We spoke to JJ Virgin over the phone about what qualifies someone to be a “freaky eater,” as well as some of the more extreme measures they’ve taken on the program to make people confront their dangerous life choices.

This is the second season of the show, and there has been a lot of controversy about programs similar to “Freaky Eaters,” like “Hoarders” and “Intervention.” Some people are wondering if putting these people up on screen is helpful or just exploitative. What is your response to that sort of claim?

On “Freaky Eaters” we are dealing with people who don’t really fall into one specific disorder, one kind of psychological classification that can be treated. These are people that fall through the cracks, and they are desperate. They need help. I watch some of these shows out there that I do think are exploitative — though I do think most of them are more life-changing than exploitative — and I have to tell you, that’s not what we do. We do shock therapy, so you have people see the extent that they need to make the change, but I think everything is done in a very respectful way.

When you are dealing with someone who drinks gallons of tartar sauce and make them wade around in a pool of it, or have a guy who loves meat spend a day turning a pile of it into ground chuck in a freezer basement, would you call that behavioral therapy? Is that something you’d see psychological professionals doing if people weren’t falling through the cracks?

You know, behavioral therapy is really more what we do at the end of the show, what I call the “lateral shift”: having people make small changes in their lives. When someone is an addict of any type, the classic thing is to deny the problem or the extent of it. Shock therapy is to show these people their problem in a way that makes it impossible to deny or to downplay it.

What were some of the more outrageous examples you’ve had on the show?

The meat episode, that was so disgusting. We were hysterically laughing because the meat was spewing everywhere, as it was being ground up. The first season, we had a girl who ate 6,200 calories of sugar every day. She did all her shopping at the dollar store; it was amazing she wasn’t morbidly obese. So we had her lie down in a coffin and covered her with all the sugar she ate, and had her son read off a eulogy about all the things she was going to miss if she died from her lifestyle.

That’s intense.

We also had a pizza guy, where we had him pour all the fat from all the pizzas he ate in a year into a big bucket. And then we had him pour the bucket into jars. And at the end we had him dump the bucket, but instead he threw it, and it landed right on the cameraman, who was then covered in fat goop. And then we had a guy who ate 3-6 burgers a day, so we backed a truck filled with burgers right up to him and dumped out all the patties, just covered him up.

I can see how a lot of this is TV-friendly. Do you have a hard time differentiating yourself from the other TLC show, “My Strange Addiction,” where people eat stuff that is non-edible (like couch cushions, cigarette ash, and laundry detergent)?

People confuse us all the time. But what I think makes our show stand out is how relatable it is. I have people come up and ask me all the time, “This is what I do, am I freaky eater?” And I’m like “No, just because you eat a muffin everyday doesn’t get you qualified, sorry.”

Well that’s what’s so interesting, right? How blurry the lines can get? Because you’re not showing people with Pica, you’re showing people addicted to French fries. And I think a lot of people at home roll their eyes and go “Sure, we’re all addicted to French fries” until they see exactly how much this person is eating of it.

We did have a woman who had Pica and ate a lot of corn syrup, but that is still edible.

In my mind, the difference is severity … you can die from being obese, but it’s probably not going to kill you as fast as, say, downing laundry detergent every day.

Maybe not as fast, but you’ll find what we deal with is way more common, and therefore way more relatable. We try to get to the root of a lot of these issues on the show, because there is a psychological element to it, though a big part of being a “freaky eater” is biochemistry. Many of these people have a food sensitivity. They either are addicted to one taste, or they hate another kind. So the burger guy and the french fries person, they were both supertasters, they could taste things a mile away. And then this year we have a guy addicted to maple syrup, and he’s a “sweet taster”: nothing is sweet enough for him. These people can’t taste sweet well, so they keep wanting things sweeter and sweeter.

That’s interesting: so our predetermined sensitivity to different tastes can determine how hooked we get on a food?

Oh totally…we’re only at the beginning of understanding the biochemistry behind “taste.” It turns out you can taste things all down your G.I. tract. What we’re seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of some of the extreme forms of people with a tasting sensitivity.

“Freaky Eaters” can be found on TLC at 10:00 and 10:30 EST every Sunday night.

But how “friendly” is Ronald? A new study done by outside marketing group Ace Metric found that in a survey group of 500, an overwhelming amount found a guy with big red lips and white greasepaint more creepy than cute.

McDonald’s refuses to give up on Ronald, though, and its defense on why it needs to keep a terrifying clown as its mascot would be charming if it weren’t so ridiculous and backward. Below, five of the responses McDonald’s has given for keeping Ronald on the payroll.

1. Complaint: “It’s really remarkable how often I saw the word ‘creepy’ [in regards to Ronald],” says the V.P. of a company that conducted the survey.

McDonald’s response: “For everyone who may feel that way, there are more who feel the opposite.”

2. Complaint: Ronald McDonald is an evil clown.

McDonald’s response: “He is a force for good,” says McD’s CEO, Jim Skinner.

3. Complaint: Too many damn clowns running around.

McDonald’s response: “There’s only one Ronald,” McDonald’s chief creative officer Marlena Peleo-Lazar said in response to several questions about how many actors portray the smiling clown.

4. Complaint: He is hurting a brand image that is trying to be more adult … like Starbucks.

McDonald’s response: He is the brand image. “It would be almost as if the Geico gecko disappeared, or the Aflac duck,” says one marketing strategist. God forbid.

5. Complaint: Ronald encourages childhood obesity.

McDonald’s response: Around 2004, McDonald’s christened Ronald as a “balanced, active lifestyles ambassador,” and stuck him in commercials where he trained for the Olympics. He got workout clothes. He got a tuxedo. He moved from McDonaldLand into the real world. 

You know who can also move into the real world after being trapped in a fantasy land? Freddy Krueger.

It’s actually in CAI’s favor to have a scary mascot act as a deterrent for children trying to buy fries. It should be thanking McDonald’s for keeping such a creepy figure right in front of the golden arches.

“It was a short leap then to add the piquancy of a Cabrales blue (cheese), which complements the beef component of the burger,” she said. “Can you say ‘party on my plate’?”

Martinez is a big believer in big flavor in her burgers, and over the years says she has enjoyed many variations, including ones made from Kobe beef and seafood, even veggie varieties. But in the end, her blueprint for a great burger goes back to her childhood.

“Some of my fondest hamburger memories involve making homemade patties with my dad when I was little. He would season them with salt, fresh ground pepper and onion powder, then we would grill them over charcoal briquettes in our backyard, and the result was a slightly charred burger on the outside that was pink and juicy on the inside,” she said.

For the topping, it was beefsteak tomatoes and lettuce fresh from her mother’s garden, as well as her “salsa golf” (a mayo-ketchup blend).

“That was a little bit of heaven, right there on our plate,” she said. “Nothing compares to the burgers of my youth, made with love by Mom and Dad.”

BARCELONA BURGER

Start to Finish: 35 minutes

Servings: 4

1 pound ground beef

Kosher salt and ground black pepper

1/2 cup mayonnaise

Zest of 1 lemon

1/2 cup water

3 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil

2 large Spanish onions, halved and thinly sliced

4 fresh figs, halved

4 large hamburger buns

1/4 pound Cabrales or other blue cheese, crumbled

1/4 pound serrano ham, thinly sliced (prosciutto also can be used)

Form the beef into 4 equal patties, then season each with salt and pepper. Set aside.

In a small bowl, stir the mayonnaise with the lemon zest. Set aside.

In a large skillet over high, add the water, olive oil and onions. Cook until the water is completely evaporated, then reduce the heat to low and cook, stirring occasionally, until golden brown and completely caramelized. Season with salt and pepper, then set aside.

Heat a grill to medium-high. Coat the grates with cooking spray.

Place the beef patties on the grill, cover and cook for about 3 1/2 minutes per side for medium-rare.

Season the figs with pepper, then place on the grill cut-side up. Place the buns on the grill cut-side up, as well. Sprinkle the bottom halves of the buns with the blue cheese. Cover the grill and cook for 1 minute.

To assemble, place each beef patty on a bun half with the melted cheese. Top with 2 slices of ham, 2 grilled fig halves and a dollop of the caramelized onions. Spread the remaining toasted bun halves with lemon mayonnaise, then top the burger.

Nutrition information per serving (values are rounded to the nearest whole number): 658 calories; 333 calories from fat; 37 g fat (11 g saturated; 0 g trans fats); 104 mg cholesterol; 44 g carbohydrate; 39 g protein; 3 g fiber; 1,381 mg sodium.

When Scripps first announced its new endeavor, I spoke to NYU nutrition and food studies assistant professor Krishnendu Ray, who was surprised by the news, in part because ” nothing particularly interesting has happened to food television since the Japanese version of ‘Iron Chef.’” The format of most Food Network cooking shows, he explained, has long since hardened into three genres: daytime domestic cooking shows, travel shows like “Cook’s Tour,” and competition programs that turn cookery into a kind of sports competition. The latter feature professionals using skills that few home chefs actually have — a fact that, Ray argues, makes “cooking more watchable … but also less and less doable.”

So does the Cooking Channel inject anything new into the mix? Well, sort of. The lineup is mostly composed of standard food programming, albeit with a few exotic and intellectual twists. “Spice Goddess” and “Caribbean Food Made Easy” deviate from normal fare by focusing on Asian and Caribbean cooking, respectively. “Drink Up” will feature “creative and complex cocktails served by mad-scientist mixologists in sexy lounges.” On the more bookish end of things, Foodography will feature host Mo Rocca exploring the “past, present and future of iconic, classic and trendy foods” [Full disclosure: Salon food writer Francis Lam will be appearing on Rocca's show] and “Foodcrafters” will “unlock culinary treasures” from across the country (which I sincerely hope involves people eating things they find in safes).

More surprisingly, the New York Times reports that the channel may start featuring “documentary-style programming on topics like bulimia and obesity,” and Ray might be pleased to learn that one show actually bridges the gap between two of the played-out genres (competition and domestic cooking) he spoke to us about. In “Cook Like an Iron Chef,” “Iron Chef Michael Symon teaches viewers the skills and techniques needed” to cook like a reality-TV competitor chef — thereby making high-end cuisine more accessible to at-home cooks.

As Ray pointed out, if the Cooking Channel really wants to change food TV, it should really be looking to other countries — like Korea — to find cutting-edge new formats. The network isn’t venturing to Asia for programming, but it is going to Canada. As the New York Times reports today, at least six of the network’s shows will be imports from the Great White North, including something called “Food Jammers,” in which three hipsters assemble food gadgets, “David Rocco’s Dolce Vita,” and “Everyday Exotic.” It’s a move that makes sense given Canada’s surprisingly wide variety of original cooking-related programming. (Oddly enough, I actually spent two summers working as a production assistant and sous-chef’s assistant for a Canadian cooking show called “The Surreal Gourmet,” which revolved around former Salon writer Bob Blumer driving around Toronto in a giant toaster.)

What do we take away from this announcement? Obviously nobody has gotten a chance to see many of the shows in question, but based on this lineup, the Cooking Channel sounds like it might, without signaling a massive change, be a small step in a more interesting, more relevant and somewhat hipper direction for food programming on TV. It might actually provide programming that bears some relationship with food itself, as opposed to a relationship with competitive and over-the-top food media personalities. And worst comes to worst, it will at least have one sure-fire bit of quality programming: The network also announced that it will be rerunning old episodes of Julia Child.