I’m about to put up (out?) issue 27 of my What’s Next trend report (nowandnext.com) so here’s a sneak peek at just one of the items.

Despite the fact that, globally, one billion people are now obese, the idea that chocolate could be as addictive as cocaine has been fringe thinking for quite a while. But the theory is now starting to enter mainstream thought. As a result, some observers are predicting that some kinds of food may soon be legislated against in a similar way to alcohol and tobacco.

There could even be an attempt at a class legal action against the big food companies for knowingly ‘pushing’ food that they know to be – or design to be – addictive. Sugar is at the epicentre of this controversy. Rats fed on sugar syrup have been shown to develop behaviours that are chemically identical to rats fed on and addicted to morphine.

Critically, studies have also shown that when rats binge feed on sugar syrup their brains release dopamine, a neurotransmitter linked to pleasure seeking. This finding provides a biological linkage to sugar addiction and suggests that you don’t have to be overweight for your brain to exhibit such behaviour.

More worryingly, as people overeat, food makes them feel less satisfied, which leads people to eat more food to create more of an effect – a situation identical to the use of Class-A drugs. This may not sound like a big deal, but if certain foods can be proven to be addictive the consequences will be significant.

First, we might expect government legislation and labelling. Second, we might see significant legal action. Third, individuals might point the finger at companies and governments rather than themselves.

We may also see the development of food addiction ‘patches’ (similar to nicotine patches) and junk food retail may be legislated against, either in terms of taxation, zoning or outright bans.

Think this is far-fetched? In New York City and across California, transfats have now been banned in restaurants and soft drinks have been voluntary removed from school vending machines in anticipation of future legal action. And we might see some interesting ‘carrot’ approaches too. Companies that produce – or individuals that consume – low calorie foods might receive tax credits for instance.

So what might we see in the not too distant future? One answer is almost certainly more scientifically engineered foods to target the worldwide obesity epidemic. Nestlé, the world’s biggest food company, recently created a health science business to create foods that don’t make people fat. To some extent this may be a defensive action. Hershey and Mars have made similar moves, although the history of such adventures is patchy. Unilever, for instance, spent $20m trying to develop a niche slimming product before conceding defeat in late 2008.

But why are we getting fatter? One reason is easy availability of relatively cheap food (not for much longer!). Another reason might be stress (we eat to feel less anxious). You could also point the finger at more sedentary lifestyles, although research suggests that this is a red herring. Physical activity has hardly changed over the last 25 years.

However, what we eat has changed. The average calorific content of food has risen by 12% in the UK and by 25% in the US over the same 25-year period. In other words, some of the responsibility does belong to the food industry, although individuals aren’t entirely blameless.