It's Official! Junk Food IS Addictive! (1 Viewer)

[Eric_L]

Quit jesting and consider the serious ramifications of what this means. If junk food is addictive then it won't be long before we see homeless people panhandling change in order to 'super size'. Addicts will hold up fast food joints for the food and leave the cash behind. Rehab centers will open across the nation where people desperate to save their families, homes and careers will stand up and say "I'm Eric_L and I'm a McHolic".

This is all possible if what they say is really true - and it must be true because I read it in the newspaper...

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

nnggg must call... lawyer... sue the shit out of..innnggg

Oh dear, did someone call my name? Mr. Christou, are you currently represented by a solicitor in this matter?

 

[MarkHastings]

When it comes down to it this study is suggesting that people are not responsible for their own behavior even though they were perfectly aware of the consequences of their actions.

But not many people are aware that it is addictive. We all know drugs are addictive, we all know caffeine is addictive, but does anyone really know that junk food is addictive?

In all seriousness, a big part of trying to stop something is to understand it. Understanding what's going on and how addictions work is key to recovery.

To those who think "Just don't eat it" or "Just stop", you obviously don't understand addictive behavior. Do you think alcoholics decided one day to become alcoholics?? The whole reason behind addictions is the person can't stop. Of course, the person had to start in order to be addicted, but we're not talking about cocaine, we're talking about easily accessible food here. I can totally sympathize with people who get depressed and eat to feel better. To think that we can just ignore it is an gross understatement.

Some people can easily stop cold turkey, but just because some people can, doesn't mean that it is easy for everyone else.

In order to stop the overeating, one must understand why he/she is always hungry. It's easier to ignore something when you know what's causing it. I would hope that people don't use this new knowledge as an excuse, but more as a way to deal with their issues.

-Peace out.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

> They're in it for the money.

Really? I thought fast food places only existed to give teens a place to work.

Of course, the companies that sell "health" food aren't in it for the money. But then, why is that stuff so expensive?

 

[Steve Christou]

Oh dear, did someone call my name? Mr. Christou, are you currently represented by a solicitor in this matter?

C'mon Dennis you're a patent attorney *munch*munch* how can you help me? *belch*
Bet you didn't know *munch*munch* my Sandra's now working as a legal secretary for an American patent law firm based in London, *slurp* it's a small world after all.*munch*munch* friggin' burgers I hate hate hate 'em *munch*slurp*belch*

 

[Mark Schermerhorn]

Oh come on now. Lets try some roll reversal with Pancake's comment:

When it comes down to it this study is suggesting that corporations are not responsible for their own behavior even though they were perfectly aware of the consequences of their actions. At what point does corporate responsibility fit in here? The truth is that corporations are presented with a choice. Some corporations do not have the shareholder willpower to make the less profitable choice. Some corporations do. Regardless of what other influences there are it all comes down to a choice. To deny that corporations are free to make such a choice is to deny that corporations are free at all.

You get the idea.

The courts decided years ago that corporations have the same rights as individual humans. Therefore, I hold them to the same moral standard. Many of the "frivilous lawsuits" you see are much more about the above problem than they are about individuals not taking responsibilty for themselves.

 

[Jason Pancake]

The courts decided years ago that corporations have the same rights as individual humans. Therefore, I hold them to the same moral standard.

I couldn't agree more. If I come to a cookout at your place and you serve me hot dogs and hamburgers then I would expect nothing less than for you to provide me compensation for any ill effects I may experience later in life as a result of you feeding my addiction

-Pancake

 

[MarkHastings]

If a product is abused is that the result of the corporation's actions?

It depends on what they put in the product. If companies are putting addictive chemicals into their products to make people crave them, then yes I feel the corp. is to blame.

This is very similar to subliminal messages.

At least with cigarettes, they have warnings so people can't blame the company for being addicted to nicotine, but there are no warnings about certain junk foods being addictive.

I'm not saying that these corporations are fully to blame, but we can't allow them to tamper with foods in order to make a profit. :frowning:

 

[Neil Joseph]

Yes, it is the responsibility of an individual to "watch what they eat" but I don't think this issue ends there, or is as sinmple as just that. The fact is, there need to be tighter regulations on the food industry as well.

 

[Tony Whalen]

Max, I'm 34... but I can't see that having anything to do with it. Honestly.

True, I've tried to quit before, and none of those quits have stuck like this one... but I've known smokers who have quit from many different ages...

It had to do with the fact that I wanted to quit a LITTLE more than I wanted to smoke. It had to do with the fact that I wanted to quit for ME...not because someone else wanted me to.

What are the withdrawal symptoms like? Is it completely pshychological, ie. the habit that is hard to beat, and not necessarily the chemical effects?

It's both. I was, in no uncertain terms, a nicotine addict. I still am. Like an alcoholic. While I've been free for 15 months now, I know DAMN well if I were to have JUST ONE, I'd be screwed, and back to a pack (or more) a day.

The withdrawal symptoms? Tiredness. Headaches. Unable to concentrate. Memory problems. Increased gas. (I'm serious...it's a common one I understand) Increased skin oils. Shakiness. That's a few of 'em.

Psychological ones? The hand-to-mouth fixation. Hence the reason quitters tend to balloon in weight.

The fact is that, like many addicts, I lived my life around my addiction. One of the main reasons I stopped going to movie theatres. No, not because I have a home setup... because I could SMOKE at home. Because I didn't hafta worry about having a nic-fit half-way through a movie. I *seriously* lived my life around getting that next hit. Going for dinner? Can't sit in smoking sections? Going to a different restaurant. Ducking out of the office every time I could manage.

I'd also hide my emotions behind their smokescreen. Sad? Smoke. Upset? Smoke. Mad? Smoke. Happy? Smoke. Crying? Smoke.

Nicotine is an incidious addiction. Truth be told, I had a slightly easier time dealing with the actual chemical addiction than I did with the psychological ones. But that doesn't make the psychological ones any less valid, or any less real. Habitual, yes. But hard to change.

Some smokers have a fairly easy time quitting.

Not me. I wish it had been easy! I've smoked since I was 13. I've fed my addiction constantly for over 20 years. It takes time to get past that. Both chemical and habitual.

I'm a drug addict. It just so happens that my drug of choice is nicotine.

So I can't help but laugh at the idea that hamburgers can be addictive in the same way.

Phew... sorry Max. That kinda turned into a long diatribe. I can't expect non-smokers to understand... but maybe I've painted a bit of a picture. I'm just glad I'm not having this discussion ... oh ... say about 14 months ago. I wasn't too nice to be around.

 

[Mark Schermerhorn]

Jason, you've missed my point.

When I buy a product, I am entitled to certain expectations. In the case of food, I expect that it isn't poisoned, that it is the kind of food it claims it is, and in this case, that I won't become addicted to the food. By addicted I don't mean "yeah I felt like eating a lot because I'm a fat lazy bastard". In this case, there may be physiological changes outside our control:

Scientists studied the biochemical changes in the brains of rats fed different diets. When the fat rats had their sugary food taken away they showed similar symptoms to junkies deprived of drugs.

If this is the case, it needs to be stopped, and if it is found that companies were doing this intentionally, they need to be punished. I don't deny my own responsibility; I know that if I eat a big bag of potato chips, I'm going to gain weight.

This is my main concern. Anytime there is a high profile consumer action lawsuit, there is a large public outrage against the lawyers and plaintiffs. "Lazy bastards!! Greedy lawyers!! This country is going down the tubes because of people like you!!" The venomous hatred can be pretty amazing. Some cases deserve this riducule, many don't.

When one of these cases proves gross negligence on the part of a corporation, however, there is no equivalent outrage. A few people get upset. The rest say "Eh, whatever. They're out to make money. What do you expect?"

This asymmetry scares the hell out of me, and I wish I knew how to stop the trend.

 

[MarkHastings]

When I buy a product, I am entitled to certain expectations. In the case of food, I expect that it isn't poisoned, that it is the kind of food it claims it is

Exactly. People realize that cigarettes are bad for them, but does that give them the right to add crap to them? Imagine if cigarette companies started adding extremely harmful chemicals and people started getting sick and dying.

Do you think it would still be ok to think "Well, smokers knew that cigarettes were bad for them, so it's no ones fault but their own."

If a company produces a food that has an addiction warning on it and I get addicted to it, then you can blame me all you want, but to be deceived into an addiction is wrong in so many ways.

 

[Max Leung]

Thanks Tony! I read about the effects you describe, but I wanted to get the story straight from the uh...smoker's mouth er I mean fingers!

I believe, to a smaller extent, that the habit for eating junk food may be hard to shake for people. There was a recent short documentary on the CBC about how Canadian kids are the fattest in the Western world (30% of all kids under the age of 16 are overweight or obese)! It was rather funny watching the camera follow the kids and parents into a fast food joint all the time, and just before they sent the 12 year old boy to a boot camp for fat kids in New Jersey. He weighed 200 pounds!

The parents could be considered part of this "addiction"...habituated to NOT make dinner or lunch at home. Fast food restaurants are so convenient...you don't have to bother making your own meals along with all the laborious cleanup afterwards and preparations beforehand. These parents had gotten into the habit, and now their kid is fat. Oh and so is the mom.

The documentary didn't try to characterize the family as addicts, but in some ways it actually looked like junkies getting a hit of crack whenever you see them eat at the fast food place. The bliss on their faces was similar to a smoker enjoying a puff during a break.

Contrast that with myself, who can hardly get addicted to any foods or drugs. Fast food can taste good sometimes, but all the grease and fat fills me up fast and I can't each much of it. I am pretty sure I have the "rich, abundant food" gene (or more accurately, I may have the set of promoter genes -- genes that activate other genes given the right environmental stimulus), that is present in some individuals and is an advantage during times of abundant and rich food, whereas others have the "famine" genes that are useful in times of famine -- larger appetites or ability to convert food to fat stores quickly. (Falsifiable hyptothesis: A large percentage of Chinese and Japanese people have the former, while many caucasians have the latter.)

Now, the interesting thing is, although how you store fat or control your appetite is genetic, there is an environmental factor that is needed to fully express these genes. If the mother carrying her baby in the womb is suffering through malnutrition, the baby will have a higher chance of expressing the "fat genes" -- because the mother "programmed" the baby's genes to expect a famine throughout its lifetime (unleashing a complex series of gene expressions, which control appetite, taste, metabolism, and so forth)! The opposite is also true: A healthy, fully nourished mother will likely give birth to a child who will not likely gain as much weight.

And there is correlation with birth weight and being overweight later in life. If you were born underweight, there is a higher probability that you will be overweight when you're much older.

And even with all that, people will still vary in weight -- a healthy mother may still give birth to a fat child, but it could have been much fatter if she wasn't healthy. And, in a society where there is little exercise and tons of fatty and carbohydrate-dense foods, those who are predisposed to being fat will gain more weight more quickly -- to become obese, instead of merely just fat.

So (EDIT: In Western society with fast food): Caucasians are fat because they have a slight predisposition to gain weight (speculation is that Europeans, living in the colder northern climes, had less access to food than populations in the middle-east and around China, where food was abundant and agriculture was widely practice for several thousand more years), but also don't exercise enough. North American Indians, the Inuit, and polynesians are highly likely to become obese, because they have almost always lived in near-famine conditions -- the people with "rich food" genes died out. Of course, this theory is complicated by individual circumstances of the mother -- malnourishment, drugs, etc could tip the scales one way or another too.

Genes aren't written in stone...the environment can change the expression of genes too. It's a complex feedback loop: There is no such thing as nature versus nurture anymore.

 

[Paul McElligott]

Personally I think we need to take a step back here. The "revelation" that junk food is addictive is no revelation at all. Almost anything that you can put into your body is potentially addictive, especially if it produces a pleasurable reaction. The question would be: is junk food intentionally made more addictive than other food? If not, then the responsibility lies with the consumer to regulate his or her own behavior.

So, please, enough with the "evil" corporates hooking helpless people on their products. If you enjoy Gatorade enough, you can become addicted to that, too.

 

[Mark Schermerhorn]

Paul, I assume that comment was made twords me. If you reread my comment, I think you'll see that I said the same thing you did. The question is whether we are being purposely mislead. Not sure where you got "evil corporates" from.

Sounds like...Kraft I think it was? Will be reducing their use of trans-fats. Anything along those lines is a positive development.