Hooked: How Big Food Draws You In

The term "addiction" has been subjected to legal debate.  Many court cases revolved around the term, but most of them failed to make the big food companies back down.  

Tobacco was perhaps the major consumer item that battled against government rules and business interests hired very clever lawyers.  Addiction was often a key factor, but for years tobacco lawyers were able to dismiss the notion.  Ironically many of the tobacco companies had excess money and invested much of it with big food companies where its legal expertise would be helpful.

From an unguarded comment a tobacco lobbyist defined addiction as "a repetitive behavior that some people feel difficult to quit" that was adopted by the author.  Some substances are not as addictive as assumed, for example cocaine.

 In the first part of the book, Michael Moss explains how evolution has developed to boost human survival mostly under greater environmental limitations.  Upright on two legs allowed humans to see further and walk more to get a greater variety of foods.  Fire allowed easier digestion which in turn allowed for a smaller stomach.  A smaller stomach allowed for a bigger brain (obviously other factors involved).  Deeper research revealed that humans are the only animal that tastes with its nose adding to the intensity of flavor.  

It was advantageous for the body to store fat as it was really energy that make long treks to get a variety of food (with vitamins and minerals) more easily.

Roy Wise, a researcher at McGill University discovered that a stimulus to a rat's brain could motivate it to eat large quantities of food that had previously been ignored.  We (and food scientists) realized that the brain had as much to do with a desire to eat as the stomach.  The brain retains a memory of various tastes and craves sugar, fat and salt.  The sooner these tastes reaches the brain, the sooner the demand for more. 

In the second part we learn how businesses have exploited opportunities.  Legal issues were examined in detail to make sure they could present optimal appeal to consumers.  Labeling requires more detail than in the past, but it is still possible to hide some details.  For instance serving sizes tend to be less than what people actually eat.  They employ scientists to maximize food appeal and the costs.  

Society has been changing.  A great percentage of women have taken jobs and are looking for easy ways to feed their families.  Many people eat while watching television.  Food can be comforting when dealing with stress and some contend modern life provides much of that.  

Advertising has increasingly become more sophisticated and targeted.  In an advertising agency I was able to look at data reports for radio and tv.  First you got quarterly views/listens for a particular outlet, but then you could view by age and sex.  The advertising firm made their decisions by comparing the cost of reaching a very specific target group.  Undoubtedly they have become even more precise in targeting.

 Dieting has not escaped food scientists.  When they sensed that more people were becoming conscious of their weight and health they searched for ways to retain their loyalty.  Looking for sugar and fat substitutes was relentless.  Some substitutes have been associated with increased risks of cancer and other diseases.

All sorts of diet groups emerged and for most consumers a familiar pattern developed of initial loss of weight followed by a relapse.  Another understanding was learned:  the importance of metabolism and how our bodies reacted to changes in diet.  In order to survive hundreds of thousand years ago the body had to adjust in times of famine by burning less energy. 

One example of how McDonald's can be harmful was provided by Morgan Spurlock who I did a blog on a few years back.    http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/03/the-greatest-movie-ever-sold.html

Many read his book with the motivation to improve their eating habits and therefore their life.  First the author would claim information is power.  You know better what your body (brain) wants and you have a better idea of what big food wants to do.  You know the body reacts quickly to tastes, so you will feel full sooner if you eat slow.  One given example was to snack on pistachios with their shells on.  Chewing gives your brain more time to process information.  Beware of colorful packaging on the shelf and discard at home before eating.

Another blog from a few years ago deals with the habit of being distracted while you eat.  See http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/09/mindless-eating-cf-mindful-eating.html 

Acknowledgements are often glossed over, but some reveal what motivated the author.  Michael Moss had written another food book and had won a Pulitzer Prize.  One morning after a barbecue followed by finishing next morning's breakfast before lunch he had a craving for leftover kabobs.  He became curious as to why.  His research went to a psychiatrist studying how heroin went from cravings to addiction and the whole subject of motivation and how we could be manipulated.  Legal experts and scientists provided most of the facts and made for a fascinating account of what effects all of us.  He also thanked his wife and two sons for tolerating his experimental cooking and constant talking about his research.

WHITE TRASH

America likes to promote itself as a classless society but with upward mobility.  Nancy Isenberg paints a different picture. Her premise is that from the beginning Americans have had a class system and uses "white trash" to illustrate.

The English were pleased to have a place to send vagrants and others.  The poor were seen as lazy.  North America was conceived as a vast vacant land, overlooking the fact that there was a large indigenous population.  Pocohontas, by marrying an English noble was seen by many as granting land to Europeans.  Many of them were purged by unintentional diseases, but as time went on by violence.

Tobacco was a product that required a lot of labour and after trying to work with natives, the European investors felt that black slaves would be more profitable.  Benjamin Franklin felt that black slaves made the English more idle and impotent.  William Byrd by 1726 declared that the poor whites in the south despised labour.

Voting in the early days was restricted to property owners.  Many of the poor white might have been called squatters and of course were not qualified to vote, but perhaps more importantly were seen as lower class.

Jefferson, a slave holder was a key person in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  It seems likely that he fathered some children with a mulato servant, although it is conceded it might have been one of his male siblings.

Andrew Jackson, war hero, Indian fighter, slave holder was considered by many to be of a lower class because of his temper and habits.  As President he ignored the Supreme Court and pushed for a removal of Cherokees.

The Civil War had consequences for social classes.  Large slaveholders naturally looked down upon non slave holders, but needed to convince the poor to help fight their cause.  They lied about northern wages, suggested the way to move up in class was to save and buy a slave.  As long as the blacks were beneath them, the poor were not at the bottom.  Many poor non slave holders felt they were being asked to fight a rich man's war.  A slaveholder with 20 or more slaves could be draft exempt while wealthier officers were able to get furlongs more easily.  By 1864 the south faced a manpower shortage and some advocated putting slaves into uniform to fight, but others felt that would elevate blacks and would cause another set of problems.

After the Civil War, freed blacks were in an economic dilemma and many ended up working for their old masters.  Chain gangs were hired to do much work and blacks were easily imprisoned for this purpose.  Poor whites were able to feel superior (but also a bit threatened).

When integration started in earnest, it was the poor whites who resisted the most.  The author provides an example from Little Rock of a particular white woman who verbally lashed out at young black students entering a formerly all white school.

Hillbilly, redneck and cracker are terms used to insult people.  The movie "Deliverance" (which I remember as a very scary movie) depicted lower class whites that were physically repulsive and violent.

On the other hand Elvis Presley helped launch a cultural revolution.  He  came from a very poor Mississippi family.  He took a lot of black music and brought it to the white world where especially teens were very excited while their elders were bewildered.  One of the things Elvis did for his mother was to buy her a chicken coop at Graceland.  Obviously broke down barriers, but still many people looked down on him and where he came from.

Lyndon Johnson was the son of a sharecropper and became a teacher.  As President probably more responsible than any other politician for the legal advancement of civil rights since the Civil War.  "If you can convince the lowest of white men he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket."  He advocated for better education in the Appalachia region.  A smart man he used his background to gain votes and to understand the lower classes of the south.  Still many thought of him as crude.

Bill Clinton was yet another President from a poor southern background.  Raised by a single mother he overcame lots of obstacles to get an Oxford and Yale education that helped him to gain a political career.  He described himself as a Bubba, another derogatory southern term, but appealing to much of his audience.  He encountered lots of vile opposition often aimed at his mother who had several marriages and suffered addiction problems.

The author contends that politicians are able to convince large numbers of people to vote against their self interest by using class strategies.  Both parties carve the population into a wide range of classes and try to determine how best to build coalitions that will help them win an election.  The electoral college was designed to get acceptance of the smaller states.

The author points out that social mobility is greased by connections and class based knowledge.  The children of celebrities get a head start.  Another interesting observation is that dating services are designed to match compatible people which means to the author, class comfort.  Another ironic observation is that Europeans have more social mobility than Americans.  An eye-opening good read.