This time it's the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Health Organisation, as related by the Daily Mail newspaper:

"A ‘fat tax’ on unhealthy foods, restrictions on junk food advertising and better labelling are the most cost-effective ways to cut obesity," a study finds.

I won't go into the tax issue again today, or the restrictions on junk-food advertising, or even the better labeling, which strikes me as inconsequential. But the story had a couple of commentable points.

First, and perhaps most significantly, the study did not look at the US! Seven biggies, including Russia, China, South Africa, Brazil, and India, but not us. We started the fire (to paraphrase Billy Joel), but it's burnin' everywhere.

Another: The study said that guidance by family doctors also can be a key influencer, to which I add, "Yeah, but..." Many doctors aren't on the bandwagon themselves, and they can't pass on what they don't understand.

Even though I always start with the effect on individuals, I like the study's focus on cost-effectiveness, because the pocketbook is how everyone is affected by eating disorders. I'm wont to say that very few people don't have personal experience with a problem eater, either personally or in their family. But because medical costs are shared in our system, no one escapes the financial consequences, which means people who can't or won't empathize with those whose lives are degraded by problem eating can still feel the pain, and perhaps be moved to act.