The author makes a reasoned argument that highly processed "junk" foods are unhealthy and addictive in similar ways to cigarettes, using evidence that these foods are linked to poor health outcomes like cancer, heart disease, and obesity. The author advocates for stricter government regulation of these foods, arguing that public health interests should override corporate profits. However, the analogy between cigarettes and junk food has some weaknesses.

1. Questionable analogy The author relies on an analogy between our having ramped up regulation on cigarettes in the past, and the need for ramping up regulation on junk food today:

The 1970s was a confusing decade in which to be a smoker... Daily life bathed the brain in the idea that smoking was fine. Cigarettes were advertised in magazines, on billboards and at sporting events; they dangled from the mouths of the suave or rebellious in film and on TV...New "filter" cigarettes (themselves sometimes tainted with dangerous chemicals) flooded the market, falsely claiming to protect against the worst harms of smoking. Thousands switched to "low-tar" cigarettes in an effort to make a healthy choice...

And this is where we are, I think, in 2024, with what used to be called junk food, and which is now beginning to be called ultra-processed food.

There are some key disanalogies between regulating cigarettes and regulating junk food. With cigarettes, it is unambiguous what products would fall under increased regulation - any product containing tobacco would reasonably be included. However, the definition of "junk food" or "ultra-processed food" is much less clear cut. There are open questions like: At what threshold of sugar/salt/fat content does food become "junk food"?  Are ingredients like preservatives or artificial flavors always problematic? What allowances should be made for overall nutrition and inclusion of fruits/vegetables/protein in a product?

Another disanalogy is that cigarettes are unhealthy when used as intended, whereas some foods that may be deemed "junk foods" can be part of a healthy diet for some individuals when consumed in moderation (again, depending on the definition of what counts as junk food).

Yet another potential disanalogy is that cigarettes contain a physically addictive substance -- nicotine, which can be addictive in any amount -- and it is not clear that a comparable level of addictiveness can be attributed to ingredients in junk food. Sugar is not addictive in merely any amount, and neither is fat or salt.

​Altogether, there are enough differences that it is questionable to rely on the analogy for any firm conclusions.

Additional Observations:

• The author comes close to a false dilemma fallacy, regarding regulation as the only alternative to allowing junk food consumption to remain unchecked, and dismissing other alternatives like self-regulation or public education.

And regulation is the only way. Highly processed food is profitable - the business models of the world's largest food companies rely on it. Expecting them to fix themselves is like expecting a tired and hungry commuter to resist a burger. Good intentions and willpower go only so far.

In this passage the author at least briefly addresses alternatives to regulation -- only to summarily dismiss them.     Expecting companies to voluntarily self-reform is dismissed as unrealistic given business model incentives and profits driving unhealthy options. Relying on consumer willpower and good intentions alone is also portrayed as insufficient in the burger analogy.

In logical terms, the author is not completely constructing a "false" dilemma as alternatives are addressed, albeit quickly. While other options are not ignored, however, they are downplayed or minimized.

• There is some emotive language in the text: describing junk food as something we are "hardwired to find it difficult to resist", implying the food industry's products are "a scourge," referring to food companies "churning out" and "flooding the market" with unhealthy products, and describing the situation as an "uneasy transition between denial and nihilistic acceptance."However, these sporadic instances of emotive language seem like rhetorical flourishes intended to emphasize urgency rather than to usurp the role of factual evidence. Because the author does not depend on these phrases to draw conclusions, they do not constitute a fallacy of appeal to emotion.