I think it is willpower and the food itself. The food taxes willpower, which is a finite resource, and the food industry is winning.
I know the debate between big and small government is endless, but there are some cases of choice removal that are good.
The recent headlines that "CA are banning Skittles"[1] are emblematic of the power of the food lobby. They are in no way banning Skittles. They are banning 3 chemicals, 1 of which is banned for putting on your skin but not in your stomach. All are banned in the EU (I believe).
Google results for the quoted string above are littered with results that don't say one thing about the truth.
I don't think you can or should blame willpower here. If the carrying capacity of an environment is finite and you overwhelm it, you blame the stressor, not the capacity.
I agree that the industry is too good at setting the narrative and "flooding the zone" in the US, however.
I agree with your point about stress, but I have a more charitable read of GP's post.
As someone who has had these kinds of issues in the past, I think it's important to acknowledge the effect food has on "willpower". I wanted to eat less, but some foods made it nigh impossible to stop once I'd started. And I've noticed that they also make you not want to eat anything else, so when you run out, you'll buy the same crap again.
This compounds in other areas of life, too: I was a lazy slob because I had no energy to do anything, even though I was consuming massive amounts of calories.
So in that light, I think GP very much blames the stressors: the companies overwhelming the willpower.
You did a better job of explaining what I meant. Thanks.
I have struggled with a sugar addiction my whole life. I've read that sugar is in nearly every packaged food. It's just too hard to avoid, unless you make all your own food from scratch.
Also, sugar is everywhere. Trying to avoid it is nearly impossible. People bringing sweets to work, going to the store, bakery (obvious, but sometimes you go to pick up bread), coffee shop, etc. It's literally everywhere.
That's what I've also noticed. What helped me a lot, was that during university I wasn't particularly social, so I was able to stop eating sweets (by not buying them, and not being in a place where they were offered freely – think parties and such).
This worked to the point that I stopped identifying those as food, and would actually not want to eat any when encountering them, although two years prior I'd buy Snickers bars by the truckload.
Of course, later I more or less relapsed, by trying just this piece of cake when eating out. Which became more and more regular. Of course, eating out is terrible for this, as I'm pretty sure they put tonnes of sugar in their sauces. Otherwise, I can't explain why eating a steak in a restaurant will make me hungry two hours later, whereas eating the same-sized steak at home, but without the sauce, will have me satiated until evening.
I know the debate between big and small government is endless, but there are some cases of choice removal that are good.
The recent headlines that "CA are banning Skittles"[1] are emblematic of the power of the food lobby. They are in no way banning Skittles. They are banning 3 chemicals, 1 of which is banned for putting on your skin but not in your stomach. All are banned in the EU (I believe).
Google results for the quoted string above are littered with results that don't say one thing about the truth.
[1] https://www.today.com/food/news/california-bill-ab418-skittl...