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 context is yet another sneering attack on Yale policy advocate Kelly Brownell and other proponents of a tax on sugary soda, which I support lukewarmly, if only because in our fractured political state, taxes on anything will be fought to the last breath, and we can't afford to waste time. But I do think that no matter what CCF says, econ 101 tells us that raising a product's price will lower its sales; that the higher the cost to consumers, the less they will buy; and that few products have less redeeming value than sugary soda.

But to the larger point of the statement: Indeed, it is "wishful thinking to imagine that attacking only one of the many causes of obesity will solve a complex problem." But where most free thinkers would then conclude that we need to take many actions, the CCF sees that as evidence that we should therefore do nothing!

At first, that just seems awfully stupid. But when you consider that they are fronting for Big Food, and that Big Food wants/needs to protect its profits far more than caring about what obesity does to individuals and America, their conclusion makes much more sense.

But if they were going to be honest about their motives, then they would have just called themselves the Center for Corporate Freedom. They could even have used the same logo.