I stray too often, but my goal on this blog is to share personal perspective, because foremostly, that's what I have to offer: I am a food addict, recovering from the obesity that resulted for my first 30 years. With 20 years on an altered path, I can share what both sides feel like, as well as the treatments, practices, and attitudes that allowed me to change.

A study published in British Food Journal and reported by foodnavigator.com casts doubt on whether giving consumers more nutritional information will lead to healthier eating habits, and I generally agree.

At Dr.

Utterly revolting, a McDonald's radio spot I heard yesterday foreshadows an all-family dinner which Junior doesn't text, Billy doesn't play video games, and Dad doesn't watch sports. It's as home-homey-home as Laurie David and other sages of the dining room would want it, right? But then comes the punchline: "Wait, we're having it at McDonald's?"

Few things sound as boring as a discussion of future federal crop insurance fortunes, but believe it or not, said discussion will be a fulcrum in the next Farm Bill, whether it comes up this year or next.

I don't care about crop insurance per se, but I do care about federal ag policies that subsidize some crops at the expense of others.

Because I haven't posted from "Britain's Got Talent" recently...

Friend and reader Casey Hinds pointed me towards Casey Seidenberg's post for the Washington Post lifestyles blog "On Parenting" and asked my take on its "all food should be enjoyed" message, vis a vis children and addiction potential.

It's almost impossible to be in my line of work — commenting on how we eat, with the goal of increasing respect for, and interest in, healthy nutrition — and not admire what Dr. Robert Lustig is accomplishing. His appearance on "60 Minutes" a couple of weeks ago was the the latest wild success he has achieved in bringing attention to primary causes of in the world's obesity pandemic.

It’s wishful thinking to imagine that attacking only one of the many causes of obesity will solve a complex problem.

What's this? The "Center for Consumer Freedom," a front for Big Food, saying something I can agree with, even if it probably wishes it could have this one back?

The LA Times dropped into the sugar-toxicity discussion last week, clearly spurred by the attention that Dr. Robert Lustig is winning on the "yes, sugar is bad for you" side. But of course, journalists always strive to balance their inquiries with opposing views, and those are the comments I want to share with you.