Physical activity calorie equivalent(相等的)( PACE) labels could improve on labels that identify only calories and nutrient content, according to a new scientific review.

Under the proposed system, a small bar of chocolate would carry a label informing consumers that it would take 23 minutes of running or 46 minutes of walking to bum off the 230 calories it contains. The large-scale application of PACE labels could, on average, cut calorie consumption by up to 200 calories per person per day, according to researchers.

Amanda Daley, lead researcher from the University of Loughborough, said that PACE labels would present the information in a more accessible way to consumers than the existing calorie and nutrient content labels. She told CNN that the current labeling system “hasn't made a huge difference to obesity in the UK.”

She and her team looked at data from 14 studies that examined the effectiveness of PACE labeling in reducing calorie consumption. Researchers caution that the number of studies included in the review was small, and most took place in controlled environments rather than real-world settings, but still conclude that PACE labeling is worth trying. A reduction of about 100 calories per day, combined with a sustained increase in physical activity, could reduce obesity rates, according to Daley. She called PACE a “really simple and really straightforward” strategy, and suggested it could be used on food and drink packaging, supermarket labels and restaurant menus.

However, Nichola Ludlam-Raine, a registered dietitian and spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association, flagged some issues with PACE labels. Ludlam-Raine said PACE “ could be extremely problematic” for those with eating disorders as it suggests that food needs to be “burnt off”. It also promotes the idea that calories, rather than nutrients, are the main consideration when it comes to food, she added. “Remember, you cannot out-run a bad diet,” said Ludlam-Raine, explaining that exercising doesn't mean you can live off chocolate and fizzy drinks.

On January 1st, 2018, “gaming disorder” — in which games are played uncontrollably, despite causing harm — gained recognition from the World Health Organization (WHO). Last year, China, the world’s biggest gaming market, announced new rules limiting children to just a single hour of play a day. Clinics are appearing around the world, promising to cure patients of their habit.

Are games really addictive? Psychologists have different opinions. The case for the defence is that this is just another moral panic. Similar warnings have been given about television, rock and roll, jazz, comic books, and even novels. As the newest form of mass media, gaming is merely enduring (忍受) its own time before it finally stops being debatable.

However, some argue that unlike rock bands or novelists, games developers have both the motive and the means to engineer their products to make them addictive. For one thing, the business-model has changed. In the old days games were bought once and for all. But these days, games are free and money is earned from purchases of in-game goods, which ties playtime directly to developers’ income. For another, games makers combine psychological theory and data, which helps them maximize the playtime. Smartphones and modern video game machines use their permanent Internet connections to send gameplay data back to developers. That allows products to be constantly adjusted to increase spending on games.

The gaming industry should realize that, in the real world, it has a problem, and that problem is growing. Now that gaming addiction comes with an official WHO recognition, diagnoses (诊断) become more common. Clinics are already reporting booming business, as lockdowns have given games more time to spend with their hobby. And being put together in the public mind, fairly or not, with gambling (赌博) will not do the industry any favours.

I’ve recently found myself wondering if I could do without Google Maps. It is, I think, the only app on my phone I’d really miss were I to swap my smartphone for a “dumb” one that handles only calls and text messages.

Why am I thinking about this? It’s because every time I try to read a book, I end up picking up my phone instead. I keep interrupting my own train of thought in order to do something that I don’t consciously want to do.

This is not accidental. Developers have become even more unashamed in their attempts to keep us hooked on our smartphones. Some of them speak in the language of addiction and behavioural psychology, though most prefer the term “persuasive tech”. In itself, persuasive tech is not a new idea — an academic named BJ Fogg has been running classes from a “persuasive tech lab” at Stanford since the late 1990s. But as smartphone ownership has rocketed and social-media sites have been born, persuasive tech has vastly expanded its reach.

One company, Dopamine Labs — named for the chemical released in the reward center of the brain — offers a service to tech businesses wanting to “keep users engaged”. Founder Ramsay Brown tells me he wants people to understand that “their thoughts and feelings are on the table as things that can be controlled and designed”. He thinks there should be more conversation around the persuasive power of the technologies being used. “We believe everyone has a right to cognitive liberty, and to build the kind of mind they want to live in,” he says.

The poster child of the resistance movement against addictive apps is former Google “design ethicist” Tristan Harris. He thinks the power to change the system lies not with app developers but with the hardware providers. In 2014, Harris founded “Time Well Spent”, a group that campaigns for more moral design practices among developers.

Any tech business that relies on advertising profits is motivated to hold its users online for as long as possible, Harris says. This means apps are specifically designed to keep us in them. Apple, on the other hand, wants to sell phones but doesn’t have a profit stream so tightly connected to the amount of time its customers spend online. Harris hopes that companies like Apple could use their influence to encourage more morally designed apps.

While I wait for Apple to sort this out, I find myself longing for something called a “Light Phone”, a credit-card-sized handset that does absolutely nothing but make and receive calls. Price tag? $150. Seems expensive. But the company’s website is very persuasive.