You landed on the pivotal piece of the entire obesity issue.

There is a reason why obesity is virtually absent in free-living animals and in humans who live under conditions similar to those of our pre-industrial, pre-agricultural ancestors. The reason is called a ‘feedback loop’. Nature in general, and metabolism in particular, operate on the principle of feedback loops [11].

I believe obesity is virtually absent in the above situations because they're eating food, and "food" per se is NOT addictive.

What most of us are eating in our industrialized world doesn't fit the basic definition of food.

FOOD: A nutritious substance that maintians life and supports growth.

Just because we eat a Twinkie, doesn't mean we're eating food. Calling a chemically contrived, nutrient-void product food " doesn't make it so.

So yes, your above reference is spot on, and yes, I believe it's impossible to get addicted to food, but what are the rules when we're eating stuff to which our bodies are not biologically equipped to eat?

Unless we get very clear on our definition of terms - and all-to-often we're not - then terms like food and obesity only further cloud the issues.

It's kind of like this: You, me and George are neighbors. I ask you one day, Do you think George is an honest guy?" If you immediately respond to that question we have a problem. Your first response should be, define what you mean by honest."

Without that basic agreement and understanding of broad terms like "honest", then anything we discuss is virtually meaningless.

Incredibly, before our modern diets, "food" was hardly a nebulous term! That's no longer so.

Much of the problem around science literature (or discussion in general) is that we often fail to have a clear definition of the critical terms that are central to the discussion.

In our modern era, Food " has become one of them.