An empirical study of the ethical and policy implications of promoting a food addiction understanding of overweight and obesity

• In Event: What are the Relationships between STS and Empirical Ethics? A Panel Discussion on Neuroethics

Abstract

There is a growing view that the increasing prevalence and intractability of obesity is due to a food addiction. This view is supported by neuroscientific evidence demonstrating changes in the brain produced by the chronic consumption of hyperpalatable foods (e.g. refined sugars and fats), similar to those seen in drug addiction. This view is not without its critics. However, we have shown that there is enormous public support for food addiction explanations of overweight and obesity, particularly amongst those who are overweight. Proponents argue that regarding obesity as a “food addiction” will improve obesity treatment, reduce weight-based stigma and discrimination, and increase public support for public health policies to reduce overconsumption, such as the hugely unpopular sugar tax. However, promoting obesity as a “brain disease” or “food addiction” could impair individual’s belief in their ability to control their weight or seek treatment. It may also focus attention on medical solutions at the expense of more broadly effective social policies for reducing weight and improving health. There is little research examining the impact of food addiction messages on weight-stigma and discrimination, eating and weight, or support for public health policies to reduce overconsumption. Brain disease explanations of obesity may actually increase stigma, paradoxically increasing weight. This paper will review a range of social science methods, including qualitative interviews, quantitative surveys and behavioural manipulations to demonstrate how empirical approaches may inform health promotion, public health policy and the development of clinically useful messages about appetite and the brain in weight management.

Author

• Adrian Carter, Monash University