Manipulating the Truth about Food Addiction

In his book Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us, Michael Moss attempts to build a case that the food industry scientifically and strategically manipulates ingredients in foods to drive overconsumption, which has driven obesity rates.

No one can argue that consuming excess calories, whether from fresh or processed foods along with lack of physical activity, will increase weight. However, throughout the book the profession of food science is misrepresented. Moss may feel he has cracked the scientific code of why people are supposedly “addicted” to food products, but he has misunderstood what food science accomplishes and his views, though well written, should not be considered scientifically accurate or valid or taken as fact.

Let’s first consider how loosely Moss uses the term “addiction.” This idea is mostly based on brain imaging studies where research has shown that reward from foods and drugs of addiction can stimulate the same regions of the brain. The brain indeed responds positively to foods and the reward circuitry in response to food has been well characterized. But that does not mean that food is addicting.

In brain imaging studies, there is more going on than just reward leading to activity. Brain activity is dependent upon numerous factors, including fed state, weight status, and stress level. Even music, parental love, or other pleasurable experiences can stimulate these same regions of the brain. Scientists would argue that addiction is not the issue, but rather overconsumption of food.

The most extreme level of overeating is seen in binge eating disorder (BED), which has been shown to be related to a whole realm of psychological factors. Research indicates those who have BED are most often normal or underweight with only approximately 35% being overweight, so in theory it is not what you are eating but how you are eating (Meule, 2011). Thus, to claim the industry has developed “addictive” foods is complete fallacy and sets up a notion of “forbidden” foods, which could lead to binge eating.

Second, the human desire for sweet taste is innate. It transcends all cultures, sex, age, and race. Newborns exposed to external sweetness for the first time readily accept this taste stimulus, which assists in establishing feeding behavior. The innate response to taste stimuli also holds true with sour and bitter taste, which is generally rejected immediately by a newborn. We know the association of sweet taste with carbohydrates can elicit satiety signals along with a sensory award, which can be described as “liking” or “acceptable.”

Many other factors beyond physiological signals affect how much is eaten, such as social setting, perception of appropriate amount to be eaten, portion sizes, habitual behavior, socioeconomic status, and age (Bellisle et al., 2012). When considering lifestyle determinants, research suggests that television watching, alcohol intake, and sleep deprivation has likely contributed to excessive eating (Chapman et al., 2012).

Moss contends that the obesity crisis has also resulted from consumption of soda. However, the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s final report noted “randomized controlled trials report that added sugars are not different from other calories in increasing energy intake or body weight.”

Third, at the heart of sensory science of food is the desire to find an optimum level and combination of ingredients to induce liking or as Moss describes a “bliss point.” To imply the industry is manipulating consumers by ensuring the product has maximum acceptability is ridiculous. Of course the food industry or anyone preparing food tries to make it taste as good as they can. Any consumer-focused industry actively seeks to ensure optimum consumer  acceptability. But what food science has also done is to reduce spoilage, increase availability and variety, and feed a planet of over 6 billion people. Foods that meet consumer preferences for taste, nutrition, affordability, and convenience offer the most flexibility in building a healthful diet.

Throughout the book, Moss provides limited testimony from former employees of the industry, but then makes his own interpretation, commentary, and judgment without scientific merit. The very criticism he uses against industry regarding driving profits is the same type of argument one could use regarding
his book and associated publicity increasing his own financial gain. In the end, Moss claims he wants to empower consumers to understand how foods are produced so they can ultimately resist purchasing.

Unfortunately, continuing to play the blame game that the food industry is responsible for obesity due to the “addictive” nature of these foods may only result in consumers, particularly those that are overweight, feeling doomed. Foods are only beneficial to health if eaten—and are more likely to be eaten if they meet consumer preferences.

References cited in this article are available online at ift.org.

Joy Dubost, Ph.D., R.D., a Professional Member of IFT,
is President, Dubost Food & Nutrition Solutions
([email protected]; @joyofnutrition).

References