Instinct and Disgust

Repulsive taste and disgust should not be confused. The former belongs to alliesthetic mechanisms: the flavor of a natural food always shifts from a pleasant to an unpleasant phase during consumption, at the point when the body’s needs are met. This reversal of taste is therefore part of nutritional homeostasis; it is relevant to dietary balance, meeting the body’s needs, and preventing digestive or metabolic overload.

Disgust depends much more on past experiences with different foods. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between psychological and physiological disgust.

Psychological disgust can have various causes: a bad experience with a food that caused nausea or vomiting; confusion with a toxic food; purely psychological induction, for example, the idea that this food is linked to something repugnant, that the meat comes from an animal’s carcass, etc. or even association with a traumatic situation, such as an accident, the sight of a corpse, etc.

Physiological disgust only occurs when the consumed food causes either direct poisoning or detoxification: it therefore belongs to the immune system. It is based either on an organic experience, recorded in the immune memory (the body “remembers” poisoning thanks to the presence of antibodies and lymphocytes sensitized to the antigen); or on genetic programming that allows the body to recognize a toxin without learning (for example, disgust for the smell of carrion).

For example, swallowing a spoiled oyster, or simply its smell, causes a nauseating reaction. This protection does not always work reliably; it can be optimized by scrupulously respecting the first signs of nausea or discomfort. Some toxins (for example, the botulism toxin) are not detectable by the senses of smell and taste, nor by disgust reactions, hence the importance of having fresh food stored under good hygienic conditions.

Disgust reactions sometimes occur with perfectly edible foods, independently of any alliesthetic signals. A food can taste good and yet trigger nausea or vomiting. It can even have a rather appealing smell and simultaneously cause nausea. How can we explain this apparent contradiction?

Experience shows that these are two different things: a food can, in principle, meet a bodily need and, at the same time, trigger a detoxification reaction. Disgust therefore helps prevent unwanted detoxification reactions. It is best to respect it in order to maintain optimal health.

However, the body’s integrity can only be restored through the elimination of toxins accumulated as a result of processed food. Detoxification reactions are necessary, but they must not exceed certain limits. Experience has shown that disgust regulates these reactions: the stronger the disgust, the stronger the disgust for the foods that might trigger it, and then the disgust disappears when the foods no longer pose a threat. For example, exceeding the feelings of disgust produced by certain foods can increase fatigue, intestinal problems, fecal odor, inflammation, fever, and rashes—symptoms linked to the intensity of detoxification. Avoiding the foods in question quickly alleviates these symptoms (within a few days), indicating that detoxification has stopped.

The most logical solution, therefore, is not to systematically push past the barrier of disgust, so as not to overstimulate the detoxification reactions. Disgust towards certain foods intensifies when reactions become excessive, so it’s simply a matter of learning to respect it.

Conversely, a prolonged aversion to a food that belongs to the natural food spectrum but consistently provokes a disgust reaction most often reflects a “laziness” of the body in the face of the detoxification process it should undertake to eliminate toxins accumulated from consuming foods unsuitable for human genetics (cooked grains, dairy products, etc.). It can therefore be helpful to overcome this type of aversion in order to trigger a detoxification response, and then to listen carefully to the body to maintain it within optimal limits.