![]() |
Powered by reason, driven by passion
INTERNATIONAL LIBERTY NEWS NETWORK |
|
| Forces Home | Multimedia | Educational | News | Scientific Evidence | Columnist | Archive |
STRAIGHTENING UP EATERS
Health before liberty - The escalation of food demonization in 2007
Commentaries and articles
logged up to August 20th, 2007. Later commentaries on the
frauds on fat and demonization of food can be found in the current
portal system, using the internal search engine.
Return to Eaters' archive index
May
14 –
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.
"Being 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.
The 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.
May 10
–
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
kids.
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 environment.
In 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.
May 3
– Haven’t we seen this before? - Overweight
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.
![]()
First, “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 before.
The
new twist now is to look on being overweight as a “disability” in order
to protect them from discrimination. Pretty diabolical
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.
![]()
"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 death.
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 "chance."
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.
![]()
“… 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.'“
April
20 -
Bacon causes lung disease
- Busy 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.
April
20 -
Peril in the post trans fat world
- Proving 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.
"You need 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."
We are 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.
In our 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.
April
19 -
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.
Even 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.
April
12 -
Soft drink tax
-
Norway 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 raised:
"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.
April
12 -
Salt, the new Plutonium
- Who
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.
April
12 -
Eat drink and be merry for dieting is no use
- The
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.
April
5
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.
"Most people 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."
There are, 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.
April
2 -
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 than smoking!
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?
March
9 -
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 digress. 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 …
March
7 -
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 low-fat yoghurt.’ ”
In 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.”
March
9 -
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, anyway?
February 28
-
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
Thin Mints 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!
February 27 -
Trans Fat Alternatives Also Risky -
Cholesterol-raising 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
shows.
![]() |
|
I-me-my-mine Roth |
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 Shape 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
So much for Democrats in the new 110th Congress having any pretense of honoring voters’ mandate for change. It’s business as usual with a particularly mean-spirited low-note in political mantras.
February 12 -
Forget 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 children."
February
12 -
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.”
February 7 -
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 after prohibition!
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 under-18s.
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.
![]()
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 health “empowerment”.

January 29 -
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.
![]()
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 crisis”?
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 today.
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 cabbage.”
But someone has decided that a scary “obesity” headline is the only way to spin any story that contains the word “food”.
![]()
![]()
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.
Advertisers | Who We Are | FAQ | Honour Committee | General contacts
FORCES, Inc. is a non-partisan, Educational organization which has been granted the 501(c)(3) non profit designation by the United States Internal Revenue Service, organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA. Your contributions are deductible as allowed by law. FORCES, Inc. is dedicated to fighting scientific, government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in public life. FORCES, Inc. does not support or oppose existing politicians, judicial members or candidates for public office.
FORCES INTERNATIONAL ™ trademark, logo and original material copyright © 1995-2008 is property of FORCES INTERNATIONAL unless otherwise indicated. Original FORCES material may be reprinted or used in any non-commercial form if proper credit is given to FORCES and original intent remains intact. All other material remains property of its creator/owner. All submissions to FORCES International may be subject to modification for clarity or brevity. All articles posted on FORCES International are the opinion of the writer and not of the organization. FORCES International (FORCES, Inc.) does not endorse or take any direct or indirect responsibility for any of the products or services advertised on its pages. Any and all responsibility and liability rests exclusively on the advertisers.