Can food taste too good? Yes, if you're New York Times health columnist Tara Parker-Pope. Her Tuesday "Well" column for the Times is currently the #1 most emailed article on nytimes.com, and is an interview with former Food and Drug Administration head (and over-zealous banner of orange juice and silicon-gel breast implants) David Kessler on his new book, with the typically scolding title, "The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite."
A Times headline writer took the same hectoring cue, eschewing personal responsibility for what people eat and blaming it all on food industry mind control: "How the Food Makers Captured Our Brains." Parker-Pope, via Kessler, actually comes out against food manufacturers for making their products tastes good.
As head of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. David A. Kessler served two presidents and battled Congress and Big Tobacco. But the Harvard-educated pediatrician discovered he was helpless against the forces of a chocolate chip cookie.
In an experiment of one, Dr. Kessler tested his willpower by buying two gooey chocolate chip cookies that he didn't plan to eat. At home, he found himself staring at the cookies, and even distracted by memories of the chocolate chunks and doughy peaks as he left the room. He left the house, and the cookies remained uneaten. Feeling triumphant, he stopped for coffee, saw cookies on the counter and gobbled one down.
So Kessler parlayed his lack of self-control into a book making it the food industry's problem. Kessler's controversial nanny-statist tenure at the FDA included telling Proctor & Gamble to get the word "fresh" off its frozen orange juice, "Fresh Choice." When the company ignored him, Kessler seized the juice.
None of that background made it into Parker-Pope's column, which offered nothing but praise for the Kessler regime at the FDA:
The result of Dr. Kessler's quest is a fascinating new book, "The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite" (Rodale).
During his time at the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Kessler maintained a high profile, streamlining the agency, pushing for faster approval of drugs and overseeing the creation of the standardized nutrition label on food packaging. But Dr. Kessler is perhaps best known for his efforts to investigate and regulate the tobacco industry, and his accusation that cigarette makers intentionally manipulated nicotine content to make their products more addictive.
She is critical of the food industry for providing consumers tasty food that's a pleasure to eat:
Dr. Kessler isn't convinced that food makers fully understand the neuroscience of the forces they have unleashed, but food companies certainly understand human behavior, taste preferences and desire. In fact, he offers descriptions of how restaurants and food makers manipulate ingredients to reach the aptly named "bliss point." Foods that contain too little or too much sugar, fat or salt are either bland or overwhelming. But food scientists work hard to reach the precise point at which we derive the greatest pleasure from fat, sugar and salt.
In other words, restaurants try to make their food taste good. Scandalous!
Foods rich in sugar and fat are relatively recent arrivals on the food landscape, Dr. Kessler noted. But today, foods are more than just a combination of ingredients. They are highly complex creations, loaded up with layer upon layer of stimulating tastes that result in a multisensory experience for the brain. Food companies "design food for irresistibility," Dr. Kessler noted. "It's been part of their business plans."
So food companies "design food for irresistibility," as opposed to making food you want to spit out. And this is a problem how?
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I'm astounded!
June 24, 2009 - 16:53 ET by jdlybrandPeople eat food because it "taste's" good. Who'd have thunk it?
The Day Obambi was Elected, the Food Nazis Knew They Were Back
June 24, 2009 - 17:35 ET by farstar99Ve must control everysing! Heil Obama!
Food Nazis
June 25, 2009 - 08:24 ET by misterbee241I heard Mika Brezhinski on Scarborough yesterday morning say the government should ban all junk food. That would make us healthier and cut government health care costs.
Typical flippin' liberal.
"I dont need to read a newspaper to know the world's been shaved by a drunken barber."
Walter Brennan, The Colonel, Meet John Doe, 1941
So, comming soon to a fast
June 24, 2009 - 21:06 ET by SherrytexSo, comming soon to a fast food franchise near you, Mc Haggis, Beet Soup Shakes and jelly fish salad. Bon Appetite!
If this is the best there is, then man are we in trouble. --personal motto.
Nutcase
June 24, 2009 - 17:06 ET by slickwillie2001David Kessler is a wackball nutcase, always has been. I don't think it's a matter of one political party or another, he's just a wacko.
.. and he was appointed by Obama
June 24, 2009 - 18:13 ET by allanfIs the Zicam action motivated by that firms relationship to Rush Limbaugh?
Probably, I've used it for
June 24, 2009 - 20:34 ET by RowaneProbably, I've used it for years with no problems.
Why don't these ninnies just blame nature
June 24, 2009 - 17:07 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltfor designing a human body that gravitates towards food that tastes good. Surely there's a conspiracy there.
They have no idea how idiotic they sound.
Wait till they have to eat
June 24, 2009 - 17:47 ET by ThisnThatWait till they have to eat their words. Mmmmmmm, Mmmm!
___________________________________
Liberals constantly demand that we accept a glaring falsehood as truth; Obama's elimination of the word "terror" will make terrorist acts less terrifying
This article made
June 24, 2009 - 17:09 ET by nolotrippenThis article made me...
hungry.
Hay fat tastes GOOD!!!!
June 24, 2009 - 17:17 ET by upcountrywaterAnd here is the proof
From an evolutionary perspective, having a fat bud is a big advantage.
It causes animals to crave and consume high-calorie fatty foods and
then prompts their bodies to quickly and efficiently digest the fats,
storing away an energy reserve for times of starvation...
Go ahead and try that with soy products...save the elk, deer ,pork tenderloins for me.
As if the food industry is "pulling something over on us" CROCK.
How old are taste buds anyways?
Reagan VS Carter and 0bama
taste too good??
June 24, 2009 - 17:44 ET by David N MOI weigh 250... Well maybe it's 260...,
But it's not because the fast food i eat every day taste good. Generally I find it pretty dismal fare. They only thing that taste the same is it did 20 years ago is a Big Mac. Everything else has gone down hill. Even KFC now is so bad that they had to put an ingrediant in that makes you crave it every fortnight. And i have that from a good source!
You may think me crazy, but if it is made in America then Obama and congress want to control it. It happened to tobacco, it will happen to alcohol and it will happen to food.
David
Save me from the Good People!
"If it moves, tax it. If it
June 24, 2009 - 19:18 ET by Lord Elicani"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidise it."
- Reagan
"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause."
Padmé Amidala, Revenge of the Sith
When Dave Barry was in
June 25, 2009 - 05:37 ET by GrannyGrump42When Dave Barry was in China, he read about the government noticing that one noodle booth had much longer lines than the others, and they investigated and found out that this noodle booth was slipping opium into their noodles. Which Dave then dubbed "can't-say-no noodles".
So I guess those mean old food purveyors are slipping opium into those chocolate chip cookies.
I've noticed that about
June 25, 2009 - 08:27 ET by misterbee241I've noticed that about some foods I liked when I was younger. They're just not as good anymore. I seldom go to a fast food joint because the food isnt good. Maybe tastes change as we get older.
"I dont need to read a newspaper to know the world's been shaved by a drunken barber."
Walter Brennan, The Colonel, Meet John Doe, 1941
why does this sound so
June 24, 2009 - 17:45 ET by spmcintyrewhy does this sound so hypocritical, apparently the only part of the human body that anybody should have any self control over is the uterus...
there is no spoon...
Self-control over the
June 24, 2009 - 20:37 ET by RowaneSelf-control over the uterus? I think its more a problem of a lack of self-control that causes problems.
No, they want abortions
June 25, 2009 - 05:39 ET by GrannyGrump42No, they want abortions because they can't control their uteruses. The darned things keep letting embryos implant! It's not as if keeping your knees together is any more possible than resisting a chocolate chip cookie!
Note the common theme: We are helpless before our own biological urges. Which makes us just animals with no free will.
Tara Parker-Pope. Just her
June 24, 2009 - 18:37 ET by Chris NormanTara Parker-Pope. Just her name alone should be warning enough not to read her stupid article.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
I wonder how wagyu steak
June 24, 2009 - 19:54 ET by Dan DiegoI wonder how wagyu steak tastes? Good? Bad? What'd ya think doc? Gonna talk to the boss man about it?
→ Ask Obama
June 24, 2009 - 19:57 ET by Cool ArrowIn addition to Wagyu Steak, The president also enjoys eating boogers, as shown here.
We will Barry you! - Russian Prophecy
If you watch Sarkozy, it
June 24, 2009 - 20:11 ET by Dan DiegoIf you watch Sarkozy, it looks like Der One also broke wind.
So restaurants and food
June 24, 2009 - 23:09 ET by fitzfongSo restaurants and food makers become profitable because they find out what customers like and deliver it to them? What a concept! Perhaps instead of alienating potential customers by profiling self-important, bitter quacks like David Kessler, the New York Times should consider following the lead of the successful restaurants. After all, Pinch and Company are obviously failing to give customers what they want. More pinches of sugar and salt...less Pinches of Sulzberger.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Telling Title
June 24, 2009 - 23:43 ET by nkviking75The title of the book is telling: "The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite". It's not "How You Can Take Control of Your Appetite". It could almost read "How We Can Take Control of Your Appetite".
Funny how government involvement in the healthcare system gives them an excuse to meddle in our lives. Imagine how much worse it will be under Obamacare.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
NYT staffers are bitter because soon all they will be able...
June 25, 2009 - 01:34 ET by wnaegele...to eat are unsold copies of their rag.
"But the Harvard-educated
June 25, 2009 - 05:34 ET by GrannyGrump42"But the Harvard-educated pediatrician discovered he was helpless against the forces of a chocolate chip cookie."
Maybe he needs to join Cookieholics Anonymous.
There are people out there who manage to beat addictions to hard drugs and alcohol, but this guy is powerless against a cookie. The problem isn't the cookie; it's him.
They should put Gordon
June 25, 2009 - 05:40 ET by RR GOPThey should put Gordon Ramsay in charge. If he says that a certain food is crap, then I'll believe it.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
jessieH I will
June 25, 2009 - 09:26 ET by jessieHjessieH I will eat what I want, & I dare anybody to try & stop me!
It is scandalous if you are
June 26, 2009 - 09:54 ET by pcantidoteIt is scandalous if you are eating chemistry experiments every day. There is a reason why the US has significantly higher incidents of heart disease and cancer. I have no problem with natural fats and sugars, etc., but be very cautious of a "food scientist". Real food that is safe to eat does not require science, it just is.
Enforce Term Limits if They Won't: Vote Against ALL Incumbents in 2010.
Here's a thought,
June 26, 2009 - 10:49 ET by fitzfongHere's a thought, then...mind your own business.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Believe me, I could not
June 29, 2009 - 08:15 ET by pcantidoteBelieve me, I could not care less about what YOU eat. I am just making the point that you are a moron if you do not think twice about everything that you put in your body. The evidence is out there. If people would start paying more attention we could take the government's regulation gun out of their hands because the free markets would steer dollars away from food chemistry. Wake up.
Enforce Term Limits if They Won't: Vote Against ALL Incumbents in 2010.
If people would start
June 29, 2009 - 13:26 ET by fitzfongIf people would start paying more attention we could take the government's regulation gun out of their hands because the free markets would steer dollars away from food chemistry.
A statement like that simply illustrates how out-of-proportion your self-esteem is with your actual intelligence. You obviously believe that you and the nanny state politicians you ostensibly support are in a position to determine what is best for others. Well, get over yourself, you ignorant, pseudo-intellectual snob, because you clearly are not. You see, the cool thing about the free market is that you get to choose what you do and do not want to put into your body...then you live with the consequences of your decisions. This means that if you want consume nothing but wheat grass, green tea and granola, you're entitled to do so. If, on the other hand, you prefer a steady diet of beer and pizza, you're entitled to that...and if you get a coronary as a result, you must endure the consequences and become something of a cautionary tale for others.
But your obsession with "food chemistry" suggests a certain bitterness and frustration. Let me see if I can take a shot at it: you're one of those self-important, know-it-all hippie types you see loitering around the local Whole Foods each day. You've got your pony-tail in knots over the fact that your tofu is so expensive that you can't afford the lavender soap (no big loss, because you wouldn't use it anyway) and the super organic "Fair Trade" coffee. So, if you simply wag your finger of moral superiority in the direction of those "dumb Americans", you can somehow shift the demand curve over a little and eventually the prices for your "locally-grown, pesticide-free" energy supply will come down to more affordable levels. That way, you may be able to stock up on some more of that delicious flaxseed you can't seem to live without. Sorry to burst your bubble, killjoy, but we've had more than enough of your sorry lectures to last a lifetime. You parasites have been working your way into all levels of the public sector to spew your unique brand of arrogant drivel. You have infiltrated the public school system with your "Global Warming" propaganda and have started turning the next generation into a mob of spoiled, self-indulgent, overbearing, joyless drones without any evidence of critical thinking. I'll happily stick to the steady diet of what I want, when I want it. That way, I can be certain not to be green with envy and of complexion.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
This just in....While only
June 29, 2009 - 14:51 ET by pcantidoteThis just in....While only anecdotal, there is new evidence to support the theory that eating chemically enhanced foods causes people to erupt in sophmoric diatribes. You are so misguided in your childish speculations. Re-read my statement that you quoted:
If people would start paying more attention we could take the government's regulation gun out of their hands because the free markets would steer dollars away from food chemistry.
READ: I do not want the government involved whatsoever. They do not know the first thing about nutrition except for what their food industry lobbyists tell them. I want to take away their self-assigned license to determine what I eat. Unfortunately, they perceive the right to that license for the same reason they grab most of their power: A LACK OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. People do not work, we give them welfare. People do not save, we give them social security. I could go on forever, but hear this: People do not eat right and get sick because of it, the government will try to do something, especially at a time when they are trying to pass nationalized health care that we cannot afford.
When Americans eat junk food and chemistry experiments, and as a result grow obese, and develop heart disease and cancers at rates that far exceed the rest of the world, our nanny government feels as though it must do something. Perhaps in part based on guilt because they told us to eat this garbage with their food pyramids and other nonsense. Nevertheless, we are empowering them to control our lives by not taking personal responsibility for what we eat. So keep eating your mystery food out of a lab beaker, and keep empowering the big evil government that you claim to despise.
Enforce Term Limits if They Won't: Vote Against ALL Incumbents in 2010.
People do not eat right and
June 29, 2009 - 15:56 ET by fitzfongPeople do not eat right and get sick because of it, the government will try to do something, especially at a time when they are trying to pass nationalized health care that we cannot afford.
The fact that the government interferes is not the fault of the people who "do not eat right and get sick". It is the fault of the overly-intrusive government and the people who tolerate the intrusion. Government rarely, if ever, needs justification to infringe on our rights. And by the way, eating/drinking/smoking/other assorted "vices" do not cause people to get sick. They may accelerate/contribute to the condition in some/many cases, but there is no direct cause/effect relationship. This may seem like a small semantic distinction, but words have meaning. Does every smoker get lung cancer? Does every heavy drinker develop liver disease?
When Americans eat junk food and chemistry experiments, and as a result grow obese, and develop heart disease and cancers at rates that far exceed the rest of the world, our nanny government feels as though it must do something.
The use of hyperbolic language (there's that "chemistry experiment" phrase again) and erroneous cause/effect assertions based not on any factual information, but on the "everybody says"/conventional wisdom model (yes, I'm saying that your blanket assertion that Americans "develop heart disease and cancers at rates that far exceed the rest of the world" is an unsupported position that does not simply stand on your say-so...i.e., produce factual evidence supporting the statement or it remains the overblown non sequitur that it is). And once again, the fact that the government feels entitled to step into this area using universal "health care" as its justification does not make it acceptable for said government to "try to do something".
Nevertheless, we are empowering them to control our lives by not taking personal responsibility for what we eat.
Uh, no we're not. They are attempting to empower themselves, and we are allowing them to by suggesting that what we, as free-thinking individuals, are not entitled to make bad choices and face the consequences of those choices on our own. Just because some of us may use our freedom to make bad personal choices does not entitle the government to step in to make choices on our behalf.
So keep eating your mystery food out of a lab beaker, and keep empowering the big evil government that you claim to despise.
Boy, you really are given to hyperbolic conspiracies about what you perceive to be junk food. Well, if you're not a hippie, you must be one of those "my body is a temple" types who worships at said temple by posing in front of a mirror and letting nature take its course.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
→ Furthermore, fitz
June 29, 2009 - 16:00 ET by Cool ArrowEating right just prolongs the inevitable.
If a quick heart attack doesn't get you at 50, it's gonna be one of those long drawn out lingering diseases that puts a real strain on the system at 80.
Alzheimers, Stroke, Cancer, Hip replacement, nursing home.
Under my plan of a cap & trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket - BHO
Unfinished (albeit run-on) sentence
June 29, 2009 - 16:17 ET by fitzfongThe use of hyperbolic language (there's that "chemistry experiment" phrase again) and erroneous cause/effect assertions based not on any factual information, but on the "everybody says"/conventional wisdom model (yes, I'm saying that your blanket assertion that Americans "develop heart disease and cancers at rates that far exceed the rest of the world" is an unsupported position that does not simply stand on your say-so...i.e., produce factual evidence supporting the statement or it remains the overblown non sequitur that it is).
Meant to finish sentence with: "...does not strengthen your position, it only masks its deficiencies."
I accidentally erased that part and failed to proofread before I sent it...my bad.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
I should have said Western
June 29, 2009 - 22:07 ET by pcantidoteI should have said Western diet, although the Western diet is largely an American creature anyway. This is just one link. I can go all day.
http://americanheart.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=552
If you want to debate semantics regarding whether diet, smoking, et al cause, or typically result in, disease, sorry, that is pointless.
Do you realize how stupid you come across when you try to label people that are healthy as hippies or self-absorbed? Insecure much?
Enforce Term Limits if They Won't: Vote Against ALL Incumbents in 2010.
Fantastic work. You find
June 30, 2009 - 00:02 ET by fitzfongFantastic work. You find one study, comparing a so-called "Prudent" diet to a "Western" diet, then hint at an infinite reservoir of supportive information which you fail to produce (as if the non sequitur "I can go all day" somehow covers it). Gee, do you have any idea whether or not the life expectancy of the average American slob compares favorably or unfavorably with that of the rest of the world? How about the life expectancy of today's Average American slob consuming "science experiments" vs. the life expectancy of previous generations of Americans (you know, the ones who lived off all those natural fats and sugars before those evil corporations hired mad scientists to concoct those poisonous and addictive chemistry projects in test tubes)? And I forgot how much the quality of the average American life sucks in comparison to those of previous generations and/or other Western (and Eastern) countries. Thanks for reminding me.
If you want to debate semantics regarding whether diet, smoking, et al cause, or typically result in, disease, sorry, that is pointless.
Translation: pcantidote has reached a rhetorical dead end and believes that tossing out the word "semantics" and claiming that a significant, yet inconvenient, issue is "pointless" gets him out of this tight spot without having to concede that he is wrong. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
Do you realize how stupid you come across when you try to label people that are healthy as hippies or self-absorbed?
First of all, I did not "try to label people that are healthy as hippies or self-absorbed". I labelled you as either a hippie or self-absorbed. I don't know you and, as such, I haven't a clue whether or not you are "healthy". Besides, the definition of "healthy" is rather a moving target, isn't it? The reason I labelled you as such is that you so obviously are. If you believe that eating a certain way is the key to your own healthy and happy lifestyle, go for it, champ. However, when you start lecturing people you don't know about what they should or should not choose to eat...and you throw out self-righteous terms and phrases like "scandalous", "the evidence is out there", "you are a moron if you do not think twice" and "wake up" to bolster your argument, you have a bit of a self-absorption problem, I'm afraid. Tell me, do you close your eyes when you say such things? It's really quite precious. And spare me your condescension about how "stupid" I "come across". You're out of your league, friend, and are hardly in the position to be worrying me about how I'm perceived.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
It is clearly a fool's
July 1, 2009 - 13:10 ET by pcantidoteIt is clearly a fool's errand to carry on this debate. Your preference of nuance over common sense is tiring. For example, you choose to focus on whether regular smoking always results in lung cancer rather than just acknowledging the obvious risks. Just like I cannot prove that it causes lung cancer, you cannot prove that it does not.
We find common ground in the belief that the government needs to stay out of our lives. We differ in our opinions on where the boundaries of personal responsibility (and by extension our ultimate burden on society) should be. It is really that simple.
I apologize for any condescending tone taken here. I generally like to keep things respectful. That was just frustration.
Enforce Term Limits if They Won't: Vote Against ALL Incumbents in 2010.
Your preference of nuance
July 1, 2009 - 13:54 ET by fitzfongYour preference of nuance over common sense is tiring.
That's a pretty clever and dishonestly self-serving way to frame my position (and yours). Packaging hysterical overstatement as objective "common sense" should be beneath you. You've employed the same tactic that Al Gore has made famous: prematurely announcing that "the science is settled" and "the debate is over" while labelling those with opposing viewpoints as "deniers", "gadflys", "Neanderthals", "statistical outliers" or preferring "nuance over common sense"...then turning the drawn conclusion(s) into some kind of urgent condition that demands immediate action. You have your beliefs, you're entitled to live by your principles. But don't be surprised if you meet a bit of resistance when you effectively proclaim that your way is the only way.
That said, I appreciate your apology and I apologize for taking such a sarcastic tone with you. Certain discussions bring that side out of me...especially when the person with whom I carry on a disagreement would usually be found on my "ideological team". I made a few temporary enemies with my position on the Sarah Palin/David Letterman issue a few weeks ago, for example. Anyway, I hope to see you around on other threads...maybe we'll even agree with each other. :-)
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
pcantidote.Let me break it down for ya..
June 30, 2009 - 01:57 ET by upcountrywaterIf one eats to little, they will die DIE.
If one eats the "right amount" , they will DIE
If one eats to much, they will DIE.
You my fellow poster will die...
So eat drink and be merry...
Reagan VS Liberalism
For people (like me) who
July 1, 2009 - 12:45 ET by pcantidoteFor people (like me) who place such a high value on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you sure do have a curious ability to rationalize when it comes to eating habits. Of course I will die, but if you don't mind, I think I will try to do everything I can to make the one life I have long and vibrant.
Enforce Term Limits if They Won't: Vote Against ALL Incumbents in 2010.