Maybe it's not inherent in humans, but inherent in the interest of big companies?
No, I think it's inherent in humans.
First, we take care of our basic caloric needs, and some of our protein and nutrient needs - grains, beans and tubers. We can survive a long time with little protein and poor vitamins and minerals, we can't survive long with poor calories.
Next, we take care of our protein needs, and some more of our nutrient needs - meat and fish. We'll do better with more than the minimum protein.
After that, we take care of our nutrient needs - fruit and vegetables. We'll do better with a good amount of vitamins and minerals, having better chances of reproducing, lower infant mortality, better everyday energy and health, etc.
From there it's luxuries - soft drinks, junk food. We add things which taste good but don't contribute terribly much to our health. And after that we get someone else to prepare food for us - we buy processed food and takeout.
For most of human history food has been scarce and unreliable. There was the daily grains and tubers, but then only a gazelle every two weeks. Some people had a gluttonous gene, some had an I'll Just Eat The Salad gene. Then one day it was six weeks between gazelles. The gluttonous gene guy had some extra chub, leaned out a bit over the six weeks, survived and passed those genes on; Mr Salad had no chubby reserves and died, turned into Machinist Christian Bale and couldn't pass on his Salad genes.
For most of human history, gluttony has been a survival advantage. It's only in the last couple of centuries that some places have had so much food it's a health hazard.
Likewise, sloth.