<Banzhaf and others claim that like cigarette makers, fast-food chains have withheld information about properties he said make their food addictive.

His letter cites research, recently summarised in New Scientist magazine, suggesting that at least some fast foods, especially those high in fat and sugar, can cause chemical changes in the brain the same way as nicotine and heroin.

"(T)he public is much less aware of the addictive-like effects of many fast foods than they are of the widely publicised addictive nature of nicotine in cigarettes," Banzhaf wrote in the letter, obtained by Reuters.



So what's next - Thanksgiving dinner?

All food has that effect on brain chemistry to a greater or lesser degree. That's one way animals, including humans, know when they're no longer hungry. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether it's cooked by McDonald's and served in a paper box, or by Grandma and served on the good china.

If it's not thrown out again (and it should be) the key to this case - the chain of inference - will resemble the tobacco cases: first, the plaintiffs must convince the jury of the "addiction factor"; then, that the defendants' products are inherently more addictive than other foods with the same fat and sugar content; then, that the defendants should have known; then, that the defendants did know; finally, that the defendants' omission of the knowledge was deliberate.

When the Butterball in the grocery store has this label attached to it:

WARNING: Do not drive or operate heavy machinery after consuming this product!

...then I'll know things have gone too far.