The Real Crisis: NOT Junk Food but Junk Thinking

From Object-Thinking to Action-Thinking

     The word "junk", as commonly understood, describes things that are considered of no use or value, or of low quality. A widespread approach to human nutrition associates this word with certain foods like potato chips, candy, and popular soft drinks. These foods are often high in calories, sugar, salt, or fat, while relatively low in vitamins, minerals, or fiber. Low nutrient levels, thus, inherit the idea of "low quality" associated with the definition of "junk", when the true junk is low-quality thinking (junk thinking) that miscategorizes food in a way that enables moral judgment. 

     A singular focus on nutrient profile alone, applied to any one kind of food, leads to the conclusion that these foods fail to deliver what is assumed to be the primary purpose of food in general: dense delivery of vitamins, minerals, and fiber. The label, therefore, suggests indulgence, irresponsibility, or waste in the form of “empty calories” that serve no good purpose. In public health messaging, "junk food" serves as a convenient shorthand, a way to simplify complex dietary reality into a binary view of good versus bad. The food category it creates is easy to communicate, easy to stigmatize, and easy to regulate. 

     To call a food “junk” is to mistake the object (food) for the problem (eating habits). Foods themselves are neutral — flour, sugar, butter, chips, soda — each can be integrated into patterns of behavior that are either reasonable or excessive. What corrupts health is not the ingredient but the thinking that condemns it without context. Junk thinking reduces nourishment to labels, obscuring the deeper realities of proportion, design, and cultural practice. The real crisis is this shallow reflex — this heightened fixation on food things rather than eating actions. 

     No single food, or even category of food, fulfills the biological purpose of eating. Nutrition is achieved through behavior patterns attuned to a variety of foods. A potato chip or a candy bar may be limited in nutrients, but in the context of a balanced diet, it is not “junk.” Any problem associated with a specific food lies not in the food itself, but in the patterns of eating that primarily select only high-sugar or high-fat foods. To call any food “junk”, therefore, is to misplace the critique. The word “junk” properly belongs to the thought process and the cultural habits that misuse it. Changing focus from food to habits, therefore, is essential to understanding the real drivers of health. Only by shifting the analysis from objects to actions can we begin to fashion genuine approaches that improve human well-being.

What Policy Evidence Shows

     Recent U. S. policy has doubled down on object‑focused reasoning in programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) where soda taxes, candy bans, and other restrictions are portrayed as workable interventions to reduce overconsumption of nutrient-sparse foods. Researchers, scholars, and other experts, however, have examined policies like these and consistently concluded that they are flawed, misguided, and ineffective.

Nutrition science has moved beyond “good food vs. bad food.”[1]

Major professional bodies emphasize dietary patterns, not single items, as the true drivers of health. The American Heart Association stresses that overall eating patterns are more predictive of cardiovascular outcomes than any one food (Lichtenstein et al., 2021). Likewise, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association) has long argued for a “total diet approach,” emphasizing that overall dietary patterns matter more than demonizing single foods (Nitzke et al., 2007).

Behavioral science shows that restricting foods rarely improves habits.[2]

Studies of purchase bans and feeding restrictions find that people substitute one calorie‑dense choice for another — homemade cookies for packaged cookies, plain cereal sweetened at home for pre-sweetened cereal. Forbidden-food messaging intensifies cravings and compensatory eating.

Public‑health research consistently shows that dietary choices are shaped by structural forces rather than individual willpower.[3]

Food‑access barriers such as geographic isolation and limited availability of nutritious options constrain what people can buy and prepare (Kim, 2024). Skill‑based barriers also matter: many households lack the cooking confidence or culinary resources needed to turn raw ingredients into meals, a structural issue that undermines nutrition efforts (Wolfson, 2024). Environmental and psychosocial pressures — including chronic stress, poverty, coping demands, and time scarcity — further shape eating patterns in ways that food bans cannot meaningfully address (Faul et al., 2025).

Nutrition education programs strengthen the practical skills that shape healthier eating.[4]

SNAP‑Ed and similar initiatives teach budgeting, meal planning, and shopping strategies that help households make healthier food choices (SNAP‑Ed, 2024). Research on food and nutrition literacy shows that improving portion awareness and label‑reading skills is associated with better dietary decisions (CDC, 2024). Targeted nutrition‑education interventions have been shown to measurably improve participants’ label‑reading abilities, a key predictor of diet quality (Skalka et al., 2024).

Demonizing foods is counterproductive.[5]

Labeling foods as “junk” creates shame and guilt, makes people feel less in control of their own eating decisions, and reinforces harmful moral judgments about eating (URMC, 2025; Cleveland Clinic, 2021). It encourages black‑and‑white thinking and internalized “food police” rules that distort eating behavior (Psychology Today, 2025). These reactions distract from the real issue: building sustainable habits that support long‑term health (MedFitNetwork, 2023). Because humans are wired to move away from things that feel shaming, judging, or threatening — even subtly — a message with that emotional effect can feel threatening. If they feel the threatening message as the voice of a respected health agency, then they can lose trust in that very agency trying to help them.

Policy scholars call candy bans “symbolic politics.”[6]

These measures are easy to communicate but weak in producing real change. They allow policymakers to appear bold while avoiding harder reforms — addressing poverty, regulating food ads, or improving access to fresh produce and other minimally processed items.

Consequences of Flawed Policy

Stigmatizing SNAP recipients[7]

Policies that label certain foods as “junk” invite moral judgment of people who purchase those foods. Once those items are treated as unworthy of public spending, SNAP participants who buy them are easily cast as irresponsible or undeserving, because they spend public funds to buy junk. This feeds existing stigma around food assistance programs and reinforces harmful stereotypes about people who rely on SNAP.

Restricting commerce without results[8]

By restricting what can be purchased, policymakers claim to uphold “public funding ethics.” Yet evaluations of SNAP restrictions demonstrate that these measures fail to improve health outcomes and instead distort commerce, limit consumer autonomy, and create symbolic victories without measurable gains. (University of Michigan School of Public Health, 2025; Healthy Eating Research, 2025.)

Invoking ethics without any effect[9] 

Policymakers often justify SNAP restrictions by appealing to “public funding ethics,” arguing that taxpayer dollars shouldn’t support “junk.” But when these bans fail to improve health outcomes, the ethical claim collapses. Ethics untethered from results become hollow gestures — signaling virtue rather than producing impact.

Toward Real Solutions

Shift mindset from objects to actions.[10]

Provide opportunities for nutrition education, hands‑on cooking practice, basic budgeting skills, and portion awareness — the kinds of actionable supports that help people build sustainable, long‑term habits.(Eisenberg 2024; Dixit 2023; Ares 2024).

Address structural drivers.

Create policies that tackle the root causes of poor nutrition, which means expanding access to fresh foods, reducing food deserts, regulating aggressive marketing of nutrient sparse foods, and alleviating poverty and stress.

Reframe public health messaging.

Move away from “junk food” rhetoric toward habit‑focused guidance that incorporates the latest accepted findings from nutrition science, which hold that patterns matter more than single foods.

Invest in skill‑building programs.

Teach people how to cook, shop, plan meals, and manage food budgets — practical skills that consistently produce measurable improvements in diet quality.

Conclusion

     Given the evidence, nothing short of a cultural paradigm shift will meaningfully improve American eating habits. Real change requires more than isolated programs or punitive restrictions; it demands coordinated action across the institutions that shape daily life.

     Governments must design policies that expand access and reduce structural barriers. Schools and universities must teach practical food skills as core competencies. Medical professionals and their organizations must reclaim nutrition as a core part of healthcare. This requires far more training in food, behavior, and lifestyle patterns — in other words, a healthcare system that empowers clinicians to prioritize preventive guidance rather than defaulting to pharmacological solutions. Food manufacturers and marketers must also be held to higher standards of production, transparency and responsibility. And news media must stop amplifying fad narratives but instead communicate the stable established principles of modern nutrition science. Only when these sectors of society move in the same direction can healthier eating become a cultural norm.

Sources

     Sources are arranged in claim blocks of one or more sources per block, each block-number corresponding to the identical number shown in the body of the above article. With the exception of two government websites and one purchase‑only book, full‑text copies of all other sources are available for download as a collection by clicking ... HERE.

[1] ____________________________________________________________________

— Lichtenstein, Alice H. et al. (2021). 2021 Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association, Circulation, Volume 144, Number 23.

— Nitzke, Susan et al. (2007). Position of the American Dietetic Association: Total Diet Approach to Communicating Food and Nutrition Information, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Volume 107, Issue7, pages 1224-1232.

[2] ____________________________________________________________________

— Schanzenbach, D. W. (2024). How Food Purchase Restrictions and Incentives May Impact Diet Quality, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Volume 124, Issue 5, pages 565-568.

[3] ____________________________________________________________________

— Kim, Catherine. (2024). Food Access as a Structural Barrier to Health and Wellbeing, Healers and Patients in North Carolina.

— Wolfson, Julia. (2024). Cooking Skills: The Missing Ingredient in Nutrition Efforts, Hopkins Bloomberg Public Health Magazine.

— Faul, C. B. et al. (2025). A Meta‑Ethnography to Determine Critical Constructs of Nutrition Security, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, Volume 57, Issue 3, pages 167-184.

[4] ____________________________________________________________________

— USDA SNAP-Ed Connection (2025). Meal Planning, Shopping, and Budgeting, https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/resources/nutrition-education-materials/meal-planning-shopping-and-budgeting

— CDC Health Literacy (2024). Food Literacy, Research Summaries, page 5 of 6, https://www.cdc.gov/health-literacy/php/research-summaries/food-literacy.html

— Skalka, Amanda J. et al. (2024). Mixed Methods Evaluation of Nutrition Education for Limited Resource Audiences, Journal of Extension, Volume 61, Issue 3.

[5] ____________________________________________________________________

— University of Rochester Medical Center (2025). Why We Need to Get Past Food Morality.  

— Whynacht, Sophie S. (2025). How the Food Police Shape Our Eating and How We Can Break Free, Psychology Today.  

— Clark, Nancy. (2023). Food Shaming: Can We Please Stop It?,  MedFitNetwork.

[6] ____________________________________________________________________

— Boussaguet L. and Faucher F. (2025). Symbolic Policy, Cambridge University Press [Book available for purchase only].

[7] ____________________________________________________________________

— Guardia L. and Lacko A. (2021). To End Hunger, We Must End Stigma, Food Research & Action Center.

[8] ____________________________________________________________________

— University of Michigan School of Public Health. (2025). Restriction vs. incentives: The Complex Reality of SNAP Food Policies, University of Michigan School of Public Health.

— Healthy Eating Research. (2025). The Current State of Knowledge on SNAP Restrictions and Disincentives, Healthy Eating Research.

[9] ____________________________________________________________________

— University of Michigan School of Public Health. (2025). Restriction vs. Incentives: The Complex Reality of SNAP Food Policies, University of Michigan School of Public Health.

[10] ___________________________________________________________________

— Eisenberg, D. M., et al. (2024). The Design and Impact of Teaching Kitchens and Hands-On Cooking Strategies on Diverse Populations, Nutrients, 16(1), 1–24.

— Dixit, S. (2023). Nutrition Education and Behaviour Change Strategies, Effectiveness, and Implications for Promoting Healthy Eating Habits, Journal of Sports Science and Nutrition, 4(1), 1–8.

— Ares, G., et al. (2024). Development of Food Literacy in Children and Adolescents: Implications for the Design of Strategies to Promote Healthier and More Sustainable Diets, Nutrition Reviews, 82(2), 215–230.

[Researched and written with assistance from Microsoft Copilot AI]

.pdf copy of this article

<< BACK TO MAIN PAGE