A couple of years ago we carried out a simple experiment. We put a bowl of mini doughnuts and a bowl of apples in front of my office with a sign “free to take.” I’ll let you guess which disappeared first. Correct! Only a few apples had been taken by the time all the doughnuts had vanished. I suspect that if I had canvassed the students about which snack is “healthier,” not one would have chosen the doughnut. The reason this comes to mind now is that recently a number of papers have been published about highly processed foods, such as doughnuts, being addictive. In some cases, comparisons are made with nicotine and heroin. That’s over the top. Unlike heroin, nobody is going to become physically ill if you take away their doughnuts. However, there is no question that some people crave chips, doughnuts, pizza, cookies and candy bars and consume them excessively with full knowledge of their potential negative effects on health. And they will dig into these not because they are hungry, but because they get pleasure. There is actually a term for eating for pleasure without hunger, “hedonic hyperphagia.”
A theory that has been advanced suggests that highly processed carbohydrates such as sugary cereals, candies and white bread cause a spike in blood glucose that in turn causes a release of dopamine, a neurotransmitter linked with pleasure. The effect is said to be even greater if the refined carbs are combined with fats as in ice cream, chocolate, pizza, chips and French fries. Minimally processed foods such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains and meat do not contain refined carbs and do not have carbs and fats in comparable amounts. An interesting theory, but lacking proof. This is not the first time that behaviour and “junk food” have been linked.
Remember the "Twinkie Defense?" For those of you who do not, here is the story. It goes back to 1978 when a former city supervisor in San Francisco, Dan White, had a disagreement with Mayor George Muscone and shot him. He then murdered Harvey Milk another city official. White was caught and tried and sentenced to six years in prison. Why such a light sentence for a double murder? Because his lawyer had effectively argued that White was suffering from "diminished capacity." He wasn't responsible for his actions because he was depressed and was incapable of a premeditated crime. And why was he depressed? Because he regularly loaded himself with junk food, such as Twinkies, which caused him to be depressed. The defense actually had a psychiatrist testify to this effect and the jury bought it. Actually, they bought it because they didn't understand the psychiatrist's testimony. The doctor did not say that the junk food caused the depression, he suggested that so-called "addiction to junk food" is a sign of depression. Both the jury and the press misinterpreted the testimony to mean that an addiction to Twinkies could lead to crime. White served his six years and committed suicide a year after his release. Nobody investigated whether he was still addicted to Twinkies.
“Food addiction” reared its head in another legal case. In July of 2002, Caesar Barber, a 5 foot 10, 272-pound maintenance man in the Bronx decided that his diabetes and heart attacks were to be blamed on McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King and KFC. These fast food chains, according to his lawyer Samuel Hirsch, had failed to provide sufficient information about the health hazards of their products. Barber, and his lawyer, asked for millions of dollars in compensation. Furthermore, they maintained that the fast food restaurants were knowingly selling food that was addictive. Shades of Big Tobacco? In January 2003, Judge Robert Sweet dismissed the charges, saying that consumers should know that a diet of hamburgers and French fries is not conducive to good health. He did throw the plaintiffs a bone by saying that they could reintroduce their case if they could show that the fast food restaurants altered their food in some specific way to make it addictive. That has not happened.
All this being said, I'm not a fan of the fast food industry. But these guys are not criminals. They provide a service the public apparently wants. They don't hide the nutritional composition of their products. All of them have websites and ample documentation to show the fat, salt and sugar contents of their products. It is up to consumers to make use of this information and educate themselves. People have to take responsibility for their actions. And as far potato chips go, have an apple instead. You will be able to stop at one. Although there is no need to.
