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?

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.

Only by virtue of having the condition myself, I've long been ahead of the curve on food addiction. But it is catching up, which is (mostly) fine with me.

One of the blogs I'm following in my RSS reader is by the Fat Nutritionist. Her most recent post describes several quotidian food strategies that I agree with, but it also has this:

Plus if I don’t buy a frozen pizza, I will just order one at some point anyway. There’s no point in fighting it.

I just don't get this fatalism around food choices. There are people who go without pizza their whole lives. What's to say that this writer, or anyone else, can't go without it too?

I avoid celebrity news like the plague it is, but I found a couple of angles to discuss in this story about Miley Cyrus, which popped up on a Google Alert I have running for mentions of eating disorders.

The gist is that Cyrus has lost weight, forcing her Sunday to address rumors that she has an eating disorder. According to that impeccable source Us magazine, she tweeted,