Commentary Explores Policy Impact of Food Addiction Model

Researchers with the University of Michigan and Yale University’s Rudd
Center for Food Policy and Obesity have authored commentary in Biological
Psychiatry about the policy implications of an addiction model for food.
Ashley Gearhardt & Kelly Brownell, “Can Food and Addiction Change the
Game?,” Biological Psychiatry, August 2012. Gearhardt and Brownell argue
that scientific efforts to establish whether certain foods or ingredients “have
addictive potential” “will be more important to policy and social change than
emphasizing the individual difference variables or investigating how obese
and nonobese individuals differ.” In particular, they claim that such research
will need to emphasize the effects of potentially addictive foods “on the many
rather than just the few” to maximize the impact on public policy.

“Scientific enquiries into how addictive substances are capable of hijacking the brain has reduced stigmatization of addicted individuals and led to more substance-focused policy approaches (e.g., taxation of cigarettes, restrictions in marketing),” write the authors. “In the case of tobacco, these substance-based strategies have created significant changes in the environment, altered public opinion about the addictive products and the companies that sell them, and generated widespread improvements in public health.”

Alleging that the food industry “will likely use any inconsistency in the
food-addiction literature to plant doubt, attack scientists’ credibility, or
fund negative studies,” Gearhardt and Brownell also highlight several policy
concerns unique to food addiction that researchers should consider when
designing their studies. As they note in the case of early childhood addiction,
“If ultraproccessed foods are found to have an addictive potential, the case for
more aggressive policy initiatives to protect children will likely be warranted,
such as restricting children’s exposure to calorie-dense food advertisements,
reducing access points (e.g., vending machines), and increasing prices.”

“If certain foods do have an addictive potential but this reality is ignored, it
is likely that both treatment and policy progress will be stalled,” opine the
authors. “Imagine if tobacco research had stopped at the time that cigarettes
were considered habit forming but not addictive. Policy initiatives might have
focused solely on education and attempts to strength the resolve of those
with a bad smoking habit… If scientific evidence identifies that certain foods
are also capable of hijacking the brain in an addictive manner, it would likely
be a landmark change that would support bold policy approaches that focus
on improving the food environment.”