Food Addiction as Bad For You as Tobacco?

[weinoo]

Food is pleasurable, it isn't addictive. We can stop drinking or smoking; we can't stop eating or we will die.

Really?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/220999.php

[heidih]

I doubt people with addictive eating behavior are the target market for the companies - compulsive overeaters suffering from a physical & mental addiction don't discriminate - generic will do. If scientists had the obesity thing all figured out we would not have a mega billion dollar dieting industry. As I said earlier, I still think it is creepy that they spend so much money and effort on crafting enticement. I also see correlations being made and anecdotal "evidence" that many are being conditioned, if you will, to crave the sugary/fatty carb laden snacks being marketed.

[mm84321]

Well, the whole obesity thing got figured out in the years prior to World War II, but an actual solution to the problem is not so favorable to the industries that are built around it. Same goes for addiction.

[annabelle]

I agree with Heidi. The disease model of addiction posits that the path of addiction is chronic, persistent, escalating and finally culminating in death. I am not a believer in disease models of addiction for this reason; there are many alcoholics and drug addicts who are long time sober members of society. If one can quit a distructive behavior, it is not a disease since the only treatment is cessation of the behavior.

I have never heard of anyone turning to a life of crime to support an addiction to food, be it donuts and cappuccinos, David Chang's Crack Pie (a most unfortunate name, and irresponsible, too) or deli sandwiches.

The marketing campaign is invidious and I don't care for it regarding the Lunchables. However, that is how marketing is done, be it food items or Subarus.

[mm84321]

I agree with Heidi. The disease model of addiction posits that the path of addiction is chronic, persistent, escalating and finally culminating in death. I am not a believer in disease models of addiction for this reason; there are many alcoholics and drug addicts who are long time sober members of society. If one can quit a distructive behavior, it is not a disease since the only treatment is cessation of the behavior.

I have never heard of anyone turning to a life of crime to support an addiction to food, be it donuts and cappuccinos, David Chang's Crack Pie (a most unfortunate name, and irresponsible, too) or deli sandwiches.

The marketing campaign is invidious and I don't care for it regarding the Lunchables. However, that is how marketing is done, be it food items or Subarus.

None of this really means anything.

[annabelle]

Well, explain why please.

[mm84321]

The thought that the simple act of "quitting" an addiction is the only treatment to addiction is mistaken. If you believe this, you believe addictions are a matter of willpower, and, as Nancy Reagan would have said, "just saying no". Again, this is the wrong way of looking at the problem. We can apply this idea to obesity, and the thought that if people would just exercise a bit of self control and put down the cookie, they would loose weight and become healthy individuals. The current prevalence of obese infants helps negate that theory, as it would be hard to blame a 6 month old for poor lack of self control. The issue here is not one of will, it is hormonal, and in the case of addiction, it is neurological. The way the brain is shaped during early development is critical in this, and that is why you see addiction rates so high in those who have suffered childhood trauma. Of course, this is not a matter of choice. We must understand that no one chooses to become an addict, and that asking someone with an addiction to choose to stop is not possible. The problem lies deeper, and until that is addressed, no progress can be made.

But, back to my main point (and what we seem to disagree on), the idea that food cannot be addictive because it is only "food". The term "food addiction" is misleading, and should be clarified. Of course, people don't become addicted to fish and vegetables, but rather the white foodstuffs, such as flour and sugar, which are in greater abundance now than ever in history. Sugar, in particular, should be the main culprit in this discussion, as it triggers reward signals in the brain which surpass those triggered by cocaine. These are the substances we should be discussing in relation to food addiction.

[mm84321]

Oh, and there really would be no need for someone to turn to a life of crime to support the addiction to sugar. It is cheap, in abundant supply, and can be purchased legally just about everywhere.

[weinoo]

Sugar, in particular, should be the main culprit in this discussion, as it triggers reward signals in the brain which surpass those triggered by cocaine. These are the substances we should be discussing in relation to food addiction.

Exactly...and the point of my OP and the article is that the fact was known by the corporate CEOs cited in the article. They met. They chose to do nothing except continue their marketing campaigns toward the most vulnerable.

Oh, and there really would be no need for someone to turn to a life of crime to support the addiction to sugar. It is cheap, in abundant supply, and can be purchased legally just about everywhere.

Great point.

[weinoo]

Bittman weighs in...

A study published in the Feb. 27 issue of the journal PLoS One links increased consumption of sugar with increased rates of diabetes by examining the data on sugar availability and the rate of diabetes in 175 countries over the past decade. And after accounting for many other factors, the researchers found that increased sugar in a population’s food supply was linked to higher diabetes rates independent of rates of obesity.

In other words, according to this study, obesity doesn’t cause diabetes: sugar does.

The study demonstrates this with the same level of confidence that linked cigarettes and lung cancer in the 1960s. As Rob Lustig, one of the study’s authors and a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said to me, “You could not enact a real-world study that would be more conclusive than this one.”

[Allura]

The executives cited in that article did exactly what they are LEGALLY obligated to do: increase profit. The law requires that the executives of a publically traded company (and I believe all of the companies mentioned fall into that category) look out for the shareholder first. If people want companies to stop focusing on profit (although I don't understand why they'd work for one then...), that is what needs to be changed. Companies exist to make money. They don't exist to do nice things for people, although it may make good PR (which makes them more money) when they do so. If they were interested in helping folks, they'd operate as a not-for-profit.

It is my job as a parent to decide what my child eats. I took one glance at that label and know I would never purchase it. The sodium content is way too high, and so is the sugar. Besides, coldcuts are cheaper and I can buy better quality and have something on hand any of us in the family would eat (I like a chef's salad for lunch every once in awhile).

I dislike the govt telling me what's best for me. Politicians aren't exactly sterling examples, and they usually have a bad case of living in glass houses.

I suspect the real answer to the "obesity epidemic" is more complex than just a single nutrient. I personally do better on a low carb diet, for instance, but I know plenty of people that prefer low fat. Perhaps we're not all the same?

I actually don't think the premise of the headline of the original article is answered in the body of the piece. They don't really talk about addiction, they just talk about execs being execs. *shrug*

Finally, I'm appalled at the undercurrent of attacks in this thread. This is not typical for egullet, and to see it coming from long time members is surprising.

[weinoo]

If you read the Bittman piece, he reports on the science that has proven a link, at the same level of confidence as the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer, as that between sugar and diabetes, not necessarily between sugar and obesity.

[Allura]

Oh, absolutely, diabetes and sugar consumption are linked. As far as I can tell, the best thing to do for diabetes (I have type 2) is a low carb diet. Nevermind the ADA's insistence on a low FAT diet...

My point is that obesity has multiple causes, some food related, some not. I've dieted and not over the years, but I've ALWAYS been at least fat, if not obese. Even as a kid, at every stage in my life, I've been built the same way, no matter how healthy my behaviors (eating & exercise) have been. So blaming food manufacturers for that doesn't make sense to me.

Personally, I would just as soon never see a lunchable on the shelf again. But I think the best way to do that is simply to not buy the product. No market = no sale. They'll change if people change their purchasing. Now, I do think that a company should be held liable if they LIE in their marketing, on the nutrition info, or in their labeling. But I think the more useful direction is to focus on pulling the junk out of schools (including the junk being sold as school lunches in many districts), stop serving junky snacks after every sport practice, every single get together of children no matter the age. I'm utterly dreading when my child gets to that age. As it is, I have to give daycare a hardtime periodically since they like giving out nilla wafers and ritz crackers as part of his snacks. Given that snacks make up a good part of a toddler's diet, this is important to control.

I do think there's an addiction side to some foods. I know that for me, if I eat low carb long enough (and I'm talking moderately low carb, not Atkins-level not even fiber rich veggies), the cravings for sugar do go away. But it's ROUGH the first few days when I get back on the bandwagon, and I definitely crave it. I still don't crave lunchables and its ilk, though.

[mm84321]

I suspect the real answer to the "obesity epidemic" is more complex than just a single nutrient. I personally do better on a low carb diet, for instance, but I know plenty of people that prefer low fat. Perhaps we're not all the same?

Preference does not trump how the human endocrine system functions. We certainly vary, but the basic biology of fat metabolism does not. The difference is what brings on these mechanisms (poverty, stress, depression, addiction, etc.), not how they ultimately work.

[Allura]

Fine, fine, preference was the wrong term. They lose weight when they eat a low fat diet. I lose weight when I eat a low carb diet. I do NOT lose weight when eating a calorie restrictive diet (not unless I also restrict carbs). That's what I'm getting at. Yes, the plural of anecdote is not data. Is the basic biology of fat metabolism proven? Everyone harps on calories in/calories out, but the reporting of studies (no, I don't usually read studies beyond the abstract because it's not something I have suffiecient expertise to understand) don't seem to actually support that.

Anyway, we're moving off topic. The point is the original article is putting perhaps not the right kind of blame on the food manufacturers. Yes, they're making crappy food and they're heavily marketing it. Yes, and? It's not their responsibility to do other than make a profit. If they make more profit by selling healthier foods or marketing them in a less aggressive way, that's what they'll do. So as consumers we need to educate each other so that the market for healhy grows. Of course, this leads to marketing like the "cuties" citrus fruits instead...

[mm84321]

Yes, we are veering, but it is a point worth making. The calories in/calories out model certainly is false, and the competing hypothesis is that fat metabolism is regulated by hormones, namely insulin. Carbohydrates, in particular sugar and flour, trigger insulin secretion, etc...I am not telling you anything you don't already know.

The problem with all of this is the profit motive, as you state. Is it wrong for a company to be profitable? Well, no. Except when that profit comes at the expense of the health and wellbeing of the population, certain ethical and moral issues should be examined. As long as money is at the center of these epidemics, (be it obesity, drugs, cancer) nothing will ever be resolved. Keeping people fat and sick is much more profitable than keeping anyone actually healthy.

Edited February 28, 2013 by mm84321 (log)

[Jaymes]

Personally, I would just as soon never see a lunchable on the shelf again. But I think the best way to do that is simply to not buy the product. No market = no sale. They'll change if people change their purchasing. Now, I do think that a company should be held liable if they LIE in their marketing, on the nutrition info, or in their labeling.

Right. Witness the recent demise of Hostess. Sure, the intrasigence of the Baker's Union hammered the last nail into the coffin but, according to what I read anyway, the problem initially stemmed from revenues dropping precipitously due to the public's decreasing appetite for junk products, like Twinkies and Ding Dongs.

[annabelle]

I see that many are still conflating addiction with dependence. Science, per se, does not set out to prove anything. Science must be falsifiable or it is no longer science. Without falsifiability, it becomes a matter of Faith.

mm84321, I have said nothing about willpower. What I speak to in cessation of bad behaviors that are unhealthy, is behavior modification. Specifically, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, in which one retrains one's brain. This Is certainly not new science, but science it is and it is quite effective. Not only is it effective, it is inexpensive, requires little homework for the client and is relatively quick to show results. It is a matter of learning to recognize environmental/physical/emotional cues and not engaging in the destructive behavior but recognizing the cue(s) and thinking not acting impulsively or automatically.

[Honkman]

Bittman weighs in...

A study published in the Feb. 27 issue of the journal PLoS One links increased consumption of sugar with increased rates of diabetes by examining the data on sugar availability and the rate of diabetes in 175 countries over the past decade. And after accounting for many other factors, the researchers found that increased sugar in a population’s food supply was linked to higher diabetes rates independent of rates of obesity.

In other words, according to this study, obesity doesn’t cause diabetes: sugar does.

The study demonstrates this with the same level of confidence that linked cigarettes and lung cancer in the 1960s. As Rob Lustig, one of the study’s authors and a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said to me, “You could not enact a real-world study that would be more conclusive than this one.”

Some people think that Bittman hasn't really read the original article

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/02/28/no-its-not-the-sugar-bittman-and-motherjones-have-overinterpreted-another-study/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelMedicineHealth+(ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Medicine+%26+Health)

[gfweb]

Bittman weighs in...

A study published in the Feb. 27 issue of the journal PLoS One links increased consumption of sugar with increased rates of diabetes by examining the data on sugar availability and the rate of diabetes in 175 countries over the past decade. And after accounting for many other factors, the researchers found that increased sugar in a population’s food supply was linked to higher diabetes rates independent of rates of obesity.

In other words, according to this study, obesity doesn’t cause diabetes: sugar does.

The study demonstrates this with the same level of confidence that linked cigarettes and lung cancer in the 1960s. As Rob Lustig, one of the study’s authors and a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said to me, “You could not enact a real-world study that would be more conclusive than this one.”

Some people think that Bittman hasn't really read the original article

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/02/28/no-its-not-the-sugar-bittman-and-motherjones-have-overinterpreted-another-study/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ScienceblogsChannelMedicineHealth+(ScienceBlogs+Channel+:+Medicine+&+Health)

This sort of media misreading of studies is commonplace. The narrative that the writer has in his head is what counts to him/her, not the actual facts. Studies are interpreted to fit their presuppositions, not according to what they actually say. It is as though science must be made to support the writer's point of view, as opposed to the writer's point of view being driven by the scientific evidence.

The problem is compounded by the scientific ignorance of most journalists who don't understand statistics and the inherent limitations in experiments and surveys.

A recent obit of C.Everett Koop highlighted how rare it is for a public figure to be data-driven rather than agenda-driven. Koop astounded political foes by sticking with the data rather than his political presuppositions regarding HIV and abortion. He was a heroic figure in a situation that was otherwise lacking in principled public servants.

[Martin Fisher]

Don't forget that the USDA has been more than complicit in promoting a carb rich, high calorie food pyramid.

X2

And folks on food stamps can buy ALL the soda pop, candy, cookies, chips and other junk food that they want!!!!

Yet, when I have hundreds of pounds of surplus from a market garden......carrots, green beans, squash, tomatoes, beets, radishes, etc. etc. etc. and FREELY offer it to those who are "in need" it's usually turned down!!!!

It has become very difficult for me to sympathize.

~Martin

Edited March 2, 2013 by DiggingDogFarm (log)

[weinoo]

Don't forget that the USDA has been more than complicit in promoting a carb rich, high calorie food pyramid.

Yet, when I have hundreds of pounds of surplus from a market garden......carrots, green beans, squash, tomatoes, beets, radishes, etc. etc. etc. and FREELY offer it to those who are "in need" it's usually turned down!!!!

It has become very difficult for me to sympathize.

Do you think if you offered that same stuff to someone looking for a cigarette, or a heroin addict, they'd be rushing over to grab it?

[Martin Fisher]

My experience enforces the addiction argument, at least in my mind!

~Martin

[Jaymes]

Don't forget that the USDA has been more than complicit in promoting a carb rich, high calorie food pyramid.

Yet, when I have hundreds of pounds of surplus from a market garden......carrots, green beans, squash, tomatoes, beets, radishes, etc. etc. etc. and FREELY offer it to those who are "in need" it's usually turned down!!!!

It has become very difficult for me to sympathize.

Do you think if you offered that same stuff to someone looking for a cigarette, or a heroin addict, they'd be rushing over to grab it?

Do you think that responsible parents would give their children cigarettes or heroine?

[weinoo]

I used to steal cigarettes from my parents. If you think kids of responsible parents aren't doing things behind their parents' backs, well, I have a bridge to sell to you.