It's hard to know which is more breathtaking about the "Center for Consumer Freedom," its intellectual dishonesty or its harebrained reasoning. Either way, the come across so often as devoted idiots.

Yes, that makes me the chronicler of idiots, which I hope won't be my epitaph. But someone has to call out their crap, lest it be allowed to stand as fair, rational, logical discourse.

If you don't know, the "center" is a fake front for Big Food, relentlessly spouting off for corporate interests while calling themselves advocates for consumers. It is part of a warren of nonprofit advocacy groups funded by corporations so that the corporations can have their viewpoints spoken without have to take responsibility for them.

The latest example of bumbling CCF misdirection begins with the tweet that "Food police attempts to draw parallels between the obesity fight and tobacco fail the laugh test." Does that mean we're supposed to laugh and didn't, or not supposed to laugh and did? And either way, is this how we're supposed to advance serious discussion, on its laugh quotient? But OK, them's small potatoes.

The meat of the item (link withheld) attempts to undercut the comparison between the nation's tobacco experience with its processed food experience. It is an obvious comparison to make, with multiple points of agreement. (I use the present tense for both, though in tobacco's case, the past tense would have been better):

* Both are consumer-products industries whose profit margin lies in exploiting human biology.

* Both lie about what they're doing, because the truth would make them look bad.

* Both spend prodigiously on lobbying and to finance campaigns of those who will promote their interests.

* Both know they can't hold out forever, but figure stalling tactics can buy them a few decades' more profit.

* Such tactics include maintaining that the science isn't settled, so we should wait until it is. Global-climate-change deniers do the same thing.

The CCF, in fact, takes that tack in its post: "Obesity can be a serious issue, but let’s not cloud the debate with hazy and unscientific claims." More than 400 studies have established the brain chemistry. (Also: "can be?" We're pretty far past "can be.")

These and other obvious parallels help explain why shills of the processed-foods industry would seek not just to disagree with but to ridicule? Because the public's interest (finally) kicked the tobacco industry's butt, winning billions in reparations and all but forcing the industry to leave the country in search of profits.