(Food) Police Corruption Scandal

By Jeff Stier, Esq.

Nutrition activists like the Center for Science in the Public Interest
are scaring Americans away from technology that could help us lose
weight.

There is plenty of blame to go around for America's growing obesity
crisis. Responsible or not, fast food, sodas in schools, and even
SpongeBob Squarepants (see http://cspinet.org/new/200311101.html) have
all come under attack. But one villain has gotten off scot-free. Until
today. By scaring consumers about "unnatural products," "processed
food," and "artificial additives," the food police, led by Michael
Jacobson's Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), are guilty
of interfering with American's effort to battle the bulge.

Some background: The federal government's recently published dietary
guidelines (see http://www.healthierus.gov/dietaryguidelines/) provide
a science-based approach to healthy eating. But while the guidelines
are good, they are a radical departure from how most Americans eat
today, and for the vast majority of obese Americans, willpower,
discipline, and guilt only go so far. For those most at risk, the "eat
only good foods" approach doesn't work. People need help to bridge the
large gap between how they _are_ eating and how they _should be_
eating, especially with respect to the number of calories they consume.
Food technology, while certainly not the only solution, is one
important tool to help us get there.

Yet the activists fight scientific advances that could provide
appealing lower-calorie options, preferring to wag their fingers at us
until we change our eating behavior. They told us saccharin caused
cancer, for instance, and they made a big joke out of the promising fat
substitute, Olestra (see:
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/new...sue_detail.asp).
Yet the artificial sweeteners and fat substitutes on the market are
perfectly safe. And the food police hype hypothetical threats at the
expense of our effort to combat the real threat of obesity. Worse yet,
the predictable opposition to each new technology has a chilling effect
on the development of new products that can make food taste good with
fewer calories.

While consumption habits vary, imagine that a typical overweight person
drinks a 12-ounce can of cola a day. At 155 calories, that adds up to
56,575 calories a year. While it would be nice to replace the soda with
a more nutritious beverage, or with zero-calorie water, that is too big
a lifestyle adjustment for some people to make (at least at first). But
if one replaced full-calorie soda with a diet soda (while maintaining
the same activity level), that modest change alone would result in a
loss of 16.2 pounds in just one year. Similar losses would take place
if fat replacers such as Olestra and Z-Trim were made more available as
well.

Weight-loss aids like these will help people take small steps, rather
than demanding they take large leaps. This initial success at weight
loss may also motivate people to commit to an exercise program. Yet the
products of food technology, both products that exist and ones in the
pipeline, are demonized by those who are supposedly promoting the
public interest.

They're contributing to the health problems they purport to combat.
Isn't it time we held them accountable?

Jeff Stier, Esq., is an associate director of the American Council on
Science and Health.



This information was found online at:
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsI...ews_detail.asp