans and North Americans eat every day.  They would be forgiven for asking, “If North Americans and Europeans are supposedly killing themselves with their diets, why is it that they live so long and we are the ones dying young?”

  “Wounds inflicted with knives and forks”, indeed!  What utter nonsense.  Hamburgers, pork rinds, salty chips, sugary buns – these are not murder weapons, weapons of self-destruction, in the hands of westerners trying to commit suicide!  Provide starving Third World people with such supposedly “unhealthy” fare, and watch their health improve!  Are there better foods than so-called “junk foods” for malnourished people?  Depending on the “junk food”, surely there are.  But when something is better, it does not necessarily mean the other thing is bad, only that it is not as good.

  Despite eating so-called “junk food”, fats, sugary sweets, salt, and all the rest of the items on a “health” faddist’s taboo list, people in the West today enjoy a standard of health far superior to what could even have been dreamed of by many earlier generations – thanks to much better nutrition!

  Let us consider some of the things which get so many people all worked up – essentially for nothing – these days:

Being “Fat”

  What about carrying what are politely referred to as “a few extra kilos” (or pounds)?  Is this really the terrible health risk we have been told it is, by the thin-is-healthy-fat-is-deadly brigade?

  Not necessarily. 

  Many of today’s nutrition nannies are convinced they are smarter than all previous generations of mankind.  They blame what they consider those few extra kilos (or pounds) for virtually every health problem they can imagine.  Being thin is the great ideal to which they all strive, to be desired above all else.  But real proof for what is claimed is often a lot thinner on the ground than weight-loss diets are thin on taste.  And that’s very thin indeed.  There are studies and scientists aplenty who state the very opposite.  Obviously, then, if studies and scientists are found on both sides of the argument, “thin-is-healthy-fat-is-deadly” is by no means a proven fact.

  Let’s take a closer look.  We will start with the “thin-is-beautiful” refrain, and then look at the “thin-is-healthy” one.

  When it comes to what is considered “beautiful” in today’s world, the standard is set by the ungodly, immoral Hollywood and fashion crowd, and should any Christian ever say that this ideal of “beauty” is the right one?  It was not that long ago when people who would be considered “overweight” by today’s standards were considered the epitome of beauty!

  The western world today is obsessed with “fat madness”.  What is this?  “Fat madness is an intense, all-consuming preoccupation with body weight, size, shape, food, and dieting.  It’s based on a distorted perception of yourself, a vision perpetrated by society and history and the media.  Television shows, movies, and the multibillion-dollar diet industry image-makers have promised you a quick fix, if only you’d change your body.”[10]  Large numbers of professing Christians are as guilty of this madness as anyone else.  Yet not one of them could point to a single verse in all the Bible which supports this obsession with physical looks!  The biblical truth, in fact, is quite the opposite: the Bible says, “Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised” (Prov. 31:30).  The focus of so many professing Christian women (and even men) today is on “looking good” as the world sees it, instead of on fearing the Lord, walking with Him, and living according to His commandments.

  There is something quite sad about watching a woman in middle or later life desperately trying to remain young forever, by refusing to eat anything which might remotely be tasty or enjoyable, yet failing to turn back the clock anyway, despite all her extreme dietary efforts.  David’s approach is the right one, an acceptance of the natural process of aging, a result of the fall: “I have been young, and now am old” (Psa. 37:25).  No denial, just a quiet acceptance of the passing of the years.

  When it comes to married couples, it must be said that all too often husbands are to blame, to a large extent, for their wives’ obsession with “being fat”.  Ignoring the natural bodily changes which occur as we age, they insist that their wives retain the slim figures they had when they were in their twenties even though they are now decades older, have had children, and – just like their husbands! – their shapes have changed somewhat.  These unrealistic expectations place much pressure on many wives.  It is foolish and worldly. 

  None of this is to say that we should not try to look after ourselves.  Looking after yourself is one thing.  Being obsessed with looks, weight, etc., is quite another thing altogether.

  Now for the “thin-is-healthy-fat-is-deadly” refrain.

  “Being overweight will kill you!” we hear the “thin is healthy” crowd state, with all the dogmatism of ignorance.  “It’s unhealthy to be overweight.”  Actually, it’s far from being that cut and dried.  There is plenty of research which states that being thin is not necessarily nor automatically healthier than being what is today considered “overweight”.  Furthermore, “a low-fat or no-fat diet won’t slow aging, no matter what the starvation and treadmill gurus say.  You’re going to die anyway.”[11] 

  “[P]oundage, it turns out, is not the death sentence that… the rail-thin nags of the diet world have told us it is.”[12]  In his book, Big Fat Lies, Glenn A. Gaesser of the University of Virginia states, “the health and vigor of many heavier-than-average men and women I encountered over the years… seemed to defy the dire warnings.”[13]  And Stephen N. Blair, senior scientific editor of the U.S. Surgeon General’s Report on Physical Activity and Health, who helped direct a study of over 12000 men at high risk for heart disease, says, “weight loss did not lower the death rates of these high-risk men.  In fact, compared to men whose weights remained reasonably stable over the six to seven years [of the study] (even if those weights were above the recommended range), men who lost weight actually had a greater risk of dying during the nearly four years of follow-up.”[14]  Furthermore, from 1983 to 1993, fifteen studies showed “weight loss to increase risk of premature death by up to 260 percent.”[15]

  “Men and women medically classified as overweight who exercise regularly and are physically fit, yet remain above the ranges recommended by the height-weight tables, have lower death rates than thin men and women who do not exercise and are unfit, and have death rates comparable to thin and average-weight men and women who do exercise and are fit.”[16]

  Two researchers at the National Institutes of Health in the U.S. examined the autopsies of people weighing between 300 and 500 pounds, and yet they found “there was no more atherosclerosis in their coronary vessels than in non-obese people of the same age.”[17]

  As for hypertension, “in obese people [hypertension] only marginally increases the risk of premature death”; but “the reverse applies to both non-obese and thin people, for whom hypertension more than doubles the risk of premature mortality.”[18]

  It gets even worse for the thin-is-healthy crowd.  “Weight loss does not necessarily improve health.  Dieters, especially yo-yo dieters… have a risk for cardiovascular disease that is up to twice that of ‘overweight’ people who remain fat.”  And what’s more, research indicated that fat can guard against “cardiovascular disease and type-II diabetes, especially in women, and possibly breast and endometrial cancer as well.”[19]

  An article exposing the Lancet Commission on Obesity’s report in 2019, and citing the evidence, stated: “We all know how the low-fat dietary guidelines promulgated by the US in 1977 and subsequently adopted worldwide turned out to be the biggest mistake in the history of nutrition.  The experts and government bureaucrats were all in agreement.  Doctors recommended reducing saturated fat and cholesterol in the diet.  People responded by reducing their intake of red meat, eggs and high-fat dairy products, and increased their intake of white meat and low-fat dairy…. Yet they were all wrong.  Instead of reducing obesity and associated diseases, the incidence of obesity rose sharply in response to the government guidelines, and just kept on rising.  More recent scientific research indicates that saturated fat has nothing to do with cardiovascular disease.  Nor does food containing dietary cholesterol, like eggs.  It turns out an entirely different diet ought to have been recommended.”[20]

  And from the same article: “Perhaps most famously, the low-fat diet guidelines adopted by the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom in 1977 and 1983 respectively, aimed at reducing the incidence of obesity and coronary heart disease, were not supported by any evidence whatsoever.  Yet people followed the advice.  Doctors advocated cutting down on fat.  Food manufacturers lined supermarket shelves with low-fat and fat-free foods because that is what customers demanded.  Low-fat became an ideology, blindly promoted by physicians, the government, the food industry, and the media.

   “But the advice backfired catastrophically.  The substantial reduction of fat in American diets since 1977 marked the start of a sharp rise in obesity and diabetes.  The declining trend in coronary heart disease was already well underway by 1977, when the diet guidelines were issued, and are largely attributable to better public health infrastructure and advances in medical care.”[21]

  All the above, and much more, reveals that when it comes to the “health risks” faced by those who are overweight, things are not as neat and tidy as the simplistic “fat is a serious health risk” refrain which we have all heard for so long.  A great many people who – by today’s worldly “glamour” ideals – would be classified as “overweight”, are physically fit even though they weigh more than what some “expert” claims is ideal.  Many people who do no exercise at all are thin – and that doesn’t make them healthier.  Some people are large, and some are not.  It varies from individual to individual, and also from people group to people group.  South Sea Islanders, and certain African tribes, are naturally much heavier, on average, than Chinese or Japanese people.

  And let’s not forget the calorie-counting craziness either, when it comes to the fixation with fat madness.  When the low-fat guidelines of the late 1970s came into question, calorie intake became the next target of the Socialist government nannies to supposedly reduce obesity.  But facts are stubborn things, and facts do not support the theory that if calorie intake is restricted, weight loss will automatically follow.  “In Bolivia, the average daily calorie intake for adult men has ranged between 2,000 and 2,225 since 1975, which is well below the British and South African guidelines.  Yet the percentage of overweight and obese men has risen from 26% to 48% in that time.  South Korean men had a daily calorie intake of over 3,000 in the 1970s, but the overweight percentage was below 10%.  In Botswana, calorie intake ranged between 1,900 and 2,300 since 1975, but the share of overweight men rose from 9% to 30%.  In many other countries… men consistently eat less than the recommended daily intake in South Africa or the UK but did not escape the rising overweight and obesity trend since 1975.”[22]  Clearly, calories are not the problem.

  When equally obese identical twins lived on different diets, one following a calorie-restricted diet for many years and another not, there was no weight difference.  And when thin twins were fed identical food and followed identical exercise programmes, one twin put on three times the amount of weight that the other did.[23]  Again, clearly calories are not the problem.

  The point of all the above is not that the scientists and studies quoted above are all automatically right, or that studies saying the opposite are all automatically wrong.  Nor is it the point that we should all now become “overweight”.  For some there may be health risks in being “overweight”.  Especially is this true if the reason for being “overweight” is sinful gluttony, rather than genetic body size. But starving oneself to be thin is unhealthy also!

  No, the point of all the above is that statistics, studies and “experts” can be found almost ad nauseam to bolster up both sides.  Some of these are right and some are wrong.  But – which ones?  Ah, that is the great dilemma.  Sorting out fact from fiction is an almost impossible task for the man in the street.  The “wisdom” of the “experts” constantly changes.  It’s the same as the studies which say salt is bad and those which say it is good; those which say butter is evil and those which claim the great evil is margarine; etc.  The “average Joe” won’t find it easy to sort out scientific fact from fantasy with all the studies and scientists saying often contradictory things, and all claiming to be scientific. 

  The studies are endless, and at the end of the day the Christian must be guided by the Bible; he should use plain common sense when it comes to eating, exercise and everything else; and he should be very careful when it comes to studies claiming to be scientific.  Some are, some aren’t.  The best thing for the Christian to do – unless there is a proven connection between something he eats and some illness he has – is to simply go ahead and eat what he enjoys, with moderation and without anxiety.

  Statistics can be useful things.  However, statistics can also be manipulated, used stupidly, and even dishonestly.  When crazy claims are made by the thin-is-healthy people – for example, that X number of people die every year from being fat (the figure varies depending on who is making the claim) – these stats should be taken with much more than a pinch of salt (oops – salt is bad for us, we’re told – but see below).

  The fact is that everyone is different.  As Tim Spector states in his book, The Diet Myth: “The most dangerous [diet myth] is the notion that we all respond to food in the same way.  We are all different.  This is why the obsession with the limited view of nutrition and weight as calories-in versus calories-out is unhelpful and distracting.  The truth is each of us responds to food differently even if the food and the environment are identical.”[24]

  There appears to be no ideal weight; no one-size-fits-all approach that can work, because we are all individuals; and “forcing every single person on the planet into confinement in a little box on those absurd ideal height-weight charts is an exercise in physioterrorism.”[25]

  So then, dear brother or sister in Christ: stop worrying about how many calories are on the label or how much fat is in the container or whether some product has sugar, and just live the life the Lord has given you with thankfulness and joy, focusing on eternal matters and the spiritual wellbeing of your soul!

Meat

  We must immediately dispel any crazy notion that eating meat is somehow sinful, or unhealthy.  It is neither.  It is the very opposite.  It is appointed by the Lord as food for humans, because it is extremely good for us.  The Lord Jesus Himself ate meat – which, quite frankly, must settle the matter for any true Christian.  How can it possibly be sinful if He ate it?  And how can it possibly be unhealthy?

  The plain teaching of the Word of God is conclusive: man was given permission by the Lord to eat flesh after the worldwide flood.  When Adam and Eve were created they were commanded to eat only herbs, fruit, etc. (Gen. 1:29,30); but after the flood divine permission was given to add animal meat to man’s diet: “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things” (Gen. 9:3).   And this is just as applicable today as it was to Noah and his sons thousands of years ago.

  Paul makes this crystal clear when he writes: “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils… Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats [food of any kind], which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (1 Tim. 4:1-5).  Nothing could be clearer.  God has given all creatures to Christians to eat, and they are to eat with thankfulness of heart to Him.  All are good, and there is no divine law forbidding them from eating whatever they like.  They are limited solely by their own preferences.  Every creature is sanctified by the Word of God, which permits us to eat anything; and sanctified by prayer, as we ask the Lord’s blessing on the food He has provided for us.

  Back to Eden, by Jethro Kloss, is the title of a very popular “health food” book, considered one of the classics of the massive modern “health food” industry.  Although Kloss was a devout Seventh-day Adventist and deeply influenced by the false teachings of Ellen G. White, the founder of the Seventh-day Adventist cult, his book has been read by many professing Christians as if it was a second Bible. 

  It may sound wonderful, the notion of returning to how things were in Eden, but its very premise is wrong.  There is no way to break it gently to those who have been taken in by all this: Eden has gone.  This is the fact of it, and fact is a very different thing from fantasy.  We cannot go back to how things were in that lovely garden at the beginning of the world.  Man fell into sin, God cursed the earth for his sake (Gen. 3:17-19), and Eden ceased to exist for all time.

  Although they grudgingly concede that flesh from “clean” animals may be eaten (and in this they are wrong as well, because under the New Covenant the flesh of any creature may be eaten), Seventh-day Adventists teach: “The diet God ordained in the Garden of Eden – the vegetarian diet – is the ideal”; and, “a balanced vegetarian diet is the best for health”.[26]  This is absolutely incorrect, biblically as well as scientifically!  Our fallen bodies now need more than what our first parents were able to live on in that earthly paradise before sin, sickness, and death entered the scene.  The entire creation was affected by man’s fall.  The very ground itself has been cursed by God (Gen. 3:17).  Fruit and vegetables are good for us, certainly; but they are usually insufficient.  This is one of the reasons why the Lord gave man permission to eat meat after the flood (Gen. 9:3). 

  Again, there is no easy way to break this to those who have been brainwashed by the “health food” fanatics: meat – yes, that stuff which in a better time everyone well knew came from slaughtered animals, and didn’t worry about it – is very good for us!  You may chomp your way through bags of nuts until your jaws are exhausted, but although nuts and all kinds of other plant products are very good for you, for most people they are just not a full and sufficient substitute for the good things your body receives from the consumption of meat.  We are just not made that way.  Not anymore.  Not since the fall.

  Eating meat is very good for you.  That’s the fact of it. The Bible says so, and (as we would expect) the scientific evidence supports this.  “Animal food supplies us with 68 percent of the protein, 83 percent of the calcium, 60 percent of the phosphorus, 42 percent of the iron, and almost all of the vitamin B-12 we need.  No one this side of the most demented vegetotalitarian argues that lean beef is harmful…”[27]  “Red meat contains substantial amounts of copper, manganese and zinc.  These three minerals work together with calcium to prevent the brittle-bone condition known as osteoporosis.  Beef, in particular, is a veritable banquet for the bones; it’s high in copper and manganese… and a good source of zinc.”[28]

  The anti-meat brigade blame red meat for such things as heart disease and colon cancer; but as Marvin Harris, writing for the New York Academy of Sciences, put it: “The basic reason why heart disease and cancer have become the number one and number two causes of death in the United States and other affluent countries is that people are living longer…. What has allowed us to live long enough to run these risks?  Meat, among other things.  The increased consumption of animal foods and decreased consumption of grains are strongly associated with increased longevity.”[29]

  Vegetarianism is not commanded in the Bible.  It is not even recommended.  If you choose to be a vegetarian because you personally don’t like the taste of meat – go ahead.  You are not sinning when you choose not to eat meat because you prefer the taste of something else.  The Lord has made us all different, with different tastes and preferences.  But that is a very different matter from saying it is sinful for anyone to eat meat, or from going on a crusade to tell the world that it is somehow unhealthy.  The less healthy option is most definitely vegetarianism. 

Eggs

  For a long time we were told that eggs were bad for us.  Then the pendulum swung in the other direction, and we were told that they were good for us.  In the 1990s Walter C. Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health stated: “You’d think there were half a dozen studies saying to avoid eggs.  Guess how many there were?  When we started looking at this question, zero.  Now there’s still very little information.”[30] The time came when it could be written: “The poor egg, maligned for years, is finally showing its sunny side.  Nutritionists praise it as an inexpensive source of protein and iron that is also low in fat and calories.”[31]

  “Eggs, I was told all my life, are a prime source of cholesterol, which clogs arteries and causes heart attacks,” wrote Ivo Vegter in 2015, in an article entitled Fashionable Food Fears.  “The warning was simple enough to understand even for a child: avoid eggs if you don’t want to die.  If it sounds awful to eat only egg white, fear not.  Not only is the yolk the tastiest and most nutritious part of an egg by far, but the cholesterol won’t kill you either.  Confused?  Yes, the American Heart Association figures you might be because for decades it has maintained a general warning against foods containing cholesterol.  But it recently changed its guidelines, following research that showed dietary cholesterol actually isn’t what raises blood cholesterol levels.  The liver does, in response to the intake of saturated fats and trans-fats.  These are often associated with cholesterol-laden food, and Occam’s razor turned out to be wrong in this case”.[32] 

  But is the research correct regarding eggs being good for us?  And how can the man in the street know what is true and what is not, when confusion indeed reigns, as through the years studies have said contradictory things and arrived at opposite conclusions?  Well, if we start with the Scriptures, then the answer is yes – eggs are very good for us.  Even if we had no scientific studies to tell us how nutritional they are, we have the Word of God, which plainly states that eggs are a good source of food.  This must be sufficient for every Christian.  The Lord Jesus Himself said, “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?  or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?” (Lk. 11:11,12).  Then Jesus immediately went on to add: “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children…” (v.13). Bread, fish, eggs: these are “good gifts”, and can safely be consumed by children and adults alike!  Christian, who will you believe?  The Lord Jesus Christ, or the anti-egg crusaders?

Milk

  Milk is good for people.  Very good for them. 

  Even if we had no scientific data to prove that milk is very good, we have the Bible.  And milk is mentioned often as a great blessing from the Lord to men.  The land of Canaan, the promised land, the land the Lord gave to the children of Israel, is often referred to as “a land flowing with milk and honey”.  For example: “I am come down to deliver them [the children of Israel] out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8); “Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey” (Lev. 20:24); “If the Lord delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it us, a land which floweth with milk and honey” (Num. 14:8).  There are many more such verses.

  That milk was a sign of the Lord’s abundant blessing upon the land is seen from Gen. 49:12, where in blessing his son Judah, Jacob said, “his teeth [shall be] white with milk.”  It is also used as an emblem of the Gospel (Isa. 55:1) and of the Word of God (1 Pet. 2:2).  And the financial support of Gospel ministers is compared with a farmer eating of the milk of his flock (1 Cor. 9:7).

  The Christian should pay no heed, then, to any study which says otherwise.  Such research would always be faulty.  God’s Word is always right.

  And let’s get another silly notion out of the head: for most people, it doesn’t matter if it is cow’s milk, goat’s milk, or sheep’s milk (Deut. 32:14; Prov. 27:27).  God’s people in the Old Testament made use of the milk of cows, goats, sheep – even the milk of camels (Gen. 32:15)!  And Christians living under the New Covenant may do so as well.  People in some cultures are raised on cow’s milk and others are not, preferring goat’s milk.  Tweedledum and Tweedledee.  For most people, it boils down to personal preference.  It’s up to you and your palate. 

  Now it is of course true that some people are lactose-intolerant (this author is one of them), so that they must either do without cow’s milk or drink a substitute.  But again this just shows the variety in mankind, and that we are all individuals.  What is good for one is not good for another.  In the same way as some people feel ill when they eat fatty or spicy foods, whereas others feel just fine and love these things, so likewise with cow’s milk. 

  We live in fallen bodies, and everyone is different.  What one person’s body can tolerate and benefit from is different from what another may be able to tolerate and benefit from.  If you, personally, cannot drink cow’s milk without feeling ill, you should avoid it.  This is just sensible.  But just because cow’s milk, or animal fat, or something else, may not be digestible by you, this does not mean these things are bad for others.  For most of the human race they are just fine.

Salt

  The anti-salt research should be taken with a pinch of salt itself.  “Salt is good”, said the Lord Jesus Himself (Lk. 14:34).  And that, quite simply, should end any silly debate about the merits or demerits of salt, as far as Christians are concerned.  Something which the Lord has pronounced good cannot be bad.    The theory that too much salt causes high blood pressure or cardiovascular disease in healthy people is believed by some medical people, but pooh-poohed by others.  It has not been conclusively proved.[33]  Yet it is regularly trotted out as if it was an indisputable fact.

  Yes, excessive use of salt may indeed be bad for us.  But this is doubtless true of almost everything we eat.  The Lord has provided us with so many wonderful things, but we should not over-indulge or gorge ourselves on any one of them.  Not only is over-indulgence the sin of gluttony, but it is just common sense that excessive consumption of something may not be good for us.  Even when it comes to something as healthy as honey, the Bible says that a little honey is good, but too much of it will make us sick (Prov. 25:16).  Too much of anything is generally bad for us. 

  As with everything else when it comes to what is put in the mouth, control your appetite and partake in moderation.  Rein in your intake.  But at the end of the day, “salt is good”!  So said the Son of God, and for Christians His recommendation is infinitely higher than any nuisance nanny’s warning.

  And as an aside, it doesn’t matter which salt, either.  Salt extracted from some exotic and remote location does not automatically make it healthier for you than ordinary salt.  But even if it is ever proved beyond all shadow of a doubt that it is, it really doesn’t matter: as was said before, when something is better, this does not necessarily mean the other thing is bad, only that it is not as good.

  Christian, quit believing the advertising hype.  Believers in Christ should not be gullible people, falling for every silly fad.  It is just not important enough to waste precious time on.  Salt – any salt, from anywhere – is good, as with all things in reasonable amounts.

Sugar

  Ah, poor old sugar.  It’s the Greatest Evil on earth, if we are to believe the nutrition nannies and culinary killjoys.  They “regard ‘cookies, candy, or ice cream’ as the bonbons of the Anti-Christ.”[34]  Tongue in cheek, yes, but this is virtually how many of them view these things.  It’s ridiculous.

  Even children’s birthday parties are often dull, joyless affairs nowadays, as far as the food is concerned.  While the moms stand around prattling on about the Greatest Evil on earth, the poor children have to crunch their way through celery sticks instead of enjoying a slice of cake, the way their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents did before them – who for the most part emerged from childhood pretty much intact, without being any worse for wear despite their treats of chocolates and sweets.  This anti-sugar crusade has gone way beyond simply limiting the amount of sugar a child eats – which is a good thing to do – and has crossed over into the realm of the absurd and the bizarre.

  Sugar, as such, is not mentioned in the Bible.  But you won’t find a word about coffee, tea, orange juice, pastries, or potatoes, either.  It really doesn’t matter what is mentioned or what is left out – the Bible teaches categorically that we may eat what we like, and we do not sin in doing so.  And if what we eat includes some sugar, well, it certainly sweetens many foods and makes them tastier, and we are free to enjoy them because of it, and thank God for what He has given us. 

  Remember what was stated earlier, that for millions of people the “health food” movement is a religion, with its own substitutes for sin, salvation, etc.  The Bible says a great deal about sin, but not a word about sugar.  Yet large numbers of professing Christians are more concerned about not putting any sugar into their bodies than about the sin which comes out of them!  If Christians influenced by the “health food” movement spent as much time concerned over what comes out of their mouths as they do over the sugar they fear putting into it, they would bring more glory to God than they do in this self-absorbed age.

  When the disciples of Jesus failed to wash their hands before eating bread, the Pharisees reproached them, and reproached the Lord as well (Matt. 15:1,2).  And what Jesus replied about that matter is also applicable to this misguided horror over something like sugar: “And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man” (vv.10,11).  Then He explained His meaning: “Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?  But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.  For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man” (vv.17-20).  Nor does eating sugar defile a man (morally) any more than ingesting soil from unwashed hands does.

  All this is not to say that we should consume sackfuls of sugar, just as none of this is to be understood as meaning that we should not wash our hands before eating, for hygienic reasons, if we possibly can.  But the consumption of sugar per se is not sinful, and taken in reasonable amounts it isn’t going to kill you, either.  It is doubtless true that in the West, people consume more sugar than they should.  But again, the same is true of pretty much everything we eat.  No one should have a diet consisting only of sugary things.  Don’t over-indulge in sugar.  But will sugar in moderate amounts kill you, or seriously harm your health?  No, it will not.  You will die at the divinely appointed time, and untold millions of sugar-eaters have died in a good old age just like those who ate little or none of it.  Must it be avoided like the plague?  Not at all.  Rather, may every believer know the true plague – “the plague of his own heart” (1 Kings 8:38), the sin which so easily besets him – and make certain he is delivered from the reigning power of that.

Butter and Margarine

  The Bible is full of references to butter.  It was a healthy food then, and it still is.  Nothing has changed.  Abraham gave it to his guests as a refreshing food (Gen. 18:8).  “Butter of kine” is mentioned as a blessing in Deut. 32:14.  Butter, and “cheese of kine”, were among the foods brought to David at a time of need (2 Sam. 17:29).  Job speaks of having much butter as being an indication of the Lord’s blessing upon him (Job 29:6).  Butter was part of the food which the Lord Jesus ate as a child (Isa. 7:15).

  Today, however, butter has become yet another of those no-no foods in the West, to be avoided like the plague.  Margarine was touted as being healthier.  But the time came when margarine, also, fell into disfavour.  “Butter disappears from American tables, as saturated fat was banished until a Harvard research team, which included Dr. Walter Willett, found that the trans fats used to make margarine may be responsible for 30,000 heart-disease deaths each year.  Margarine sales fell 8.2 percent the next year.”[35]

  Don’t be taken in by that 30,000 number, or by any other number tossed around as casually as this.  There is simply no way to be able to say with certainty that 30,000 people died from eating margarine.  You cannot count such supposed deaths like you can count road accident fatalities.  Far too many other factors come into play.  But the point of the quotation above is that once again, we find the “experts” swinging from one extreme to the other: butter was declared bad, margarine good – until margarine was declared bad.  And so it goes, back and forth, back and forth, the yo-yoing fortunes of foods.

  Considering that butter has been with us for thousands of years, and that the Lord Himself ate it and His Word speaks well of it, it stands to reason that it is healthier than the modern invention called margarine.  But does this mean it is wrong to eat margarine?  Of course not!  Indeed for some people, whose bodies cannot tolerate butter, margarine is a viable alternative.  Others just prefer it.  Let me say it again: when something is better, this does not necessarily mean the other thing is bad, only that it is not as good. 

  But as with all things, whether you eat butter or margarine, eat it in moderation.

Coffee

  Is coffee bad for you, or not?  Again, as with so much else, it depends on which study one reads.  There was a time when coffee came in for a lot of criticism.  Then the pendulum started to swing the other way, and we began to hear all about the benefits of drinking it.  According to a study conducted in 1981, coffee was linked to pancreatic cancer.  But five years later, the authors conceded that there may not be a link after all.[36]  Do you see?  This kind of thing happens all the time: one study saying one thing, another saying the opposite.  Sometimes the same “experts” say different things at different times, or change their minds.  As always, sorting out the good science from the junk science, the sober-headed facts from the shrill cries of the nuisance nannies, is very difficult to do.

  Research is not lacking to support the position that too much coffee is not good for you.  But research is also not lacking to support the position that coffee is not unhealthy.  Meir Stampfer, a researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, declared, “There doesn’t seem to be any relation [between coffee and heart disease], even with five cups a day, and even for people who already have heart disease.  To my mind, it’s basically a dead issue.”[37]  John Weisburger of the American Health Foundation stated that “there’s no good evidence that coffee has any role” in the development of bladder, breast, colon, lung, or prostate cancer.[38]

  Coffee “has also been reported to help people lose weight, to improve hand-eye coordination, to increase tolerance for exercise, to promote alertness and clearer thinking, to diminish drowsiness, to combat migraine headaches, to make children more attentive in school, and to make adults less likely to suffer bronchial asthma or commit suicide.”[39]  Even if we reject the last one mentioned in the list as being ridiculous (as we should), and even if we accept that the other benefits may only be very slight or even non-existent, it still demonstrates, yet again, that for every bad effect blamed on something we consume, there is often more than one good effect claimed as well – depending on the “study” one reads.

  Bottom line?  Again: whatever you enjoy, enjoy it in reasonable, moderate amounts, and give thanks to God for the wonderful variety He has created in the world.  Your head will be spinning if you try to wrap it around all the studies out there, which contradict each other all the time, concerning coffee as well as so much else.  If there are studies both for and against, it has obviously not been proved that it is bad.  Go ahead and enjoy your coffee.  But if need be, rein in your coffee intake.  Don’t over-indulge, in coffee or in anything else.

Food Preservatives

  When it comes to food preservatives, it’s amazing how many have fallen for the lie that these are automatically bad.  This is simply not so. 

  So many people assume that “natural” ingredients are better for one’s health than synthetically produced ones.  They see the word “natural” and just jump to this conclusion – thereby falling for the advertising hype.  Advertisers well know that if they can include the word “natural”, they will boost sales of whatever they are advertising.  It’s a gimmick.  “Natural” is not necessarily another word for “healthier”.

  Scaremongering sells books and provides a comfortable living to the nutrition nannies among us.  “Some chemicals are medicinal or healthful, some are harmful, and some do absolutely squat.  Most are toxic in sufficiently high amounts.  This is just as true for natural substances as it is for artificial or synthetic substances.  If anything, natural products are more likely to be filled with unwanted ingredients, chemicals of uncertain dosages, or additives that are unsafe and untested.”[40]

  Synthetic preservatives, when taken in small amounts, pose no great danger to our health.  “A few people will not be able to tolerate some [preservatives], but as with medicines, industrial food additives are likely to be better tested than natural alternatives, so there is more reason to suppose they are safe for human consumption” (emphasis added).[41]  Yes, some preservatives may be a problem for some people.  There are many foods which are problematic for some people as well, but this doesn’t mean the rest of the population must stop eating them!  Those who cannot tolerate something should avoid it.  But for many, indeed most, they are just fine.

  Preservatives, in fact, are a whole lot less dangerous than the diseases and infections associated with food that has gone off!  It’s all very well for people in wealthy First World countries to bristle up indignantly over “the dangers of preservatives”.  But their belly-aching would fall on deaf ears in much of the Third World, where more food preservatives would literally save more lives.  They certainly save lives in First World countries.  Preservatives are a major part of the reason why food safety in the western world is so good.  Where no fresh food or refrigeration is available, preservatives greatly assist in reducing food spoilage, preventing food-borne infections, and maintaining nutritional quality over a longer period![42]

  It’s a trade-off, of course; but the benefits of eating food with small amounts of synthetic preservatives far outweigh the drawbacks – such as they are.

  Instead of constantly griping about additives and preservatives, Christians living in First World western countries should be intensely grateful to God that in His providence they live in a time and place which possesses the ability to preserve food and make it healthier and longer-lasting, thereby enabling them to enjoy the highest standard of health in the world, and far superior to what many earlier generations could even have dreamed of enjoying!  Quit griping, brethren!  Be thankful for what you have!

“Organic” Food, and Pesticides

  “Organic food, say organic farmers, is better for the environment and produces healthier, tastier food.  Except that it isn’t, and it doesn’t.  It’s a money-making racket which is rooted in esoteric mysticism, not science.”[43]  It turns out that “organic” foods are not free of chemicals and pesticides, and they are not necessarily healthier, after all.

 

  The roots of “organic” farming are to be found in what is called “biodynamic agriculture”, taught by the esoteric philosopher, Rudolf Steiner, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.  It borrows from all kinds of strange places, including astrology, homeopathy and sympathetic magic.  It is not scientific, and has been correctly labelled as occultic pseudoscience.[44]

  And once again, as we find so frequently with the so-called “health food” literature, there is vast confusion, and much sheer ignorance, out there, when it comes to this subject.  For example: in early 2000, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported that researchers said there was firm evidence that organic produce is healthier than conventional produce; yet later that very same year, the same BBC reported that organic food is no safer or more nutritious than conventional food.  In 2002 it reported that organic vegetables may contain higher levels of health-giving chemicals; then in 2007 it reported that there was no evidence organic food was healthier than conventional food.  Again, that very same year it reported that organic food was healthier; but then in 2009 it reported that organic food was no healthier than conventional food.  In 2012 it reported that organic food will not make one healthier; but in 2014 it reported that organic foods are higher in nutrients than conventional foods.  And bear in mind that each time the BBC reported on this subject, it referred to, or quoted, various researchers, studies, and supposed scientific authorities.[45]

  Once again, then: which studies should the man in the street believe?  The “experts” chop and change faster than a seasoned housewife with a kitchen knife.  Remember this the next time some “organic” farmer sidles up to you in a market or at a fair, making wild claims about their produce.

  What about pesticides?  As with food preservatives (see above), people panic about pesticides.  They have heard about their dangers for so long now that they are convinced pesticides should never be used, government should ban them, and we should avoid them like the plague.

  But is this fear justified?  No, it is not.

  “Bruce Ames… is a legendary biochemist at the university of Berkeley who published over 550 papers, many of which focus on cancer and aging.  He is one of the most cited scientists in all fields, and developed the most widely used test for carcinogeity.  Ames has noted that the typical person eats 10,000 times more natural pesticides than residues of synthetic pesticides.  He says there is no qualitative difference between ‘natural’ and ‘synthetic’ substances, and that natural chemicals are as likely to be carcinogenic as synthetic substances, that is, about half the time.  Many ordinary food products would be found to be carcinogenic if the same criteria were applied that are used in testing synthetic chemicals.  ‘Everything you eat in the supermarket is absolutely chock-full of carcinogens,’ he told the New York Times.  But most cancers are not due to parts per billion of pesticides.”[46]

  And as it turns out, many “organic” farmers are not quite honest when it comes to pesticides.  They themselves often use them!  One is blue vitriol (copper sulfate), which is toxic when ingested orally and is dangerous to aquatic life, and even to honey-producing bees.  Not very environmentally friendly of those “organic” farmers who use it, but certainly hypocritical.  Other pesticides used by many of them are harmful to various insects (even the beneficial ones), sometimes deadly to fish, and at least one has been associated with Parkinson ’s disease in farm workers. 

  Once again, then, Christian: quit your unjustified anxiety over this stuff!  In the greater scheme of things it is unimportant, and the claims made by the “experts” are often inaccurate anyway, if not downright, deliberately misleading.  You may buy “organic” edibles, but you will not necessarily live a healthier life by doing so, and definitely not a longer one than the allotted time appointed by God for you.  Nor is it any less pleasing to the Lord if you join the majority of the human race down at the “regular” food stalls.  And if you think it is, you have a very defective understanding of the Gospel of the grace of God, and of your real purpose in this world as one who professes to hold to the Scriptures quoted at the beginning of this article.

Government Control Over What You Eat

  There’s actually much more to all this than what has been said above.  And it’s downright sinister.

  The “health food” movement is a vast, lucrative, and not-too-honest industry; and in all kinds of complex ways it is serving the interests of Big Brother.  The fact is that the Socialist Nanny State doctrine lies at the root of so much that occurs within the “health food” industry.  Socialists and Communists want the government to control you, me, and every other human being on earth.  They want it to control every aspect of our lives.  And they have not been slow in recognising the immense potential of the “health food” industry as an instrument of Big Government control. 

  An always-successful tactic of Socialist Big Government is to constantly manufacture some “national crisis” or other which gets everyone worked up into a panic.  For when people are in a panic, they demand that “government must do something!”  And the Socialist Nanny State is only too willing to oblige and step in with yet further regulation and people control measures.  “Wars, depressions, or public health crises have always led to greatly enhanced power and revenues to the government, even if government fails to resolve or even alleviate the crises.  And when the crisis is over, government rarely reduces its powers and revenues to pre-crisis levels.  In the eyes of government bureaucrats, the worst of all crises is the absence of a crisis!”[47]

  Thus, one supposed “crisis” after another is created, even though the majority of them are not crises at all, but merely inventions of men designed to scare people into wanting Big Brother to intervene and control their lives. 

  And the supposed “health crisis” is one of these manufactured “crises”.

  Although this fact seems to whiz over the heads of many professing Christians, it is well understood by many perceptive people of the world.  “Big brother lies at the end of the dreams of some of those who want us, at all cost, to be healthy, slim, and beautiful;”[48] “there’s a political point of view here, an economic view based on the idea that people are children and have to be protected by Big Brother or Big Nanny from the awful free-market predators…. That’s what drives these people – a desire for control of other people’s lives.”[49]

  “Lawmakers (and an alarming number of academics and public busybodies) believe that these are matters to be legislated.  When some people do not follow government advice, they believe everyone should have a government-approved diet and lifestyle enforced upon them via regulation or taxation.”[50]

  “[M]any of the health risks that the nannies harp on are bogus; and when they are genuine, the nannies’ preferred ‘solution’ is inevitably taxation, prohibition, bans on commercial speech, and other forms of authoritarian coercion.  We citizens are not viewed by nanny as adults who can become informed about health risks and make our own decisions; our decisions must be controlled, regulated, taxed, or nullified by the self-appointed nannies and the state.”[51]

  This is why the Socialist Nanny State advocates love to slap taxes on “junk foods”.  People have been so indoctrinated, and for so long, in the lies of Socialism that they simply accept this State interference and control in their lives as being somehow a good thing.  It is not a good thing.  It is a very, very dangerous thing.  Even if it is about something like food, it is very dangerous.  It is Big Brother saying he alone has the wisdom to know what’s best for all his slaves out there (you know, the rest of us – the citizenry).  And once this authoritarianism is accepted, then it is one more thing after another, eroding personal freedom and responsibility.

  Socialists believe themselves to be the really Wise Ones of the world, and that therefore it is their mission on earth to regulate and control everyone else – even what they eat.  And all because the rest of us are really stupid, in their eyes – children who need to be told what to eat, and even how much to eat.  And if we won’t listen, then government must step in and enforce this by law.

  If certain foods are banned by government – and many are – then if some people still eat them they are breaking the law and are technically criminals in the eyes of the government.  And what do governments do with criminals?  They punish them.  Does it sound too far-fetched to say that people could actually be punished by the authorities for eating certain foods?  Of course it does.  But people all over the world are being imprisoned for the most bizarre non-crimes today, and nothing seems beyond the realms of possibility anymore when it comes to State control over lives.

  There is indeed a plan for totalitarian control of the health of all people everywhere.  Take the Lancet Commission on Obesity.  After three years of work its report was published, entitled The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change.  This report “recommended drastic interventions in the food industry”, among other areas.[52]  If you haven’t heard of the word “syndemic” before, you’ll be hearing a lot more of it in the future.  It is meant to refer to a “synergy of epidemics” which “co-occur in time and place, interact with each other to produce complex sequelae, and share common underlying societal drivers.”  Hence the reason that although the Lancet Commission’s mandate was obesity, they broadened this to include things like the myth of climate change, transport, urban design, etc., etc.  According to them, we’re facing so many “epidemics”, you see. 

  The Lancet Report recommended “comprehensive actions to address obesity within the context of The Global Syndemic”.  Note how the words, The Global Syndemic, all start with capitals – even “The.”  This makes it look like a Looming Crisis.  Something Big.  Something Awful.  And what do they recommend?  Nothing less than some very serious government regulation: “The report proposes to create a global framework convention… that ‘sets out the agreed regulatory and policy framework for action to create healthier, more sustainable and more equitable food systems’.” 

  The usual buzz words are there: “global”, “regulatory”, “action”, “healthier”, “sustainable”, “equitable”.  This amounts to Marxism being enforced via (of all things) food regulation.  “Having established a Framework Convention on Food Systems, the commission seeks to ‘strengthen national and international governance levers to fully implement policy actions which have been agreed upon through international guidelines, resolutions and treaties.’  Basically, if the UN or the WHO says ‘jump’, our governments are expected to make us jump.”[53]

  Ivo Vegter, author of an article exposing the Lancet Commission’s report, correctly wrote: “The Lancet Commission recommendations are deeply problematic on two levels.  First, they’re an affront to liberty.  Second, the assumption is that governments know best how to ‘benefit the health of current and future generations, the environment, and the planet’.”[54] 

  “We have become accustomed to government taking responsibility for public health [yes, as the world has become ever more Communised – author], but the nature of government’s health programmes is changing.  At first, it was called upon to take collective action against epidemics of contagious diseases….. [but] Today, government seeks to act against non-contagious diseases such as diabetes and cancer.  They are called ‘epidemics’ even though they do not spread from one person to another, to uphold the idea that government is somehow responsible for fighting them…. Many of the diseases government now targets are called ‘lifestyle diseases’.  People take the risk of developing them because of the lifestyles they choose.”[55]

  If people choose to eat too much or to eat a particular foodstuff to the neglect of others, it is simply not government’s business.  “It is not the role of the state to prohibit risk-taking behaviour.”[56]  But we live in a Socialist/Communist world now, and totalitarian governments believe they must control the lives of all those they rule over, from the cradle to the grave.

  Take the United Kingdom.  In 2018, “Researchers at Oxford University… urged the British government to impose draconian tobacco-style sin taxes on meat, and the country’s public health authority… drafted plans to cap calorie counts on most common foods.”[57]  Read that again!  Let it sink in.  The authorities in the UK were actually planning to put a limit on how many calories most common foods have.  And to tax meat so as to discourage people from eating it.

  The UK’s campaign to supposedly reduce obesity recommended that calorie intake should be limited to 400 calories for breakfast, 600 for lunch, and 600 for supper.  This was slammed by critics as being insufficient for growing children, and close to war rations.  Then to make the head of the “average Joe” swim even more, the UK government’s guidelines recommended 2500 calories daily energy intake for men, and 2000 for women.  These figures, of course, add up to much more than what was recommended for breakfast, lunch and supper!

  And, as is always the way with government know-it-all nannies and Socialists in general, it was not enough to simply recommend the above (albeit contradictory) calorie restrictions – the UK government had to go further than that, into some really draconian people-control measures, by resorting to legislation which forces restaurants, cafés and take-away outlets to display calorie counts! 

  But even this wasn’t enough.  Big Brother had to clamp down even harder on the citizenry, controlling the amount of food the citizens may put in their mouths: “the British authorities… went full totalitarian, proposing precise maximum calorie counts for all common foods.  And those counts are draconian.  Convenience meals will be capped at 544 calories.  Sandwiches and main meal salads will be limited to 550 calories.  Restaurant main meals will be restricted to 951 calories.  Thousands of individual food items will have individual calorie restrictions imposed upon them.  These rules will dramatically reduce portion sizes, effectively turn all food into diet food, and prohibit many common fast foods.”[58]

  But “British health nannies are not alone.  South Africa’s health minister… also feels he has the right, and duty, to police our diet…. [and] instituted a perfectly unscientific restriction on the salt content of readily available foods, based on the debunked theory that too much salt causes high blood pressure or cardiovascular disease in healthy people.”  And the South African finance minister “proposed a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.  Even according to the research the government cited, it will have a negligible effect on individual bodyweight or on public health outcomes.”[59]

  Just who do these people think they are?  Why, the Wise Ones, of course, who have the right to control the lives of everyone else.

Conclusion

  Christian: eat whatever you enjoy, and whatever does not make you, personally, ill; and always in moderation.  Stop falling for the scare stories, the ridiculous and unprovable statistics.  This is no way for the child of God to go through life!  We have far greater things with which to concern ourselves.  Real issues, eternal issues, spiritual matters.  The world is walking down that broad way that leads to destruction.  The devil is raging, the world is a mission field – and yet so many professing believers are anxiously scanning food labels and worrying that they may have exceeded their calories or sugar quota for the day.  If this is what your life is all about, you are absorbed with the wrong things.  You are neglecting the things that really matter.  And that is not only sad, it is sinful.  It is living for your body, instead of living for Christ.  It is not living according to the Gospel.  It is not subjecting yourself to the Word of God.  It is the devil’s own trap.  Flee from it! 

  Live for Christ.  Live according to His Word.  Be not conformed to this world – no, not even in its faulty thinking about food.  Set your affection on things above.  The kingdom of God is not what goes into the mouth, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.  Food does not commend you to God.  You are neither better if you eat certain things, nor worse if you do not.  Do not waste precious time on such trivial matters.  Put things in their proper perspective; give things their proper priority.  As a Christian you have a much higher purpose to your life than worrying over what you put into your mouth and stomach.  The life God has given you is so much more than that!

Shaun Willcock is a minister, author and researcher.  He runs Bible Based Ministries.  This pamphlet was first published in 2019.  For other pamphlets (which may be downloaded and printed), as well as details about his books, audio messages, articles, etc., please visit the Bible Based Ministries website; or write to the address below.  If you would like to be on Bible Based Ministries’ email list, please send your details.

Bible Based Ministries
info@biblebasedministries.co.uk
www.biblebasedministries.co.uk

This pamphlet may be copied for free distribution if it is copied in full

Worldwide Contact for Bible Based Ministries:
Contending for the Faith Ministries
695 Kentons Run Ave
Henderson, NV 89052
United States of America
BBMUSAorders@gmail.com

ENDNOTES:

[1]. Seventh-day Adventists Believe, by the Ministerial Association of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, pg. 280.  Review and Herald Publishing Association, Hagerstown, Maryland, 1989.

[2]. Seventh-day Adventists Believe, pgs. 284-286. 

[3]. Where Food is God: How Fringe Religious Groups Helped Launch the Healthy Eating Movement, by Daniel Fromson.  Slate, 2011.  www.slate.com.

[4]. Where Food is God.

[5]. Seventh-day Adventists Believe, pg. 280. 

[6]. Nutrition Action Healthletter, November 1996.  Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, DC.  Article: “Is Seafood a Heart Saver?” pg.7. 

[7]. The Food and Drink Police: America’s Nannies, Busybodies and Petty Tyrants, by James T. Bennett and Thomas J. DiLorenzo, pg. 26.  Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick (USA) and London (UK), 1999.

[8]. The Food and Drink Police, pg.28.

[9]. Fitonics for Life, by Marilyn Diamond and Dr. Donald Burton Schnell, pg.35.  New York, Avon, 1996.

[10]. Fat Madness, by Phillip M. Sinaikin with Judith Sachs, pg. 3.  Berkley, New York, 1994.

[11]. The Food and Drink Police, pg. 32. 

[12]The Food and Drink Police, pg. 32. 

[13]. Big Fat Lies, by Glenn A. Gaesser, pg. ix.  Fawcett Columbine, New York, 1996.

[14]. Big Fat Lies, pg. xv. 

[15]. Big Fat Lies, pg. 155. 

[16]. Big Fat Lies, pg. 5.

[17]. Big Fat Lies, pg.69.

[18]. Big Fat Lies, pg. 64.

[19]. Big Fat Lies, pg. 5.

[20]Daily Maverick, 20 February 2019.  Article: “The Plan for Totalitarian Health Control.”  www.dailymaverick.co.za.

[21]. Daily Maverick, 14 January 2019.  Article: “When Nannies Pay Your Healthcare, Nannies Run your Life.” www.dailymaverick.co.za.

[22]. Daily Maverick, 14 January 2019. 

[23]. Daily Maverick, 14 January 2019. 

[24]. As quoted in Daily Maverick, 14 January 2019. 

[25]. The Food and Drink Police, pg.36.

[26]. Seventh-day Adventists Believe, pgs. 284, 285. 

[27]. The Food and Drink Police, pg.126.

[28]. Cattle and Beef Handbook, 1992.  National Cattlemen’s Association, Englewood, Colorado.  Article: “Industry Facts: Beef in the Diet”, pg.4.

[29]. Cattle and Beef Handbook, 1992.  Article: “References: Beef in the Diet”, pg.7.

[30]. Forbes, 14 August 1995.  Article: “Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Statistics”, pg. 132.

[31]. The Food and Drink Police, pg.21.

[32]. Daily Maverick, 20 October 2015.  Article: “Fashionable Food Fears Part One.”  www.dailymaverick.co.za.

[33]. Daily Maverick, 14 January 2019. 

[34]. The Food and Drink Police, pg. 4. 

[35]. The Food and Drink Police, pg.28.

[36]. The Food and Drink Police, pg.27.

[37]. Nutrition Action Healthletter, December 1996.  Article: “Caffeine: The Inside Scoop”, pg.5.

[38]. Nutrition Action Healthletter, December 1996. 

[39]. The Pleasure Police, by David Shaw, pg.87.  Doubleday, New York, 1996.

[40]. Daily Maverick, 8 January 2019.  Article: “‘Natural’ Does Not Mean Best, Better or Even Good.”  

[41]. Daily Maverick, 8 January 2019.

[42]. Daily Maverick, 8 January 2019. 

[43]. Daily Maverick, 4 December 2018.  Article: “Organic Farming, a Money-Making Racket with Mystical Origins.” www.dailymaverick.co.za.

[44]. Daily Maverick, 4 December 2018. 

[45]Daily Maverick, 4 December 2018.  

[46].   Daily Maverick, 4 December 2018.  

[47]. The Food and Drink Police, pg.13.

[48]. Eat Fat, by Richard Klein, pg. 108.  Pantheon, New York, 1996.

[49]. Washingtonian (article), October 1994, pg. 55.

[50].   Daily Maverick, 14 January 2019. 

[51]. The Food and Drink Police, pgs.12-13.

[52]. Daily Maverick, 20 February 2019. 

[53]. Daily Maverick, 20 February 2019.  

[54]. Daily Maverick, 20 February 2019.  

[55]Daily Maverick, 20 February 2019.  

[56].   Daily Maverick, 20 February 2019.  

[57]. Daily Maverick, 14 January 2019. 

[58]. Daily Maverick, 14 January 2019. 

[59]Daily Maverick, 14 January 2019.