[louis___]

Exactly this.

The "discover who really has the power to break these supposed “addictions.” (Hint: It’s you.)" rethoric is always pushed by lobbies for industries who do not want to be considered responsible for the harm their products cause.

For example, MacDonalds and other fast-food producers have been pushing that in order to fight rampant obesity, people should do more sport, rather than have limited access to deeply addictive, processed and sugary-filled foods.

[grenoire]

Seriously, this is about the equivalent of telling somebody with a substance dependence (I think weed is likely the best analogue, with a weaker physiological dependence, that is) to just quit it. These devices are not inhaled, injected, ingested, but they are very much a tool in releasing hormones.

[to11mtm]

You're absolutely correct.

A few years ago I went gluten free to see if it helped with some other health issues (it did, NCGS.)

So, between late 2016 and the end of 2020, I avoided gluten as best as I could. Which all but eliminates most fast food and the majority of prepackaged foods/snacks/etc.

Portion control became incredibly easy. I ate when I was hungry. Sometimes people would comment on how little I was eating, but I was still energetic and kicking ass at work/etc. My body also fairly quickly started to adjust to a more 'proper' weight. (As long as I wasn't drinking. There were parts of that time of my life where I sometimes did, never to where it interfered with work but definitely was hiding from my personal life circumstances.)

ANNNNYWAY. Late last year I decided to try gluten again to see whether I still had a bad reaction and/or if it was moreso specific types that caused me issues (They all kinda bother me, but barley makes me ragey....)

I remember the first thing I ate from McDonalds last year. It was a double cheeseburger.

I then spent the next 2 weeks straight getting at least one meal a day from McD's. It was an eye-opener on how addictive some of the components in a food can be to your neurons.

[bumby]

>Which all but eliminates most fast food and the majority of prepackaged foods/snacks/etc. Portion control became incredibly easy.

One prevalent theory about why just about elimination diet works is because of this effect of an easy decision heuristic to make smarter food choices. That seems more plausible to me than a single instance of the gluten in a 150 calorie bun being the culprit (unless you have something like celiacs disease, of course). Regardless, I’m glad you found a regimen that works for you.

[grenoire]

I think the same treatment is necessary for these sorts of foods. It's hard to regulate both in terms of classification (what're the thresholds?) and regulation (how to get politicians to take action?). It's going to take time, but I'm hopeful.

Happy to hear you managed to cut out the junk for a long time, I hope you haven't rebounded in full!

[thegrimmest]

What if the person doesn't want to quit? What to take into your body and how to regulate your health are deeply personal choices. Why not just let people make them?

[grenoire]

I didn't remark on that but I'll entertain your comment: I think it's about having the facilities to educate people about the effects, and help them in rehabilitation if they prefer to.

[thegrimmest]

> facilities to educate people about the effects

I think we already do a pretty good job at this, don't you? Drug awareness education in one form or another has been part of the curriculum since the 19th century.

> help them in rehabilitation if they prefer to

We have lots of NGOs that are setup to help drug addicts. Are they not doing a good job?

[grenoire]

You missed my point, sorry if it wasn't clear: These should exist for 'device addicts' and addiction.

[slibhb]

You're ligitating free will here and you've decided it doesn't exist. Well, right or wrong, people who believe in their own agency make better choices. It's somewhat bizarre to me to see you criticzing the idea that people should be held responsible for what they put in their mouths, chew, and swallow. You write like it's such an awful idea that people could choose to eat healthier foods or exercise more.

[thegrimmest]

> rather than have limited access to deeply addictive, processed and sugary-filled foods.

So individuals are not responsible for their decisions? I personally would rather not live in a world where my choices are artificially limited by someone's idea of what is "good for me". I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself, and willing to accept consequences of my mistakes.

[hxtk]

Your choices are already being shaped in that way. That's why, for example, modern residential roads are designed with shorter sight distances, narrower lanes, speed bumps/humps, and more roadside shrubbery compared to their counterparts from a century ago. It turns out that the mere suggestion of a speed limit—albeit carrying force of law—does not make everyone choose to drive that speed. Instead, human factors are taken into account so that it "feels more natural" to drive the road at the speed the engineers intended. We try to make it easier to use the system in a way that is safe and accomplishes the user's goals than in a way that causes harm.

Human factors isn't a binary question of whether or not we influence the choices made by individuals. In the real world, individual choices are always influenced by a variety of factors. The question is that, when we are aware that a particular design decision will influence the choices of individuals, is it ethical to make that decision in whatever way maximizes the profitability of the product, without regard for any predictable impact it will have? Simply maintaining willful ignorance of human factors in engineering does not make the world functionally better or worse than if that same decision had been made from a position of understanding of those factors and an attitude of malice/benevolence/apathy.

I don't think it's contradictory to tell consumers to make their own choices while at the same time telling producers not to design products that needlessly influence consumers to make destructive choices.

[bumby]

FWIW, I agree with you but think it’s also important to recognize the devils advocate position.

>I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself

I think there’s a decent amount of evidence that humans aren’t as capable of making rational decisions, or at least not nearly as rational as we’d like to think. In the context of systems like nationalized healthcare, this can become a negative externality. If I’m responsible (in part) of paying for your healthcare, there may be an argument that I (in part) have a say in the decisions you make that effect your health.

[thegrimmest]

> I (in part) have a say in the decisions you make that effect your health.

Well then you (in part) become my master. No person has the right to be master of another. One doesn't need to always make rational decisions in order to be entitled to make them. This is also why I'm against nationalized healthcare.

[bumby]

>One doesn't need to always make rational decisions in order to be entitled to make them.

Agreed. But regarding the “master” comment, I think that’s a bit hyperbolic. You give up certain decisions as part of the social contract. I can’t decide, for example, that I want to drive on the other side of the road. Giving up that choice also doesn’t make me subservient, especially in a representative democracy. It just means I know how to balance the rights of the individual with the overall welfare of society.

[thegrimmest]

I don't think it it's hyperbolic really. The only relevant question is where the line is and by what principle it is defined. Is the difference between freedom and slavery clear and well-drawn? or is it a spectrum? I'm inclined to the former view. The only legitimate social contract is the one keeps the peace and manages the commons (this is already quite a lot). Everything on top that tries to shape our behaviour or compel us to cooperate is a violation of a person's right to be their own master.

> I can’t decide, for example, that I want to drive on the other side of the road.

You can perfectly well drive on whatever side of whatever road you want assuming it's a private road. Public spaces have rules, and always have. What's not fine is managing the interactions of private people minding their own business.

[bumby]

If you’re in the US, there is a “general welfare” clause within the social contract

[defaultname]

I've eaten at McDonalds. Yet I only eat there infrequently, usually when traveling and want something quick. I'm not obese.

Did they forget to put the "addictive" additive in mine?

Misusing the word addictive to mean "things that aren't beneficial, and can be detrimental in excess" is not helpful to anyone.

People who are depressed self-sabotage in a wide variety of ways. They sleep all day. Maybe overeat. Maybe sit flicking through TikTok all day. Some even clean endlessly. That doesn't mean any of those things are "addictive".

This whole discussion borders on parody. People with zero responsibility or self-control screaming that they have no self direction and need their world corralled and constrained for them. Beyond bizarre. And apparently these amazingly addictive ingredients only work on Americans, who seem to lack any self-reflection or inquisitiveness as to why that is.

I read a Robertson Davies trilogy for hours last night. Probably stayed up a little late. Blame it on Big Books and the Book Cartel for Addicting me like this.

[lolinder]

There are also hundreds of millions of people who drink socially and never become alcoholics. Are the hundred million alcoholics "people with zero responsibility or control", or is it more likely that some bodies react differently to certain addictive substances than other bodies?

If you allow for different reactions to alcohol, why could the same not be true for sugar and fat?

[defaultname]

While alcohol addiction usually does begin with depression or lack of self control, the physiological effect of ongoing abuse is seen worldwide. This isn't at all true for whatever NOT MY FAULT BLAME [INSERT TARGET HERE] easy solution Americans are pitching today.

Are the Japanese addicted to McDonalds? Are the French? Are Mexicans? Are the British? Are Chileans?

The tale in another comment that someone had McDonalds and then they went back every day for two weeks straight literally reads like parody. If someone were mocking that sort of lazy, not-my-faultism they'd author a comment precisely like that, thinking they were exaggerating and making it sound absurd.

Is it American Exceptionalism that makes for this remarkable, magical dietary addiction? Or is it a market that is particularly susceptible for easy victims and easy "not my fault" answers. Blame it on Big McDonalds. Make a documentary (usually cartoonishly full of misstatements and lies) and it gets Eaten Up, pardon the pun, because it's an easy, incredibly lazy thing to blame.

Obesity is a problem around the globe, and in every country it's different causes. Calories became a lot cheaper, and people like eating. If you think one magical ingredient is the cause, get a grip. It isn't so simple. And eventually it 100% comes down to self control.

If someone spends 9 hours scrolling through TikToks, that isn't TikTok's fault. It really isn't. It is remarkable reading people imagine up the nefarious ingredient that puts the responsibility on someone other than themselves.