The latest tactic by the nation’s food police is to classify foods as “foods of abuse” that are “addictive” and that should be regulated like tobacco cigarettes, alcohol, or even marijuana. Fortunately for gourmands gobbling gouda and commoners chomping on cheeseburgers alike, there is considerable evidence that this slipshod approach to neuroscience is fatally flawed.
The European Food Information Council recently released a synopsis of two Cambridge University efforts to scrutinize the existing data ostensibly supporting the theory, which we have noted before. The researchers’ overwhelming conclusion is that the theory that foods are little more than socially acceptable heroin is full of holes. The more recent Cambridge article is available for free here, if you’re inclined to read the whole thing.
These articles are yet more evidence that people are beginning to question the “war on food” that has characterized the anti-obesity movement over the past decade. We noted a recent article in a policy journal that expressed skepticism that blaming food companies would reduce obesity.
Since that plan, long advocated by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Kelly “Twinkie tax” Brownell, and Marion Nestle, isn’t panning out, activists who would regulate anything we eat or even do need a new tactic. Many of them think “food addiction” is the key. But while they hope it will “change the legal landscape” to enrich their trial lawyer pals, it hasn’t changed the scientific one.