Michael's blog

Treat or staple of the diet?

One of the dodges that food-industry lobbyists and apologists use is that those foods are fine when eaten occasionally as part of a balanced food plan. I would dispute even that, because crap food is crap food, regardless of how often it is consumed. But certainly, consuming more of it is worse than consuming less of it.

Independent-ish, Part II

Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

Not surprisingly, the editorial board members of the journal Childhood Obesity whom I contacted for comment yesterday declined to do so. Some might not have been aware of the Kellogg's connection, others may not see the connection as a problem. Off the record, I heard more than one spirited defense of the work the foundation does, and at no point have I suggested differently.

Rebecca's House

Steady readers will know that I'm a big proponent of treatment for food addiction. In 1991, I got it — nine weeks in the eating disorders unit of an accredited psychiatric hospital, and it was one of the most important interludes of my life.

I don't want to go into the reasons why, but that sort of treatment is far less available today, and making a case for the diagnosis of food addiction, so that insurance will support its treatment, is the primary reason I wrote my book.

Another way of looking at it

Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

You may have noted my post yesterday on the lawsuit filed in California to prevent toys being used to entice young children to bay for a particular fast-food meal. I'm against marketing of unhealthy food to kids too young to distinguish between reality and advertising puffery, so I'm for the suit.

Here's how a monied special-interest group pimping for the restaurant and food-products industry framed the suit (no link provided, intentionally): 

McDonald's sued over "happy meal"

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has sued McDonald's in California over the fast-food giant's use of toys as come-ons to kids to purchase their products.

According to an NPR dispatch, "The lawsuit asserts that under California's consumer protection laws, McDonald's toy advertising is deceptive. It targets children under 8 years old who don't have the ability to understand advertising."


Subscribe to RSS - Michael's blog