I write less and less about the "Center for Consumer Freedom," because a) they're liars, b) they make my blood boil with their lies, and c) every time I mention them, I make it one grain more likely that someone who didn't know about them will be infected with the scourge.

But I just made the error of scanning that skanky corner of my RSS feed, and here I am again. "Leave the moo-moo juice alone" — oh, they're awful writers, too — is another screed against those, like me, who would keep chocolate milk out of school cafeterias. 

The choice of chocolate milk is pretty stark: Is the value of getting "extra" milk into children greater than the detriment of dousing them with refined sugar? Certainly it's no longer a slam dunk — the obvious ills caused by refined sugars may one day make us laugh embarrassingly that we used semi-poison to boost consumption of milk, which itself has questionable value beyond a certain age.

But I rise this morning in reaction to their snark. They call us "self-anointed do-gooders," which I'll accept happily — think of the world in which inhabitants declare themselves intent on doing good! But of course, CCF slings the phrase with a sneer, which is understandable, since it is composed of "bought-and-paid-for do-badders." CCF is funded by Big Food, which needs an "independent" arm to foment "debate" on the profitable crap it disguises as food.

The post goes on to say that their is "no reason to believe reasonable levels of chocolate milk cause childhood obesity." Try that one on for yourself. Does chocolate milk cause childhood obesity all by itself? Of course not. Does it contribute? How can it not?

Imagine the *un*reasonable levels of chutzpah required to use the phrase "reasonable levels" in this context. What is a reasonable level of sugar-sweetened "moo-moo-juice?" We're only suggesting once a day, with lunch! OK, maybe dinner too. What could it hurt?

Even if there were such a thing as a reasonable amount, is that what Big Food wants consumers to consume, what it incessantly markets its customers to do? *It* doesn't want you using reasonable levels, it wants you to buy more and more and more, doesn't it? Could anyone claim otherwise?

So it pays their minions millions — making them "overlord-anointed" — to distract us. Yes, perhaps I just helped them, a little, by talking about their tactics. 'Course, just because I ignore them doesn't mean they'll go away. They haven't yet.