Over at medicaldaily.com, the writer Evan Winchester shows severe gaps in his understanding of the food experience of tens of millions of Americans in his April 22 piece, "Is Food Addiction a Real Eating Disorder?"

I was moved by his piece to offer three points of rebuttal, which I then decided to expand on and share beyond just the readers of his post. I hope the context will be sufficient...

I often score the ugly mouthpieces of Big Food for faulty logic, especially when they recast reasonable positions as absolutes, so they can then “prove” their falsity. (Example: “There is no evidence that sugary soda is the sole cause of obesity, so soda taxes or other curbs are unreasonable.” Except, no one (except them) says it’s the sole cause. Just that it’s an egregious, unredeemable cause, and therefore a good place to begin attacking the obesity problem.)

I'm a little dismayed to say that I don't know how to use the coding provided to embed this graphic, which is why not all of it is viewable. But if you mouse over it, you'll see a button to enlarge it, which you'd want to do to read all the text anyway.

One of the tactics that Big Food's paid apologists deploy is class warfare. The pointy-headed, Ivy League liberals conspire with parentally support Berkeley students to take away gosh-darn good eatin' from simple folks like us.

Note to devious mouthpieces of Big Food ("Always with the negative waves, man."):

Something needn't the sole cause of a problem to be a cause of a problem. So when you fault any attempt to curb consumption of sugary sodas because soda isn't the sole cause of obesity, you're just obscuring the truth.

No, sugary soda is not solely responsible. The problem and its contributors are varied, confusing, and sometimes conflicting.

The onslaught of sugar in the American diet and its effect on our ability to sense sweetness — and other outcomes — is the subject of this speech I gave to my Toastmasters club last week. The assignment was to present a researched and sourced contention.

Please love and share!

I was reading a lengthy-but-completely-on-target article in the British newspaper The Telegraph on sugar dependence — boy, the Brits are much more on top of this topic than American media is — when I noticed this "top stories" box at its bottom.

Sex and food, yes, but the last entry is what moved me to share it.

"Low sugar hot fudge sauce" exemplifies what I consider some of the most pernicious threads of modern humanity:

I ran across a page from the National Eating Disorder Association that I thought was worth a few grafs (as in "paragraphs," a vestige of newspaper-ese). The page’s headline is “Factors That May Contribute to Eating Disorders.”

The good news  is that one of the subheadings is “Biological Factors That Can Contribute to Eating Disorders.” I, of course, expend a lot of my time promoting the biological aspect, without which “food addiction” would be the empty suit its detractors paint it.

During my recent inquiries into Health At Every Size, one motivation I’ve heard from proponents is that “people should be able to listen to their bodies.” And again I have to say, I just don't get, or struggle to accept.

Reason 1: To me, this is akin to saying that I’m not going to wear glasses, because “I should be able to trust my eyes.”

I'm trying to imagine the readers who wouldn't like the Plough and Stars website and blog being operated by two former Boston Globe colleagues whom I barely knew: Erik Jacobs and Dina Rudick. Both are photographers, though that's only the beginning of a serviceable description.