Do these pants make my pancreas look big?
Never let it be
said that those cashing in on the "obesity epidemic" lack creativity in covering
all angles in their quest to shakedown a panic-stricken public. So you think
you are safe from premature heart attack and diabetes, all you slim and trim
people? Hah! Think again. According to some doctors you could be just as
prone to the pathologies that strike down your fat brethren. Your fat, however,
is inside your svelte frame, busily smothering the vital organs.
thin doesn't automatically mean you're not fat" and "just because someone is
lean doesn't make them immune to diabetes or other risk factors for heart
disease," is the message from these grifters who admit that they don't
actually know whether interior fat poses health problems. They "suspect" it
does and "theorize" that fat enveloping interior organs "might" be sending
the body mistaken chemical signals to store fat inside organs like the liver
or pancreas. Very much like the concept that “smoking kills no matter what"
forerunner of all frauds, here is the “you are fat even even if you are
thin” concept. What to do? Turn it all over to the experts. Stop
smoking. You quit. Stop eating. You become a vegetarian. Exercise. You
jog till you drop.
bottom line to these hypotheses without evidence is that "bad" eating
habits, the bête noire of the anti-fat crusaders, must be eradicated even
for those who are not overweight. Junk the sugar, discard the fat and above
all exercise, exercise. We all know, and perhaps unconsciously hate, those
few, lucky people who can eat what they want and all that they want without
gaining an ounce. There is no need to envy them anymore since they, just
like the obviously overweight, are in need of the firm guidance that pours
forth from the caring people who will make us fit no matter what it takes.
From Germany but about England: cheese ads to children forbidden in England, and
more coming for your own good!
– No more
cheese advertisement in children-oriented shows in England. Cheese is bad,
destroys the body, makes you fat and lazy and "causes" disease. And there is far
too much salt for children, anyway: take the word of the “experts”, they know
what they are saying. After years of relentless “studies”, our “expert” heroes
have finally labelled cheese as junk food. At the same time Homer Simpson will
have to be shown far less, because he gives “incorrect” dietary advice to his
On their side,
the cheese manufacturers are showing the expected butt-kissing attitude already
adopted by the tobacco industry, but with an even more 21st century twist. They make, in fact, the ultimate loser demand: equality under
oppression. If cheese is bad for health, they argue, what to say about
cheeseburgers and Coca-Cola, that are “really baaad” for you?
Forbid that advertisement too! In the meantime, instead of suing the
hell out of the "public health" crooks, shut down their industries in protest
and create a political problem (before it's too late), the cheese manufacturer
lobbies are writing a petition -- as the supply of toilet paper in the
“public health” offices is worrisomely low for the protection of the
meantime, God forbid that every idiot is not given exactly what he deserves, and
that the holy hand of “public health” does not bestow its wrath on Coke and
hamburgers to maintain absolute justice. Finally, the British “experts”
“recommend” the prohibition of adult-oriented cheese advertisement to make
anti-cheese campaigns more effective
Haven’t we seen this before?
workers cost their bosses more in injury claims than their lean colleagues,
suggests a study that found the heaviest employees had twice the rate of
workers' compensation claims as their fit co-workers.
Just as anti-tobacco “suggested” that smokers cost their employers more than
normal so the overweight are now being tarred as economic negatives. In both
cases proof is not required to demonize whole
classes of people whose only sin is not to worship at the altars of health. In
reality smokers and the overweight don’t cost society any more dollars than do
those who don’t smoke or fall into the proper weight limit as determined by
behavior control activists.
As they did with smoking civil libertarians are weakly advising employers not to
“overreact” with discriminatory policies rather than honing in on the junk
science that reduces people to a grid of numbers. The scandal is not fat or
smoking workers but the “science” that labels them so based on statistical
manipulation that never proves but only suggests.
'If you're fat you most probably won't get that job'
- Many if not most readers of this site will recall the days when smokers were
regarded as people, not pathetic, skanky addicts whose very presence poisoned
entire communities at a single puff. The people who brought us hatred of
smokers continue to work their foul spell on the overweight.
“studies” spring up in the media like mushrooms after a rain telling everyone
how obesity is linked with various diseases and how employers should suspect
lower productivity and fear future healthcare costs (a particularly compelling
worry in the US where there is no national health system).
Now – bingo!
Surveys show that employers are less inclined to hire the overweight. There’s
probably nothing new about that – attractive, fit-looking people have always had
an advantage in our culture. But in the current climate, it wouldn’t be a
surprise to find that employers are inclined to be more discriminatory than ever
The new twist
now is to look on being overweight as a “disability” in order to protect them
from discrimination. Pretty diabolical—we’re
deeply stigmatizing people while simultaneously encouraging them to think of
themselves as victims needing “help” from external programs.
So does this
mean that EVERYTHING which “could lead” to a chronic disease should finally be
regarded as a disability? With fat, we’re making a “disability” out of
something which is, at least to a large extend, simply an instance of normal
human variation. We’re pathologizing another aspect of life for purposes
that could include both exploitation of the system by the “disabled” person, and
exclusion or “special” treatment by government and institutions.
Perverting the language
health establishment purposefully corrupts the language as a tactic to further
its control over the population. Epidemic no longer refers to a terrible
outbreak of infectious disease but is unethically used to describe voluntary
behaviors such as smoking and eating. Addiction has been watered down
to include smoking, shopping, gambling as well as other behaviors that used to
be described as habits. "Proof" quite some time ago joined the words that
Big Health perverted for its own ends.
"Scientists prove that salty diet costs lives" screams the headline in the
Times Online introducing a story about salt consumption. Within not only is
there no "proof" but a close reading provides evidence that the researchers,
along with the media, have completely abandoned the epidemiological
standards that should govern research such as this.
People who ate less salty food were found to have a 25 per cent lower risk
of cardiac arrest or stroke, and a 20 per cent lower risk of premature
Add a zero to these percentages and this study would have warranted a news
story. Ethical epidemiologists are looking for at least 200% (relative risk
3) as the base to justify concern or intervention. These puny percentages
warrant nothing (especially when the data is gathered with questionnaires!),
as the researchers well know and reporters covering these issues should
know. The reporter, a Health Editor, no less, should have informed his
readers that 20 and 25 per cent indicate... nothing. He does, however,
midway down remark that the number of heart attacks and deaths supposedly
caused by a salty diet are so small that they could have occurred by
Considering that the researchers are rehashing previous studies conducted
one and two decades ago a more pertinent analysis should focus on why old
research is dubbed "proof" of anything. Obviously the researchers are
cashing in on the obesity "epidemic", a fertile ground for profitable
grants. The United Kingdom, like other countries, is badgering its citizens
to shape up and behave themselves. Anti-salt messages there are becoming
increasingly strident and this study will bolster the campaigns to alter
consumption. Like studies regarding the supposed bad effects from smoking
tobacco, the salt and diet studies have proven only that Big Health long ago
forgot why it is supported by a highly taxed population.
Calling time out on the media’s weight obsessions: you tell ‘em, Tyra
- Former supermodel Tyra Banks has come out as an unlikely (or is it logical?)
spokesperson for the idea that our obsession with people’s weight is … nuts. As
various countries “crack down” on excessiveness skinniness in runway models
(there have indeed been several anorexic deaths), Tyra Banks got called “fat” by
the media for flashing a bit more flesh than usual in a bikini. Now she’s
calling BS on the whole schizophrenic body image obsession. Take that, health
“… there are
models right now dying on the runway and people are saying that people are too
skinny; then suddenly there are these pictures of me and they're saying I'm too
big. And never mind me, I didn't really want to focus on that, but look, even if
I had been 200 pounds, would that make me ugly and disgusting? Because that's
what they were saying I was. And, if they're saying that, they're saying that to
every woman: and so many women are 200 pounds, so many do have that shape, so
that means that you're telling those women they're ugly and disgusting.' “
Bacon causes lung disease
junk "scientists" in the United States have found that eating bacon, as well
as other cured meats, increases the risk of lung disease. This
report from the British Broadcasting Corporation wisely omits any
percentages attached to the alleged increased risk so we can rest assured
that the relative risk falls well below the threshold of concern. If the
"scientists" had found a 200% increased risk of lung disease from consuming
cured meats we might concur with their call for "more studies."
The "scientists" attempt to cover their bases by invoking the incantation
that "smoking remains the single most significant cause of [lung disease]"
but will undoubtedly ignite the ire of the anti-tobacco pressure groups by
concluding that smoking, as well as lower class status, insufficient vitamin
C intake and bad diet, could not account for the increased risk of lung
disease for the cured meat consumption. Of course these days special
interest benefactors, such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, have
expanded their anti-tobacco ideology to include a bevy of "anti" stances,
especially where food is concerned. Having discovered the joys of behavior
modification through anti-smoking propaganda the "anti" advocates are eager
to increase control wherever hysteria roams.
Peril in the post trans fat world
yet again that they are never satisfied, the behavior engineers, despite
their successful campaign to demonize trans fat, are now singing the blues
that the proletariat faces new, perhaps insurmountable, challenges in a
trans-fat-free environment. The elimination of trans fat, dubbed
"heart-damaging" and "artery clogger", although no actual evidence exists
that this cooking material warrants such terms of opprobrium, leaves a void
that is being filled by animal fats, such as butter or lard, or tropical
oils such as palm or coconut oil. Oh, the horror! Coconut oil, for those
who remember the genesis of the modern food policing effort, should ring a
bell since it was the evil substance that food ideologues successfully
removed from movie house popcorn. As for butter, could there be anything
more insidious to good health? The "good" substitutes for trans fat, such
as olive, canola or soy bean oil, are useless for cookies, pastries and
pizza crusts. It's no coincidence that these foods top the list of
"unhealthy food" deplored by the food police.
to find a replacement for a solid fat that doesn't have the health
implications, and that's the tougher battle," says Susan Borra of the
International Food Information Council. "We are changing the entire
fatty acid profile of the food supply, and we're not sure we know what it's
going to look like at the other end."
changing the food supply and we're not sure what will be the result. Could
any statement be more arrogant and more reflective of the mantle of
superiority with which the behavior engineers enwrap themselves?
Historically any entity that proclaimed it was altering the food supply for
entire populations with no concern as to the results wrought by its
alteration would have been considered an enemy of the people and harshly
curbed, if not eradicated.
emasculated era, unfortunately, food supply manipulators are treated as
indispensable, integral components of the community rather than noxious
meddlers. This article provides propaganda space for the American Heart
Association, an organization that lies deliberately and continuously about
the effects of smoking, to dispense its nonsensical diet recommendations to
a public that has fewer choices now than it had before the social engineers
became a blight upon the nation.
Racial component of fat
Researchers investigating why Europeans are so fat have unearthed a racial
component that undoubtedly will lead to many, fatter grants for further
research. The numbers are quite precise: half of white Europeans
carry a defective gene that causes a 30% increased risk of obesity while 16%
percent carry two defective copies of the same gene, which carries a 70% risk of
obesity. We'll accept the researchers word on the percentage of white
Europeans saddled with the defective genes and concentrate solely on the risks
they assign to carrying that disease.
without looking at the data of the study one can easily figure that we are
talking about inferred causality and not about a scientifically
established one. “McCarthy notes that the function of FTO remains a
mystery. It is unclear if people with the gene simply burn calories less
efficiently or if they consume more food.”
These researchers know this, of course, but they also know how incompetent
is the reportage of the media, even in something called NewScientist.com.
Junk scientists also know how to follow the hype and capitalize on the
political class's need to "do something." Obesity is the hottest “health
threat” going, although tobacco research still rakes in the dough.
Combining fat with racial differences is a two-fer in our obsessive culture
where social engineers constantly seek to boil down human behavior into
predictable equations that can be dealt with by an overbearing therapeutic
health. As to the majority of Europeans who have these "defective" genes,
no need to worry. The numbers cranked out mean nothing. But what is
sinisterly meaningful is the approach – once again identical to
anti-tobacco: people who are fat (like people who smoke) are defective.
Next to what? Next to a defective ideology concerning itself with the
“perfect, healthy man” who is compared with assorted computer models.
We have been down that defective path before, haven’t we?... And walking
down that path with or without computers makes no difference. We discovered
then that this is not the logical way to go and -- even less -- the human
way to go. We have to discover it again -- because to err is human, but to
persevere is diabolical.
Soft drink tax
is poised to raise taxes on soft drinks and sweets. The country has a
history of taxing "luxury" products such as alcohol and cigarettes and now
is going after products that are considered "unhealthy." While
refreshing to read a news story that veers off script by mentioning
cigarettes and soft drinks in the same paragraph but labelling just the soft
drinks as unhealthy, it is disturbing that governments throughout the world
are basing policy decisions on pseudo "scientists" who crank out junk
studies that are more hype than research. The government is keeping
its cards close to its vest on how high the taxes will go and on what they
will be imposed but the ubiquitous "activists" hope for at least a doubling
of the tax rate. The activists also are clear on why taxes must be
"The problem is that we eat much too much sugar... too little fruit and
vegetables, and too many processed foods like potato chips."
As usual the operative speaks for the population at large, deciding with his
use of the royal "we" what will be done with the taxpayers who pay his
salary. The newspaper moves back on script as it reports that
Norwegians are firmly behind the government's plan to raise taxes.
Never before have there been so many people who want their taxes raised, at
least according to those who live to bilk the public.
Salt, the new Plutonium
would have thought it? Apparently in Canada there are 15,000 dead
bodies found each year, every last one of them done in by salt. The
numbers come from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the
American shakedown organization that wants everyone everywhere to adopt its
austere diet of self-denial. CSPI is not above lying to stir up
hysteria while pressuring governments to crack down on the consumer.
For some reason salt consumption is an inordinate concern of this group even
though at the moment "research" has been exonerating salt after years of
demonization. America may not produce any goods that people would like
to buy these days but it sure is successful in peddling junk science
throughout the world, no matter how fraudulent the claims.
Eat drink and be merry for dieting is no use
experts for years have been hectoring us to loose weight since we are too
damned fat. The message is relentless and accompanies the drumbeat of
countless "studies" proclaiming that the industrialized nations are
undergoing an epidemic of obesity. Governments have of course gotten
in the act by re-defining obesity and heaviness so that more people fall
into that category without having to gain a pound. Dieting has become
a chronic condition for a huge swath of people.
So what are to make of the latest research that seems to say "give up and
pork up?" At least that is one message coming from junk science
central, the University of California where "scientists" analyzed dozens of
studies involving thousands of dieters. The university's conclusion?
Dieting doesn't work. This is an odd message to proclaim during an
epidemic of obesity and speculations on the university's motives are just
that. One explanation is that the university is preparing to pave the
path for the pharmaceutical industry to enter more aggressively the weight
loss game. Just as those who successfully quit smoking are those who
do so without using smoking cessation products those who lose weight and
keep it off do so on their own using will power. Will power cannot be
patented but weight loss aids can be. Pharmaceutical money is behind
the studies that discovered an obesity epidemic just as pharmaceutical money
financed "research" that discovered that smoking leads to all manner of
illness and an early, inevitable death. Based on its behavior
regarding tobacco, expect a flurry of studies recommending professional help
and pharmaceutical aids to lose weight successfully. It worked
with tobacco so why change a con job that brings lots of money to Big Drugs.
A breath of fresh air
day scads of health-related stories hit the newsprint and airwaves bringing the
latest study to the public. These studies warn against newly-discovered risks
or tout the benefits of a particular diet or a special regimen designed to
promote longevity. Attentive readers and viewers over time often experience
dejà vue. Haven't I heard this before, they ask themselves. Well, yes you
have heard it before and sometimes you've heard some food or activity touted
to the sky only to be damned later as suicidal. Wine bad, red wine good, carbs
out, carbs in. What's a consumer to do?
Listen to an
actual expert whose job depends on results, not deceptive hypotheses. Speaking
at an American College of Sports Medicine-sponsored health and fitness summit
Wendy Repovich, an exercise physiologist, spoke of the health myths that mystify
the public. Eggs, for instance, got a bad reputation because researchers, aware
that the yolk contains the highest amount of cholesterol of any food,
transformed that fact into a panic attack that frightened people away from a
food that mankind had enjoyed for thousands of years.
avoid eggs and probably if they have any kind of cardiovascular risk their
physicians tell them to avoid eggs," Repovich said. "But really, there aren't a
whole lot of studies that show that one or two eggs a day really make a
difference to cholesterol levels."
however, a passel of studies, rendered into overwrought prose by our lazy press,
that imply (but never prove) that eating eggs is asking for a heart attack. The
sheer number gives the accounts a patina of authority that then becomes the
Truth. Years later the same grant junkies crank out "studies" that exonerate
the egg and the cycle is complete and ready to begin anew at an opportune time.
Critics of this process, like Repovich, have far more credibility than the
study-for-hire gang that produces results that please those who fund the
research. Repovich, after all, makes her living advising sports franchises on
how to keep the players healthy. Better still, just follow the wisdom of
"moderation in all things" and ignore the hysterics of the media.
Trans fat in restaurants: “at least as serious as the menace of smoking”
- The rhetoric of Public Health
continues to exhibit the same cookie-cutter tediousness day after day, week
after week, year after year. Another day, another crisis as bad or worse
This time it’s
trans-fats used in restaurants in Calgary, Canada, where the intrepid Dr. Brent
Friesen, the Calgary Health Region's medical officer of health is gunning for
promotion by playing the menace-of-the-moment game in the typically cynical
fashion of his kind.
But with Albertans
starting to wonder about virus and bacteria-laden bone chips in the instruments
used for internal medical exams (see story above) his talk of high standards of
restaurant hygiene ring a little hollow: “We require them to have utensils in a
sanitary condition, we're talking about a similar approach to preparing food --
there are alternatives to trans fats," he blathers. Does that mean that trans fats
are unsanitary now? Maybe if it’s low-priority, we could get
talked into the notion that unsanitary in hospitals and clinics is the “new”
sanitary? See, we can do it, too – play the bad faith topsy-turvy word spin
game. Are these guys actually getting MEDICAL training these days, or are they
all just appalling PR flaks in white coats?
Would Cass Elliot have a career today?
- Readers of a certain age will certainly remember Cass
Elliot, the full-throated singer from the ‘60s vocal group the Mamas and the
Papas (“California Dreamin”, etc). The header above links with a YouTube duet
between Elliot and John Denver, two now long-dead figures from what, in
retrospect, seems a much gentler and humane era.
We’ve put the link up on FORCES not only to give our readers a break from the
bad news, but to pose a question: as a fat woman, what would the wonderful Cass
Elliot’s chances be of having a career today? Would she be publicly harangued
(as Barack Obama is over smoking) to lose weight in
order to be a presentable or “suitable” performer for public consumption? Would
she be told off by newspaper columnists for being a “bad role model”? Would
there be discussions amongst the shriller “health advocates” about setting up
government-imposed “standards” to regulate who can appear on federally-regulated
airwaves on the basis of whether or not they appear “healthy”?
Anyway, for the
moment, sit back and enjoy a nice moment from free 1972 …
Fat good, fat bad, fat happy, fat sad
- So now, for about 10 seconds, let’s raise concerns about
whether people are getting enough fat in their diets. Yes, notwithstanding the
obesity epidemic that’s engulfing the world and the threat of ravaging
psychological devastation posed by thin runway models, it’s time to focus on
whether modern low fat diets are causing infertility. According to this ONE
study from the United States, ovulation-related infertility goes up by a
whopping 85 per cent if a woman eats five portions weekly of low-fat foods.
Of course, it’s
being reported as if it were information that general readers could actually
use, when it’s not. One study simply does not give us anything that should be
readily translated into “advice” for individuals about their specific habits and
practices. But undeterred, one of the study’s authors wades in to tell women
what they should be eating. It’s the fashionable thing to do, and the
university’s Public Relations office probably expects it: “Dr Chavarro said
that his advice to women wanting to conceive would be to change their diet.
‘They should consider changing low-fat dairy foods for high-fat dairy foods; for
instance, by swapping skimmed milk for whole milk and eating ice-cream, not
British coverage of the same story,
another health professional gives the opposite advice:
“I'm not convinced that there is any reason for women
who are trying to conceive to alter their diet, unless they are obese,”
says Dr Richard Fleming.
Two nations, two self-promoting “health experts,” two quick quotes. Just another
day hard day’s work in the dubious business of “health promotion.”
Champagne Charlie versus Ronald McDonald
- Members of the British Royal family are not supposed to make overt political
statements, but the heir to the throne has long been known for dabbling in
“issues” . Maybe it’s surprising that it’s taken him so long to jump on the
healthiest bandwagon. So now Charles has been “overheard” advocating a fast-food
ban. A statement issued later assured us that the Prince “was keen to
emphasise the need for children to enjoy the widest variety of food and not to
eat any particular sort of food to excess." How touching and socially
helpful. Never mind. How is the UK’s republican movement doing these days,
This year, Girl Scout cookies have less trans fat
Here’s Associated Press fleshing out a press release/publicity pamphlet from the
Girl Scouts, acting under the assumption that this is somehow of compelling
public interest. It is somewhat comforting to know that the internet, for all
its faults, is offering us perspectives that can compete with the vacuity of
“news” like this: “For much of the country, it's Girl Scout
cookie time again. And this year, all those cookies, not just the
and a few others, will come nearly free of harmful trans fats.”
And, by the way, there is no scientific evidence that trans-fat
is harmful - unless you believe in passive smoke!
Trans Fat Alternatives Also Risky
trans fats may be disappearing from supermarket shelves and restaurants, but one
type of fat taking their place may be no healthier, new research suggests.
We have trans fat, which is BAD, saturated fat,
which is GOOD, and now we have interesterified fat, which we just DON'T KNOW
yet. Well, hey, if we "don't know" we can use this one and sue the companies
later. Please note, the "bad", "good" or "don't know" isn't the object of the
discussion. The object is when it will be appropriate to start the lawsuits.
Public Health is not the issue here, the money is the true subject here, as this
tobacco/fat lawyer's web site clearly
Savaging the Girl Scouts
to NAAO president MeMe Roth, campfires and merit badges only serve as window
dressing for a baked-goods crime syndicate”
Hey, I’m just an alleged lowly “Front for Big
Tobacco.” Can you imagine the scorn and embarrassment of being a “Front for Big
What a sad — yet accurate — name for a
narcissistic, self-centered, “Anti-Mentality” agenda opportunist: “MeMe Roth,”
president of the National Association Against Obesity (NAAO).
“Oh, look at ME!” says MeMe, “I’m ‘Saving the
Children!’ What a noble thing I’m doing to gut finding for kids outdoor hiking
activities on nature trails so we can save them!”
Hilary Clinton — who
launched the anti-obesity program
Up America with Dr. C. Everett Koop in December 1994 — once said it “takes a
village” to raise children. MeMe and her Agenda-Afflicted cohorts would burn
that village down to save it and the children who live there.
Please note that anti-obesity
is modeled after anti-tobacco. The Agenda-Afflicted have “progressed” from
beating up on tobacco company executives to nailing grade school girls to the
agenda-hype cross-of-scorn. A better example of how far this mindless
grifting for Robert Wood
Foundation grant bucks can go.
So much for Democrats in the
new 110th Congress having any pretense of honoring voters’ mandate
It’s business as usual with a particularly mean-spirited low-note in political
Transfats! Step Away from that Copy of Seventeen Magazine!
- Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine picks up on a new study which tells us that
reading about diets is correlated with a higher rate of anorexia in teenage
girls. Commenting on this and a Center for Science in the Public Interest call
to ban food advertising to children, he comments: “Get it? Advertising makes
you fat; diet information makes you anorexic,” he comments. “Kind of a
‘damned if you do and damned if you don't’ situation. It won't be long before
the food and nutrition busybodies conclude that since information is toxic that
we need to suspend the First Amendment. Of course, they'll do it "for the
The tyrannical doubletalk of the transfat bans
- “Smokers have been relatively passive and have
allowed the anti-smoking zealots to run roughshod over them. The question is
whether those of us who wish to eat as we please will allow the food zealots to
do the same. These people are cowards, and here's why: If Mayor Bloomberg and
other food zealots think I'm eating too many trans fats, let them personally
come and take fatty foods off my plate or remove them from my shopping cart.
Since they don't have the guts to do that, they correctly deem it safer to use
the brute force of the state to control what I eat.”
One stiff study and this country boy is anybody’s!
- For the sake of public health, let’s hope that Australian researcher Russell
Keast is a bit more restrained in his personal behavior after a couple of drinks
at the local pub than he is after a bracing bout of research – ‘cause after just
one study published in the intriguingly named journal Appetite, he’s a-lusting
Yep, the most objective
judge of his own work – and unashamed to say so, Keast assures us that his dire
findings about the demon soda pop are "absolutely conclusive" and that
government should consider banning the sale of caffeinated soft drinks to
Listen to the modesty, the
restraint – after the inebriation of just one study (his own, of course):
“He said banning the
drinks' sale to children under the age of 18, in the same way alcohol was
banned, could be one approach for governments to explore. ‘I think if that's a
regulatory approach, that sort of thing should maybe be considered. I don't know
what the best options are, how you would go about such things.’"
Of course, he wouldn’t know
about stuff like that. Just a simple outback public health researcher on his
first trip to the big, wicked city.
Cheese to join olive oil and raisins on British kids' TV ad ban -
Cheese is junk food! That’s the message from British regulators as they
decide to ban its advertisement during children’s viewing hours, hypothesizing a
larger-than-average portion size to bolster their argument of “danger”. Cheese
joins a list of other advertising-banned foods which includes, incredibly,
sultanas, raisins, olive oil and various nuts, as well as a variety of
A National Farmers' Union
spokesman described the latest ruling as “mad” and “absurd”, but the industry
lobby is unlikely to put off the new breed of totalitarian-minded micro-managers
that the Tony Blair government has unleashed under its cynical slogan of citizen
She's fat! I hate her! -
We'll let the photo speak for itself. Perhaps we're hopelessly old
fashioned but the candid shot to us reveals a beautiful woman striding on a
beach. Certainly we know what we'd look like if caught unawares in a
Speedo on a sandy playa down under. Her name is Tyra Banks and she used to
strut the cat walks in Milan, Paris and New York. Over the hill at 33, Ms.
Banks has, according to a snide report, really let herself go and now is fat,
fat, fat. Ms. Banks rightly calls the gossip column that slams her girth a
"strange meanness and rejoicing." We'd prefer calling it hate but what we
truly don't like is how the victim of fat phobia apologizes for being less than
svelte. Never agree with the haters and never apologize. Hold the
mirror up to their ugly faces and let their obscene hatred speak for itself.
Obesity of China's kids stuns officials -
For veteran observers of the Big Health politics-and-publicity machine, it
sometimes seems like a Big Health Medium Term Planning Committee must crank out
these headlines six-months to three years in advance, stick them in a file, then
queue them up to be matched with a press release when the time is right.
Don’t reporters, no matter how
blasé, jaded and disempowered, ever get bored with it all?
Country by country, month after
month, “officials” get regularly “stunned” by the extent of obesity in their
jurisdiction, and become predictably very concerned about “An American-style
obesity crisis” in their own back yard. Wouldn’t it be great if some media
outlet had the budget – and the will – to follow the grant-and-corruption trail
we strongly suspect is a universal run-up to every “shocking” new “obesity
By the way, the lead for this
article incredibly manages to make it sound like bad new that “urban Chinese
boys age 6 are 2.5 inches taller and 6.6 pounds heavier on average than Chinese
city boys 30 years ago.” We should hope so. Thirty years ago, the Chinese were
getting by on sparse rice rations that were painstakingly calculated to provide
just enough calories to maintain an individual, and nothing more. The
availability of proper adequate nutrition remains an issue in some rural areas
As we read on, it becomes clear
that the real “news” here is that many more of the Chinese people are now
well-fed. And the final word is left to a Chinese parent who remembers the
bad old days:
Last week at a
McDonald's in Beijing, salesman Liu Guojian beamed while his daughter Xinyi,
7, ate a hamburger.
"Our daughter will definitely be taller than us. She has eaten better than
my wife and I," Liu said. "When I grew up, in winter all we had to eat was
But someone has decided that a
scary “obesity” headline is the only way to spin any story that contains the
Salt reduction demanded
A bossy, so-called health promotion group demands that the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA) limit the amount of salt that can be used in meat and poultry
products. In this press release dressing itself up as news, the Center for
Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) huffily demands that the USDA remove salt from the
list of substances "generally recognized as safe." CSPI wants salt to be
treated as a food additive, a typical distortion of reality that is common to
health pressure groups. The CSPI, which is made up of people who haven't
worked a day in a legitimate business, assures consumers that food products will
be just as tasty using the amount of salt the group deems sufficient. Just
as restaurant and bar owners are judged by the elite as too stupid to run their
own businesses by catering to the customer base they wish to attract, often
smokers, so too food purveyors are too dim to be trusted with keeping their
customers happy. CSPI is happy to run other people's business
without assuming any of the risk. The Center for Science in the Public
Interest is supported financially by a pharmaceutical front group so this
organization doesn't have to worry about where its next pay check will be coming
[02:30 GMT] -
Monkey see, monkey do
role of global nanny is pre-eminent as this article from Australia makes clear.
The regulators down under, or Health Police, as the headline describes them, are
champing at the bit to join the health hysterics in the United States by banning
trans fats. The author is firmly on board the ban wagon but doesn't have
any facts to justify her position. This makes for some hilarious reading –
the biggest side-splitter being her assertion that New York City is a liberal
as she gamely tries to justify the state's intrusion into areas in which it has
proof is in, so the author claims, that trans fats cause heart attacks,
hypertension and stroke. Too bad that
no such proof exists, a fact that doesn't make a dent in the author's
feeling that the "obesity epic [is] spanning the globe."
even the experts don't know how many lives will be saved once trans fats are
banned, they do know exactly how many billions are spent on drugs that lower
cholesterol. The implication being that no more trans fats, no more
need for cholesterol-lowering drugs. Add in the savings resulting from
reduced sick days, lower health costs and the reduction of health education
campaigns and the public reaps an enormous dividend by eliminating trans
fats from the face of the earth.
York's action on banning trans fats is to be emulated because it wasn't Michael Bloomberg, the
anti-smoker mayor who banned trans fats but the board of health, whose
decision to ban wasn't based on political considerations (!!!???)
- There is "no safe level of
artificial trans fat consumption." Just like one cigarette leads to
lung cancer and a whiff of tobacco smoke gives a non-smoker a heart attack.
- Banning trans fats,
prohibiting smoking in restaurants and bars don't curtail civil liberties,
they promote them.
The author indeed has drunk
deeply from the Kool-Aid pushed by the behavior regulators. Bring on the
bans! We, the great unwashed, will venerate you, our betters, for saving
us from ourselves. For an antidote to such self-destructive delusion, be
sure to check out the comments under this article from one reader from Canada.