Eating Should Be Stigmatized Like Smoking

Prompted by a recent opinion piece in the LA Times and The Conversation by Dr Emma Fenske, an addiction‑medicine physician who argued that alcohol should be socially treated like smoking.

As a self‑appointed food‑safety advocate who monitors eating habits in public places, I regularly witness the catastrophic effects of food on nearly every organ system. It is often not until these patients end up admitted to the hospital that they learn the effects of food on various parts of their body besides their stomach.

Given the modern crisis of obesity — a condition affecting 42% of American adults (CDC, 2023) and 34% of New Zealand adults (MOH, 2025) — it is time for society to confront the uncomfortable truth: eating should be stigmatized like smoking.

The Group 1 Carcinogen Shell Game (Now Applied Properly to Food)

The World Health Organization classifies processed meat as a Group 1 carcinogen — the same category as tobacco, asbestos, and your grandmother’s Christmas ham.

This is terrifying. And therefore extremely useful.

Yes, scientists will insist that the WHO measures hazard rather than risk, and that bacon is not, in fact, molecularly identical to a 1950s shipyard. But such nuance only confuses the public.

If we are serious about public health, we must begin telling people the truth: Every hot dog is basically a Marlboro Red with mustard.

The Obesity Lens: The Only Lens That Matters

Obesity increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, stroke, dementia, infertility, and early death.

Therefore, we must assume that every eater is on the brink of catastrophic illness.

Just as Dr Fenske views all drinkers through the lens of the addiction ward, we must view all eaters through the lens of the obesity ward.

If your worldview is shaped by the most extreme cases, every forkful of salad looks like a ticking time bomb.

There Is Only One Cause of Obesity: Food

Some will argue that “it’s complicated,” that genetics, environment, stress, sleep, and socioeconomic factors play a role.

This is a distraction.

There is only one cause of obesity: food.

Every obese patient treated has one thing in common: they have eaten food. The correlation is undeniable.

Food Is Inherently Addictive

The global failure of diets proves it. The rise of GLP‑1 drugs proves it. The surge in bariatric surgery proves it.

If food were not addictive, people would simply stop eating too much of it.

A 2011 Yale study found that chocolate milkshakes activated the same brain reward pathways as cocaine (Gearhardt et al., Archives of General Psychiatry).

This means your breakfast smoothie is basically a controlled substance.

Calories Are Calories: The Quibbling Must Stop

Some nutritionists claim “not all calories are the same.”

This is misleading.

Too many calories is too many calories, regardless of source. Whether they come from kale or Krispy Kreme, they all contribute to the crisis.

A 2019 meta‑analysis found that even fruit juice consumption was associated with increased all‑cause mortality (Collins et al., JAMA Network Open).

This proves that apples are dangerous.

There Is No Safe Level of Food

Every food carries risk.

• Fruit & vegetables: often contaminated with pesticides (USDA Pesticide Data Program, 2022).
• Legume‑based meat substitutes: may contain phytoestrogens that “could theoretically influence hormone signalling” (Messina, Nutrients, 2010).
• Whole grains: contain lectins, which “may cause intestinal permeability in vitro” (Freed, Journal of Food Biochemistry, 2018).
• Water: can cause hyponatremia and death if consumed excessively (Ayus et al., NEJM, 2000).

If we are serious about public health, we must accept the scientific reality: There is no safe level of food.

Second-hand Eating: The Hidden Threat

Critics will argue that eating cannot be compared to smoking because there is no such thing as second-hand eating.

This is naïve.

Have you ever sat next to someone enjoying a croissant? Did you inhale the buttery aroma? Did it make you want one?

That is second-hand eating. And it is destroying society.

The Path Forward: Stigmatize Eating

We must follow the tobacco playbook:

• Graphic warning labels on all food (“THIS SANDWICH MAY KILL YOU”)
• Plain packaging for apples
• Bans on eating within 20 metres of any building
• Taxation of all meals consumed in public
• Mandatory “quit eating” hotlines
• School programs teaching children that dinner is dangerous
• Calorie‑tracking ankle monitors
• Mandatory fasting days enforced by municipal ordinance

Only then will we transform eating from a widely accepted social behaviour into one broadly recognized as a major health risk.

Conclusion

Eating is fundamentally addictive, universally hazardous, and the single largest underlying cause of disease in the 21st century. Until society recognizes this and takes decisive action to stigmatize food consumption, we will continue to suffer the consequences of this reckless, joy‑based practice.

What This Parody Reveals About Alcohol‑Risk Messaging

The conclusion above is, of course, a parody — but it mirrors the structure and tone of many contemporary arguments made by the anti‑alcohol lobby. As I’ve written previously here and here, much of the current rhetoric relies on hazard‑based framings, selective readings of epidemiology, and absolutist slogans that flatten nuance and erase context. By applying the same logic to food, the absurdity becomes obvious.

To restate briefly what the evidence actually supports:

Light to moderate wine consumption, particularly in meal‑based patterns, is associated with meaningful and consistently observed cardiovascular and metabolic benefits. These protective effects — reduced cardiovascular mortality, improved metabolic markers, and lower all‑cause mortality — are proportionately far more consequential than the small absolute increases in certain cancers observed at low levels of intake. Heavy, episodic, and dependent drinking is where the clear and serious harms lie; conflating this with moderate, integrated consumption misrepresents the evidence and misleads the public.

Wine is not physiologically or culturally interchangeable with “alcohol” as an abstract chemical. Its typical patterns of use, its social context, and its polyphenol content all contribute to a distinct risk profile. Public‑health messaging that insists on treating all drinking as identical — or that promotes slogans such as “no safe level” — does not reflect the balance of current research.