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.

I've withheld comment on pink slime until now for shifting reasons, and I probably ought to shut up still, but the topic continues to flit across my screens.

At first, I couldn't really get into it, and not only because I haven't eaten beef in longer than a decade: OK, ground beef has fillers in it. Not much news there. Yes, I had questions about treating non-nutritive meat trimmings with ammonia, but otherwise, I just couldn't get up for it.

The burgeoning fight around sugar toxicity has two sides: public-health advocates and the private industry.

For the former, the clients are you and me. Not only do individuals suffer from the flood of processed-sugar injected into every corner of the American diet, but there are significant and mounting collective costs as well: shared health costs, lost worker productivity, even national security. Every American, of every political and social persuasion, is affected by these things.

Just about every time I refer to the "Center for Consumer Freedom," I feel the need to acknowledge that yes, I'm doing it again — giving attention to the cynical, purchased slants of a collection of people who identify themselves as uncredible by their very name. They call themselves a consumer group — which is true and a lie. Yes — who isn't a consumer? But no, a group that is funded by industry but implies that it is made up customers should not be heeded.