Addictive Food: Tastes so good!

[Dr. Zaus]

There are foods that are designed to addict us; the sorts of things that work together to make sure we over eat and desire more of them. Most importantly, because they play on evolutionary mechanisms to trick us into thinking we're satiating a need they make us more likely to over eat and less likely to actually fulfill that need.

I find this quote particularly salient:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/m...ience-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hpw

"I brought [the food scientist] two shopping bags filled with a variety of chips to taste. He zeroed right in on the Cheetos. 'This,' Witherly said, 'is one of the most marvelously constructed foods on the planet, in terms of pure pleasure.' He ticked off a dozen attributes of the Cheetos that make the brain say more. But the one he focused on most was the puff’s uncanny ability to melt in the mouth. 'It’s called vanishing caloric density,' Witherly said. 'If something melts down quickly, your brain thinks that there’s no calories in it . . . you can just keep eating it forever.''"


I feel that it is clear that addictive food that makes us think we've gotten what we are evolutionarily designed to seek out, but instead keeps us from getting what our bodies actually need, is a major public health problem and detrimental to society's general welfare.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Fascinating article. Thanks.

ETA:

Mudd then did the unthinkable. He drew a connection to the last thing in the world the C.E.O.’s wanted linked to their products: cigarettes. First came a quote from a Yale University professor of psychology and public health, Kelly Brownell, who was an especially vocal proponent of the view that the processed-food industry should be seen as a public health menace: “As a culture, we’ve become upset by the tobacco companies advertising to children, but we sit idly by while the food companies do the very same thing. And we could make a claim that the toll taken on the public health by a poor diet rivals that taken by tobacco.”

Very valid point.

I have a big problem with advertising aimed at children in general.

 

[Greenman]

Are you suggesting that cheatos be regulated? Perhaps a warning label placed on the package?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Are you suggesting that cheatos be regulated? Perhaps a warning label placed on the package?

I'm open to honest suggestions.

 

[Greenman]

I'm open to honest suggestions.

My suggestion would be do nothing. My mother told me fifty years ago that eating crap would make me fat. I don't need to have the lesson reinforced every time I eat a potato chip.

 

[randomrogue]

Is it possible to genetically modify people to make their bodily fluids addictive?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

My suggestion would be do nothing. My mother told me fifty years ago that eating crap would make me fat. I don't need to have the lesson reinforced every time I eat a potato chip.

Doing nothing just perpetuates the public health menace. The very vast, very costly public health menace.

Eating crap is promoted in schools with basically no education to the contrary. That should be the very first thing that's addressed. Advertising directly to children should be the second. Equating this to tobacco vastly understates this situation. People are eating themselves to a (slow and costly) death from either ignorance or apathy or the flat out unavailability of real quality food on a massive scale.

 

[Dirigible]

People who make shitty unhealthy food for children and market them to children are scum.

I say we deliver regular ass lickings to those that do it. Or stop allowing marketing to kids. I will leave it to the people who work at those food companies to decide which they'd prefer. Because freedom is important.

 

[momeNt]

Internalize all the problems and they'd rapidly vanish. It may not appear to be the most humane on its face but in the end allowing people to live with the consequences of their actions is the most moral and just.

 

[Greenman]

People who make shitty unhealthy food for children and market them to children are scum.

I say we deliver regular ass lickings to those that do it. Or stop allowing marketing to kids. I will leave it to the people who work at those food companies to decide which they'd prefer. Because freedom is important.

I don't think licking anyone's ass is going to solve the problem, though it may help identify an unhealthy diet.

 

[DrPizza]

My suggestion would be do nothing. My mother told me fifty years ago that eating crap would make me fat. I don't need to have the lesson reinforced every time I eat a potato chip.

You're a marketers best friend. Marketing knows that by constantly hammering you (particularly children) with certain messages - they can hit children with certain messages far more frequently than their parents do - they can affect the behavior of children. In fact, research shows that younger children are far more vulnerable to marketing, as until at least age 8, they haven't developed the skills to understand what advertising really is. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...zqt7ho#v=onepage&q=marketing children&f=false (page 5) There is strong evidence that marketing influences children's preferences before age 11. There is moderate evidence that marketing influences those children's beliefs about food and beverages.

Marketers actively try to undermine the attempts of parents to educate their children about what's healthy to eat.
http://www.citeulike.org/group/2630/article/422277

 

[Greenman]

You're a marketers best friend. Marketing knows that by constantly hammering you (particularly children) with certain messages - they can hit children with certain messages far more frequently than their parents do - they can affect the behavior of children. In fact, research shows that younger children are far more vulnerable to marketing, as until at least age 8, they haven't developed the skills to understand what advertising really is. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...zqt7ho#v=onepage&q=marketing children&f=false (page 5) There is strong evidence that marketing influences children's preferences before age 11. There is moderate evidence that marketing influences those children's beliefs about food and beverages.

Marketers actively try to undermine the attempts of parents to educate their children about what's healthy to eat.
http://www.citeulike.org/group/2630/article/422277

Guess it all depends on who your mother is then. I can't remember the brand name of any chips without actually thinking about it, but I sure as heck remember my mother telling me not to eat too many because they were "trash". I was also taught to trust others, and always count my change.
Marketers can make kids believe almost anything, if their parents allow it. While I agree that marketing aimed at kids is at it's very best questionable, I don't believe we need yet another ten thousand bureaucrats to regulate, litigate, define, categorize and otherwise do all the foolishness that bureaucrats do to justify their lavish compensation.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

if their parents allow it.

Is it an active allowance; or ignorance on the part of our majority-of-americans whom are wickedly idiotic (ie, our heuristics are constantly flawed: see why people drive drunk).

Think about it: you may be smart and rational, but most folks are just induhviduals (as Dogbert might say) most of the time (particularly the majority of the population ie, IQ 110+ and 90-) and believe it when conservatives tell them they are "smart enough to make their own decisions" while at the same time putting big-corporate cigars right in the induhvidual's out door.

 

[Greenman]

Is it an active allowance; or ignorance on the part of our majority-of-americans whom are wickedly idiotic (ie, our heuristics are constantly flawed: see why people drive drunk).

Think about it: you may be smart and rational, but most folks are just induhviduals (as Dogbert might say) most of the time (particularly the majority of the population ie, IQ 110+ and 90-) and believe it when conservatives tell them they are "smart enough to make their own decisions" while at the same time putting big-corporate cigars right in the induhvidual's out door.

Are you saying that you should make peoples choices for them because they aren't bright enough to make their own, or that you have to make them to protect them from conservatives? Either way, I couldn't possibly disagree more. We're not talking about cattle, these are people, each and every single one of them has the God given right to make his own choices. Even the people you think are inferior get to make choices. Choosing, planing, pondering the outcome of ones actions are what make us human, I would never steal that right from anyone.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Are you saying that you should make peoples choices for them because they aren't bright enough to make their own

I'm saying that they would make better choices if they could think of it objectively; but people exploit the diference between how we think of things objectively and how think of things in the moment, and because of that exploitation limiting choice based on what is objectively better is a much better option than leaving people subject to the contrived situations/poor heruistics they are lured into.

Either way, I couldn't possibly disagree more. We're not talking about cattle

In the moment, even smart people are cattle. You may think "i won't eat trans-fats" but without product labeling, you'll have a very hard time making the objective decision not to eat trans-fats on a case-by-case basis; and worse than that, people just don't think about almost all of their behavior unless there's some sort of interruption to regular functioning. If you can slip something into the regular function then you can trick people.

God given right to make his own choices

Is the choice to enslave another person given by God? How about the choice to trick someone into hurting themselves for your own gain, is that God-given?

Even the people you think are inferior get to make choices.

It's no one group of people; it's all people (me and you included) that are not good decision makers in the moment: What's worse is psychological research shows that you THINK you make rational decisions in retrospect.

Choosing, planing, pondering the outcome of ones actions are what make us human, I would never steal that right from anyone.

I'm not saying we take away all human choice; i'm saying there are times that power-holders trick the population by appealing to vanity and using psychological tricks. We actually place LOTS of bets on the future, we usually turn it into a 'plan' or 'choice' after the fact inorder to justify our behavior.

I can provide journal citations if you are willing to believe the science that supports my argumentation.

I would like to note that I used to think like you Greenman, but then I read the psychology literature and realized that I'm no different than anyone else: almost all of my life is spend in 'auto pilot' thinking about other things, and not actually making choices.

 

[Dirigible]

I don't think licking anyone's ass is going to solve the problem, though it may help identify an unhealthy diet.

Damn you, tiny phone keyboards!

But I'm somewhat serious about the ass kicking. In a smaller community, like those in which we evolved, someone being an ass to my kids would receive repercussions. People selling this stuff to kids face zero repercussions.

We are a society (kind of) of law, but there's a lot to be said for a society not based on law, where you can never be sure your behavior is ok. Piss people off and you'll get your comeuppance.

I don't really think that would work over 300M people, but my reaction as a parent is enough that I want to get rid of advertisements aimed at kids.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Adults should be able to make their own choices. That said... some of this junk food is cheaper because of subsidies that should be ended.

Children are a different matter. By law they are deemed incapable of making their own decisions, and they are also high susceptible to suggestion. I think it entirely reasonable for the government to put severe restrictions on marketing to them.

With the huge increase on obesity and obesity-related problems in this country, it's not hard to see Ronald McDonald and the Lucky Charms leprechaun as in the same class as Joe Camel.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

This is a really good documentary on the topic:
http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/killer_at_large
I was racking my brain since this was posted trying to remember where I saw it.

 

[Exterous]

Eating crap is promoted in schools with basically no education to the contrary. That should be the very first thing that's addressed. Advertising directly to children should be the second. Equating this to tobacco vastly understates this situation. People are eating themselves to a (slow and costly) death from either ignorance or apathy or the flat out unavailability of real quality food on a massive scale.

No education to the contrary? Maybe its a regional thing but there is a near constant barrage on healthy eating, how to lose weight and diet plans. Healthy eating and dieting is a huge business. I will agree that a captive school audience can be a problem. A number of schools around here still want to have salty snacks and carbonated beverages in the school as thats what brings in the big bucks from the kids.

I don't think tobacco is a fair comparison as that brings into association a significantly addictive product. There is a difference between a physical dependence and something that has been scientifically engineered to taste good and you eating it a lot because you like how it tastes.

How many people here actually measure their serving sizes? As a former fatty I think the biggest issue America faces is not advertising but a general ignorance of our caloric intake and serving size. I knew when I was eating things that weren't healthy for me but I didn't know how many calories I was actually ingesting per day or how many servings I was eating. When we started actually calculating our caloric intake per day weight loss and healthy eating became relatively simple.

I'm not going to quite call BS on the "flat out unavailability of real quality food on a massive scale" as I have never had a problem here or where ever I have traveled/stayed but I would like to see a source. You could make an argument that it is more difficult though. We generally spend 10-20 minutes cooking 3-4 days a week. That is more time than just popping a frozen pizza and garlic bread in the oven.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I'm not going to quite call BS on the "flat out unavailability of real quality food on a massive scale" as I have never had a problem here or where ever I have traveled/stayed but I would like to see a source. You could make an argument that it is more difficult though. We generally spend 10-20 minutes cooking 3-4 days a week. That is more time than just popping a frozen pizza and garlic bread in the oven.

https://www.google.com/search?q=foo...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

"Massive scale" was referring to the effect of the combination of "ignorance or apathy or the flat out unavailability of real quality food." If you honestly misread it as otherwise then fine, but one of the things that's supposed to not happen in this forum is quoting out of context.

And pointing to the fact that "healthy eating and dieting is a huge business" exposes the extent of problem we have. It should be the unglamorized norm.

 

[Exterous]

https://www.google.com/search?q=foo...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

"Massive scale" was referring to the combination of "ignorance or apathy or the flat out unavailability of real quality."

And pointing to the fact that "healthy eating and dieting is a huge business" exposes the extent of problem we have. It should be the unglamorized norm.

Whoa - hold on there. I looked at the CDC/USDA data and they consider Low Food Access to be more than 1 mile to a grocery store for an urban area and more than 10 miles for in a rural area*. Looking at the excel data provided by the CDC and USDA this appears to be one of the cornerstones in Food Desert calculations.

There are a couple of problems here. One - they don't say what they consider as Urban but I would guess that it would be the same as the Census which is 50,000+. If so then Two - the census is grossly out of date in its definitions and refuses to add in 'suburban' into its lexicon. For example - on both maps I live in a Red area because where I live is technically an Urban Zone yet I have 1 grocery store within 4 miles (a 7 minute car ride in traffic) and 4 more within 10 minutes. So I am in a food desert area? Really?? There is another area that is a food desert even though all you need to do is hop on the expressway and head west for two mile to the next exit where you have a massive Meijer's, and a another grocery store (the name escapes me). 5 Minutes max. There is a Costco, Sams' club, another Meijers and two Krogers within 5-10 minutes as well. Food Desert? Insane.

*Source:http://ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Food_Environment_Atlas/Data_Access_and_Documentation_Downloads/Current_Version/documentation.pdf

 

[Exterous]

Ok - here is an example of a 'Food Desert' from the USDA's web site. I used to live smack dab in the middle. I took the time to map out the locations of the nearby grocery stores

Blue is Kroger
Red is Meijer
Green is a mix of Costco Sams Club, 2 Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Busches and Hillers

Took us 5 minutes to the closest Kroger but all of those places were within 10 minutes. Bus service stopped in that area every 15-30 minutes heading to either Meijer, Whole Foods, Hillers and Costco. I also didn't mark the Asian Grocery or mediterranean Grocery store

Thats a hell of a food desert....

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm open to honest suggestions.

I honestly thought the next line was to be "Ban them!". Logically the people must be protected by their government from dangerous objects.

I had Cheetos as a kid, I'm not addicted, been a long time since I had them. There are always exceptions to such rules, and I find it fascinating when people have a problem with food - for when it doesn't affect me personally my understanding matches my poor experience.

Ironically I appear to have an intolerence to most junk foods.

So back to the greater topic, this is a common story for us. We see a problem and the next logical step is for the federal government to provide a mandated solution to affect everyone. Strikes against who we are as a nation, but it sure is easy to play whack a mole with a big mallet, fixing the world one solution at a time.

Leaves me unsettled that we feel it is our place, through government, to solve these problems. Limited, enumerated powers be damned. False dichotomy is what weakens our people, and the greatest one used against us is the "need" to act.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Ok - here is an example of a 'Food Desert' from the USDA's web site. I used to live smack dab in the middle. I took the time to map out the locations of the nearby grocery stores

Blue is Kroeger
Red is Meijer
Green is a mix of Costco Sams Club, 2 Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Busches and Hillers

Took us 5 minutes to the closest Kroger but all of those places were within 10 minutes. Bus service stopped in that area every 15-30 minutes heading to either Meijer, Whole Foods, Hillers and Costco. I also didn't mark the Asian Grocery or mediterranean Grocery store

Thats a hell of a food desert....

If you want to argue the USDA being overly generous with the term "food desert" means that availability of quality food isn't a contributing factor to the current state of the health of this country go right ahead.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I honestly thought the next line was to be "Ban them!". Logically the people must be protected by their government from dangerous objects.

I had Cheetos as a kid, I'm not addicted, been a long time since I had them. There are always exceptions to such rules, and I find it fascinating when people have a problem with food - for when it doesn't affect me personally my understanding matches my poor experience.

Ironically I appear to have an intolerence to most junk foods.

So back to the greater topic, this is a common story for us. We see a problem and the next logical step is for the federal government to provide a mandated solution to affect everyone. Strikes against who we are as a nation, but it sure is easy to play whack a mole with a big mallet, fixing the world one solution at a time.

Leaves me unsettled that we feel it is our place, through government, to solve these problems. Limited, enumerated powers be damned. False dichotomy is what weakens our people, and the greatest one used against us is the "need" to act.

OK, make a suggestion that uses zero government involvement.