The food industry’s goal is selling more food, not improving health — and these goals often conflict. The engineering is measured, not alleged: hyper-palatable combinations are quantitatively defined and exceed ratios found in nature, 62% of foods in the US food system database meet the criteria, and the “bliss point” is a real per-product calculation — though for fat there is no bliss point, so it can be added without a ceiling. The most useful number for a shopper: 49% of items labeled low, reduced or no sugar, fat or sodium still qualify as hyper-palatable. The wider claims about marketing budgets, research funding and lobbying are documented in this companion’s further reading in documentary and analytical work rather than in measurement.
This companion covers the fundamental conflict, how the industry responds, and what it means for navigating the environment. (4 min read)
Known defects on this page:
- our own workshop voice shows up mid-article A few pages talk about our library instead of the world — the reader meets our workshop voice mid-article
- Our library's voice leaked into the prose. The underlying honesty was correct; the sentences are being rewritten to speak about the evidence rather than about our files.
- We overuse the em dash in our prose. We use the em dash more often than easy reading allows, and we are changing how we punctuate.
Written by AI, directed and approved by me. How this is made →