The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
they know perfectly well that these foods are highly palatable um and what does that mean it means addictive and again if I was selling food I would want people to be addicted to the food I was selling why because you sell more higher margins if you sell food that people aren't addicted to they'll just move on to the other food that is addictive and and then you'll be out of business
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
The companies knowingly use science to create the most addictive products possible. the perfect combination of fats, sugar, and salt to appeal to your worst instincts.
these companies specifically engineered Foods there's a scientist named in the lawsuit named Frank Gada who may or may not have had a lab and they specific Al engineered foods to excite the pleasure centers of the brains and to excite the neural circuitry around dopaminergic reward behavior