Duck Season

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick understands that "Big Food" suits are junk, and here's why:

For one thing, people must eat to live, whereas no one needs to smoke. For another, there was compelling evidence that the tobacco companies knowingly torqued up the addictive content in their product and systematically lied about the dangers, whereas there is little evidence that Big Food did the same.

But aren't foods addicting?

Oh, but there are the wackier legal theories: Some anti-Big-Foodists contend not only that fast food is indeed addictive, like cigarettes, but that their purveyors similarly manipulate the ingredients to make them more so. Dr. Neal Barnard, a respected nutritionist, has recently argued that cheese contains a protein that breaks down into morphinelike compounds ("Gimme 30 cc's of gouda, stat") and other opiates that can create addictions.

That's the biggest nonsense science of them all. Let me tell you about the house I grew up in. In my house we were never taken to McDonalds, we were never allowed to eat that trash, yet I ate cheese all the time as a kid. Anyone remember those pre-packaged processed cheese rolls in the shape of a hot dog where you'd pull the strings of cheese off it and eat it? Ate those by the dozen when I was a kid, but i've haven't had an urge to eat one in ten years, and I definitely don't recall going through withdrawal.

Not being a scientist I can't refute Dr. Barnard's findings on their merits, nor do I believe my experiences actually form a reasonable argument proving his science false (although common sense is the basis for reasonable objection), but I do understand that "morphinelike" isn't exactly "just like morphine."

Is food addictive? I'm sure that on some levels it is. We all have favorite meals, and I wouldn't doubt that these are chosen on some subconscious level based upon the chemical gratification received from these foods. We all also have "comfort foods", where we consume to replace/relieve outside stresses. These certainly sound like the actions of an addict, but to call them addicting behavoirs would be to pervert our whole understanding of individual choice.

What has been said above for food which can't be said about my favorite television shows? After a particularly hard day, if my muscles are tense and my nerves are all frazzled, I undoubtedly look forward to catching a good Simpsons episode for all the reasons attributed to food above. Should Matt Groening be responsible for my doctor's bills?

And now we hit the most despicable part of these suits, the arrogant elitism:

There is something creepily paternalistic in the arguments put forth by the food nannies. They tend to say that while they are smart enough to read labels or look up fat contents on the Wendy's Web site, the poor, disadvantaged single mommies are not that sophisticated. One would hope that even the poorest single mom knows that eating McNuggets every day is unhealthy. And—since obesity doesn't happen in a day— one would hope that even the most unsophisticated parent would cut back on the KFC if her child started to split her Wranglers.

So here's a stupid question, how come I've never actually met anyone who was frothing at the mouth for a McFish sandwich? The "they're out there, but i'm not one of them" argument is particularly facetious. If you or I do not know anyone who's addicted to McDonalds, and we're not ourselves addicted, where are all these people? While this isn't sufficient disproof of their existence, I does raise considerable doubt in my mind because of my special relationship with the "target" group of "Big Food" advertising.

I'm in my early twenties and overweight, some of my friends are overweight, but we all grew up watching lots of television. We're the last gasp of the MTV generation, people who can remember what the "M" stood for, and who remember Nickelodeon didn't have more cable channels than Jesus. When we were kids we saw shows with just the same disgusting amounts of commercials as todays kids watch, yet we're not afflicted? My experiences are not sufficient to disprove science, but they do reinforce experience with scientific facts. I know smokers, you can see how antsy they get when they haven't had a ciggarette even though every last one of them knows they're just inhaling cancer. That's addiction. I've drank alcohol. It's very easy to understand how that can be addicting. But i've also known people who love to eat who are very healthy, and people who don't like to eat who're nevertheless overweight. None of them have ever displayed a chemical need for a BigMac.

Please, let the insanity stop here:

But we may want to keep an eye on the John Banzhafs of the world, who have observed that their next target may well be "Big Milk"—full of saturated fats and cholesterol and not nearly as healthy as those moustache commercials would suggest.