Food snobbery ...

The term “junk food” seems to be journalistically used in a way which is at best lazy and at worst sheer snobbery.

Despite its wide 21st Century use, the expression dates back to the early 1970’s and Michael Jacobsen, Director of the CSPI.

Most current definitions suggest a food is junk if it is high in fat, salt or sugar and of course the words “junk food” are rarely seen without “fast food” in close association.

Government, celebrities and food writers look down their noses at Franchise Burgers, Chain Chicken and Delivered Pizza. Suggest “fries with that” and the 5 grams of fat are part of a global conspiracy but Duck a l’Orange at a rather exclusive little restaurant where the Maitre D’ knows me well, and the 20 grams of fat are just fine!

A super chocolate dessert recipe in a foodie’s magazine is only 549 calories per serving – and 23 grams of fat, 15 of them saturated, but that’s fine if it’s for a Dinner Party dear!

European nutrition analysis shows many fast food outlets serving lower fat and calories than their trendier restaurant equivalents and I bet it’s the same here too.

It gets called junk because it’s fast, because it’s urban, because it’s cheaper. Pizza in a fashionable, minimalist Italian style restaurant with other young families is real food, attractively served with a hint of just like “Mama made”, but have a pizza delivered to an urban apartment and eat it from the box whilst watching TV, and its junk.
It’s the price not the nutrition that frequently determines the description.

This is snobbery not commentary.