Tell Zagat that "addiction" and "guilty pleasure" aren't the same thing
The first time I saw this, I just sent a tweet, pointing out that Zagat blog — which one would think would understand about food — was ignorant on a major point, that “guilty pleasure” and “fast-food ‘addiction’” are not the same thing. But now I see, via my Google Alert for “food addiction,” that it’s a series, and they’ve got to stop.
The first one I saw was Michael Voltaggio’s “addiction”: The “Top Chef” champion allows that he’ll eat some McDonald’s breakfast product, but only if he’s in airports (which, btw, is a rationalization I can relate to; I used to eat popcorn “only” in movie theaters. But soon enough, I was going to the movies expressly for the popcorn, instead of the onscreen entertainment. But that’s just me.).
Today’s contestant is Ricardo Zarate, who didn’t win on a show I watch, so I’ve never heard of him.
I do get that it’s just a colloquialism, and that people talk that way. But they do so out of ignorance, out of not understanding that food addiction is real. It’s not a laughing matter to the people who know they have it, just like how “he was blind drunk” is a harmless description in common parlance, but not when you’re talking to a blind man.
Zagat is using the hashtag #fastfoodweek to solicit comments, and I'll be using it to comment on their imprudence and insensitivity. I invite you to do so as well.