Skip to comments.Hooked On Food (Food is the Next 'Smoking Ban')
Posted on 12/01/2006 2:52:42 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
When you feel compelled repeatedly to chain smoke cigarettes or shoot up heroin because you just can't help yourself, that's called addiction. And some scientists are saying that for many overeaters.
"Food is like a drug," said Anne Kelly, neuroscientist.
Ann Kelly is a neuroscientist at the University of Wisconsin who has been looking into the brain processes of addiction. Not only to narcotics, but to certain kinds of food.
"I hesitate to say there is such a thing as food addiction but what we have to keep in mind is that food can affect the brain in a very similar way as do addictive drugs," said Kelly.
In her lab, she studies the brains of rats addicted to morphine and other rats whose favorite food is a high fat sugary lard.
"It's sort of like cookie dough." said Kelly.
And the brain scans of the morphine addicted rats when they think they're about to get a fix, LOOK very much like those of the rats conditioned to fatty sweets. when they're about to be FED. Aha, says lawyer John Banzhaf.
"This could be the smoking gun, we could say fat is the next tobacco. Alright how about the legal argument?" said John Banzhaf, law professor.
That's what has lawyers practically salivating. FOOD. could be their new Tobacco.
"If we can change the six major fast food companies so they are providing clear and conspicuous disclosure on their menus of fat and calories and they're providing appropriate health warnings, we will have a dramatic impact on the overall problem of obesity and it will happen immediately," said Banzhaf.
But some, including Dr. Elizabeth Whelan of the American Council for Science and Health, don't like where all this seems to be headed.
"When you say a food is addictive, what you're really saying is that the obese person is a victim and you know that's I think abandoning individual responsibility." said Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, American Council for Science and Health.
No alcohol in bars.
No food in restaurants.
Helmets for pedestrians.
Land of the FREE, Home of the BRAVE.
Ping! This ought to p*ss you off.
Think the Smoke Gnatzies around here will finally get a CLUE that this is all about CONTROL of the proletariat and has NOTHING to do with cigarettes or food?
"Food is like a drug," said Anne Kelly, neuroscientist.
Evidently, so are lawsuits.
well, there you go.
I'm suprised no one has drawn a bead on these guys yet. Thousands of people get mugged or assualted each year and HE gets out unscathed.
NOT that I'm wishing it, of course *cough*.
I might be addicted to breathing as well as eating... I must really need help.
Don't even try to TOUCH my transfat.
These people are flakes but they know how to make money on it. A young female relative recently went off to a six-week, $50,000 program to cure her "food addiction." She's barely even overweight. Gimme a break.
Hooked on food?
Why not just call it gluttony?
It's one of the seven deadly sins...not PC at all...
If food get the addiction status marker, will that make fatties qualify for health treatment at a fat farm. Where or where will the smokers get their treatment or do they simply continue to be addicts unworthy of treatment and undeserving of the money collected from big tobacco.
NANNY STATE PING...
Banzhalfassed will not stop ......... however, after the last time I saw him on TV, I would suggest he stop eating. The man is obese.
the very sad answer to that question is a very resounding NO.
OK, we know second-hand smoke and the occasional piece of fried chicken are not a major health threat. Cigarette smoking itself, on the other hand, is a major health threat to the smoker himself. What the government can or should do to discourage smoking itself, I don't know, but a product when used as intended takes 14 years off of the life its average user, perhaps the government should try to discourage smoking. That to me is the only possible reason to ban smoking in public, not because the smoke actually hurts non-smokers (the evidence is that it does but the danger is slight), but simply to discourage smoking.
But I understand the principle that a government that has the power to ban something like smoking in taverns is a government with too much reach into people's personal business.
I feel sorry for the restaurants that have been forced to go "non-smoking"...we used to eat/drink out ALOT.
Upside, is that I've perfected the grilled rib eye.
In all fairness, there does exist a problem with the way people eat, but like always, the left turns it into a government issue, and not a personal responsibility.
I've always played sports and never been overweight, but I got hypoglycemia because I was eating so poorly. I went to stay with my aunt for a while (she's a nutritionalist) and I actually went through a week of sugar withdrawal. Shaking, headaches, irritability, the whole shebang. Its amazing how unhealthy food is in general these days. There's so much transfat, sugar and chemical in everything.
But charging people $50,000 to help them learn to eat better? That's ridiculous! And lawsuits are even more so.
I have an actual physical addiction to food. It isn't just psichological. My body has developed an actual need for it. If I go off it too long I get the DT's. I am confident that eventually it would kill me.
Change what? That information is already readily available, and people still flock to those places because it's quick and tasty.
These morons need to get a life.
I have little problem wiht government banning smoking tobacco in public places, my problem is the government seeking to ban smoking tobacco i private places.
Welcome to the unintended consequences of the drug war.