Unwrapping the butter and bias in the New York Time's Virginia Sole-Smith profile

My complicated thoughts of the fat positive influencer as a parent, health-focused anti-diet advocate and former journalist.

I’m still sifting through my feelings around last week's New York Time Magazine profile of

Virginia Sole-Smith

.

I’m not surprised by the strong reaction from Times commenters, but I was surprised by my own response to it—and the overly simplistic and critical media portrayal.

The profile of the anti-diet, fat-positive influencer struck me as harsh and unbalanced, more what I'd expect from the sensationalist Daily Mail UK—where I first stumbled upon the story. As I was scrolling through the app, winding down for the evening in bed, Sole-Smith’s face caught my eye along with the headline, which began with “ ‘Fat Activist’ who thinks childhood obesity is a myth …”

“Oh my god,” I said aloud, my husband reading next to me. “One of the women who wrote an anti-diet book I reviewed is in the Daily Mail, and it makes no sense. It’s giving all these extreme examples of how she feeds her kids. It’s talking about her divorce, and this argument she had with her ex-husband over whether to let their daughter eat a stick of butter—”

“That’s completely unacceptable,” he stopped me. 

“I get it, but her daughter thought it was cheese.”

“I wouldn’t let any of our kids eat a whole stick of butter.”

But I totally get why she would. And my husband knows why too. Having had two children go through treatment for anorexia, one of the core concepts we were taught is that no food should be off limits. While eating a stick of butter is an extreme example, the idea of not demonizing foods is an established best practice taught by eating disorder specialists and dietitians. It’s also part of the framework for intuitive eating. 

The Daily Mail didn’t explain any of this. My favorite guilty pleasure (most of the time) essentially pulled out the most extremist statements made by Sole-Smith to the Times and paraded them as an example of how far off the rails the anti-diet community has gone. Alongside headlines about how the developed world struggles to get their hands on Ozempic before bikini season, here was Sole-Smith appearing to give zero Fs about any of it. 

While The Times did a more rounded profile, delving into Sole-Smith’s background and bonafides, it too was lacking context, offering limited explanations for her views on parenting, marriage and feeding children. 

It read as if she were pulling these crazy assertions out of thin air, when—at least as it concerns the feeding of children—almost all of the views she’s espousing are well-researched and established within the nutrition community.

As a former newspaper journalist, the article left me with more questions than answers. It made me wonder about the reporter's intentions and the possible omissions that might have occurred during the interview. Known for her well-researched, thoughtful approach to complex issues like fat bias and diet culture, Sole-Smith's portrayal seemed at odds with the depth typically shown in her work. The disconnect between the journalist's portrayal and the Sole-Smith I've come to know through her writing was disconcerting.

Yes, she is anti-fat bias, but she is not anti-science. Last year, she wrote a well-researched, nuanced and thoughtful book on the subject of raising children in a thin-obsessed world (here’s the review I did on it). “Fat Talk: Parenting in the Age of Diet Culture” offered page after page of research and interviews, from a variety of sources, alongside Sole-Smith’s insights. A big theme was the demonization of mothers, regardless of their approach to nurturing healthy children, a point on full display in The New York Times piece. While the reporter didn’t do the demonizing herself, she teed it up for the readers. There was a strong undercurrent that Sole-Smith’s extreme views drove her divorce.

Commenters took issue with her for serving dessert alongside dinner and allowing her children to decide how much and in what order to eat. Notably, the piece failed to explain the why and how this aligns with the work of Ellyn Satter, a dietitian renowned for her research in feeding dynamics. The Satter Division of Responsibility in Feeding (sDOR) for children outlines that parents are responsible for the what, when, and where of feeding, while children control the how much and whether to of eating.

It was Sole-Smith’s stance on Oreos that sent commenters over the edge. Sole-Smith allows her children to have Oreos, and as already established, she allows them to decide how many. Here’s a quote from the Times piece:

“ ‘What happens when your kid goes on a play date to my house? I can tell you. Your kid eats nine Oreos,’ she said. If parents put restrictions on foods, then children will never figure out how to eat according to their bodies’ own needs, she explained.”

Again, it sounds crazy without explanation, but by allowing the Oreos, they don’t become this special, forbidden food your kid consumes in mass quantities while no one’s looking—or while they’re on a play date at a house that has them. 

I agree with this philosophy. I’ve practiced it in my own household, especially during my children’s recoveries. And, yet, it also doesn’t fully sit right with me when the food industry is seemingly doing everything it can to engineer its foods to be hyper palatable and consumed in excess. I do believe the quality of our food impacts our bodies. I do believe there is a correlation between lack of access to fresh foods and fatness. That doesn’t stop me from buying Oreos if my kids, now in their teens and 20s, request them, because we know firsthand the slippery slope that comes with food elimination and food demonization, but we are also under no illusions about the quality of the ingredients in a package of Oreos. I say this as a we because these are the kinds of conversations my children and I have in our household. And, still, we don’t assign a moral judgment to ourselves or anyone else for or against their consumption or rejection of them. 

So I can disagree with Sole-Smith and still find merit in her work. I don’t think—again, it’s hard to tell based off this profile—I share her views on marriage and exercise.

Like Sole-Smith, my interest in intuitive eating began with my children and their health. I quit diets because I wanted to model a better way for them than spending their lives obsessed with every morsel they did or did not consume and what their bodies did or did not look like. A lifelong dieter, I also wanted relief for myself.

In the nearly two years since I’ve transitioned to intuitive eating, I’ve shifted my lens of health to remove weight from the equation. While my earliest days were about making peace with food and reconnecting with my body’s own signals, I’m in a different place now, focused more on doing the things that nourish my body and feed my well being.

And I’ve remained firmly focused on health. Fitness has always been a part of my life, and while making the transition to intuitive eating forced me to examine my relationship with movement, I’ve never stopped believing in its benefits. And yet, I don’t judge those who don’t or can’t exercise. It is not a moral failing. It doesn’t mean someone doesn’t deserve access to health care or good health.

If the Sole-Smith profile had focused more on health, it would probably have been less controversial. Instead, it focused on fat acceptance, parenting and the institution of marriage (her divorce was a big topic of conversation last year and a focus in the Times piece). It will be interesting to see what Sole-Smith has to say in coming days—she welcomed all the new subscribers who joined her newsletter after the piece and shared that she’s working on several pieces in response.

Most of us agree we want to love and appreciate our bodies more. Most of us wish we weren’t so hung up on our body size. But most of us aren’t willing to challenge the institutions that drive these narratives or control our food sources. Instead, we have bought into the idea that a fat body reflects a moral failing and that a wealthy white mother allowing her children to eat Oreos is abusive. I don’t have all the answers, but our understanding and discussions about health and parenting deserve more than a one-sided, over-simplified media narrative.

Have you read the piece? What’s your take? I’d love to hear more responses.