The origin of the concept of superfoods

Superfoods, a popular concept that is now used all over fat-reducing meals and health bloggers’ notes, is neither an official definition in the nutrition community nor a new discovery by scientific researchers. It originated from the marketing rhetoric of American food merchants in the early 20th century. It is essentially a business concept created for the purpose of selling goods.

You may not believe it, but this much-hyped word first appeared on a large scale in a 1916 United Fruit Company banana advertisement. At that time, cross-regional rail transportation had just become popular in the United States, and for the first time tropical bananas could be transported to all parts of the country at low cost. However, ordinary people had no idea about this exotic yellow-skinned fruit, and they did not know how to eat it or what its benefits were. The United Fruit Company came up with the name "superfood" and packaged and publicized the advantages of bananas as "no need to peel, no allergies, cheap, easy to digest". They even printed popular science pamphlets and distributed them to hospitals and schools for free. They used pediatricians to say that bananas are the most suitable complementary food for infants and young children. The advertisements showed a laughing baby holding a banana, and the text was all "superfood recommended by doctors." It didn't take long for bananas to become the highest-selling fruit in the United States. This wave of marketing is still textbook level.

But don’t think that its existence is reasonable. To this day, no authoritative nutrition research institution in the world has given a clear scientific definition of “super food”. As early as 2007, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) explicitly stopped the unfounded "superfood" labeling on food packaging. The reason is that there is no unified judgment standard for this term and it is easy to mislead consumers. It is essentially marketing rhetoric. When I followed fitness bloggers two years ago, I bought more than 200 cans of freeze-dried acai berry powder, which was said to be a "top antioxidant superfood." After drinking it for two months, I didn't notice any changes. Later, I checked the literature and found that the antioxidant capacity (ORAC value) of acai berries is indeed not low. However, if you drink 5 grams each time, you will not get as much effective antioxidants as eating half a catty of fresh strawberries. To put it bluntly, the premium is entirely paid for by the words "superfood."

This concept actually remained dormant for several decades. It was not until the 1980s that the trend of natural diet started in Europe and the United States. Merchants picked up this old term again and applied it to kale, chia seeds, and quinoa, which were still very niche at the time. They focused on the selling point of "high nutrition and low calories" and sold them at several times more expensive than ordinary ingredients. After 2010, social platforms such as Instagram and Xiaohongshu exploded. Fitness bloggers and lifestyle KOLs could post a beautifully arranged kale salad with the tag "Today's Superfood Check-in" and gain thousands of followers. Over time, this term has become a standard for healthy eating. Now, if you go to any light food restaurant and there is no "Superfood Bowl" on the menu, you will be embarrassed to open the door.

The current attitude of the industry towards this concept is actually quite divided. Several friends I know who work in fast-moving consumer goods marketing feel that this term is not a complete IQ tax. After all, many people have never taken the initiative to eat high-nutrient-dense ingredients such as kale and blueberries before. Relying on the name of "superfood" to guide people to eat more fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains is better than eating fried chicken and milk tea every day. But friends who are engaged in public nutrition have a headache. After all, the lack of standards means that all kinds of monsters can come in to gain popularity. In the past two years, some merchants added some spirulina to ordinary grain powder and dared to call it "super meal replacement powder." Not to mention the price quadrupled, and some people boasted that it could fight cancer. In the end, they were named by the Market Supervision Bureau for counterfeiting.

To be honest, my current attitude towards the words "super food" is just to listen to it. There is no need to regard it as some health edict. If you like to eat kale and blueberries, of course that’s fine, but you don’t have to buy imported products with “superfood” labels. Spinach that costs three yuan a pound and strawberries that cost ten yuan a pound at your doorstep are not bad at all in nutrition. After all, a truly healthy diet depends on a balanced combination. How can there be any good thing that can be achieved once and for all by eating certain "super foods"?