When I saw the tweet a few mornings ago that Taco Bell would offer healthier fare, I RT’ed in a knee-jerk way, celebrating it and even claiming it as progress against the flood of food-like substances.

In a window-dressing sort of way, it was progress. Taco Bell puts sugar in its meat and is the contemptible promoter of “fourth meal,” so even if they're only flapping their gums about healthy food, it acknowledges that not everyone wants to eat total crap.

Friday, I argued against soda-tax proposals because I don’t see how proponents could win a high-enough tax to affect consumer behavior, which should be their only justification. And while weaker versions that were doomed to failure were being tried, industry would use them as justification to not try other measures.

Sorry, but I just don’t believe in them. Not penny-per-ounce soda taxes, not front-of-nutrition labeling, not vague industry pledges to make their food healthier ... at some specified time far enough into the future that everyone will have forgotten.

Note to devious mouthpieces of Big Food ("Always with the negative waves, man."):

Something needn't the sole cause of a problem to be a cause of a problem. So when you fault any attempt to curb consumption of sugary sodas because soda isn't the sole cause of obesity, you're just obscuring the truth.

No, sugary soda is not solely responsible. The problem and its contributors are varied, confusing, and sometimes conflicting.

I have acknowledged my possibly self-defeating urge to bring attention to bullshit that deserves no attention (see: every post I’ve ever done about the liarly named Center for Consumer Freedom (no link, intentionally)). But here I go again.

One of the great things about attending professional conferences is the exposures and connections that I didn’t go looking for.

So I was a guest last week at the annual two-day summit of the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood, and my acceptance of a press pass implied that I would write about my experiences. I guess I better get started!

Michael Moss’s Sunday Times Magazine cover story offers the goods in several respects, but no more so than at the beginning, in which he describes a meeting in 1999 — that’s 14 years ago — in which the honchos of Big Food gathered for a rare summit.

It isn't officially out until Sunday, but already, 5 people have sent me pointers to The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food, which leads the New York Times Magazine this Sunday. I'll have comments about the story in a day or two, but I had just enough time today to share this reader comment from Expat in Germany:

This is the last in a trio of entries (Part 1, Part 2) about a guest blogger Sara Ross's post at the maize-pimping website Corn Commentary that talks about "misconceptions" around high fructose corn syrup. It wasn't so spellbinding as to demand a three-part retort; I split them merely to reduce word count for a media-saturated readership.