(top posting only due to long post...)

Yes, the food police should shut up when it comes to deadly food
additives.

After all, dead people are really skinny aren't they? ;-)



In article >,
"Bob (this one)" > wrote:

> (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