(Food) Police Corruption Scandal

By Jeff Stier, Esq.

Nutrition activists like the Center for Science in the Public Interest
are scaring Americans away from technology that could help us lose
weight.

There is plenty of blame to go around for America's growing obesity
crisis. Responsible or not, fast food, sodas in schools, and even
SpongeBob Squarepants (see http://cspinet.org/new/200311101.html) have
all come under attack. But one villain has gotten off scot-free. Until
today. By scaring consumers about "unnatural products," "processed
food," and "artificial additives," the food police, led by Michael
Jacobson's Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), are guilty
of interfering with American's effort to battle the bulge.

Some background: The federal government's recently published dietary
guidelines (see http://www.healthierus.gov/dietaryguidelines/) provide
a science-based approach to healthy eating. But while the guidelines
are good, they are a radical departure from how most Americans eat
today, and for the vast majority of obese Americans, willpower,
discipline, and guilt only go so far. For those most at risk, the "eat
only good foods" approach doesn't work. People need help to bridge the
large gap between how they _are_ eating and how they _should be_
eating, especially with respect to the number of calories they consume.
Food technology, while certainly not the only solution, is one
important tool to help us get there.

Yet the activists fight scientific advances that could provide
appealing lower-calorie options, preferring to wag their fingers at us
until we change our eating behavior. They told us saccharin caused
cancer, for instance, and they made a big joke out of the promising fat
substitute, Olestra (see:
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/new...sue_detail.asp).
Yet the artificial sweeteners and fat substitutes on the market are
perfectly safe. And the food police hype hypothetical threats at the
expense of our effort to combat the real threat of obesity. Worse yet,
the predictable opposition to each new technology has a chilling effect
on the development of new products that can make food taste good with
fewer calories.

While consumption habits vary, imagine that a typical overweight person
drinks a 12-ounce can of cola a day. At 155 calories, that adds up to
56,575 calories a year. While it would be nice to replace the soda with
a more nutritious beverage, or with zero-calorie water, that is too big
a lifestyle adjustment for some people to make (at least at first). But
if one replaced full-calorie soda with a diet soda (while maintaining
the same activity level), that modest change alone would result in a
loss of 16.2 pounds in just one year. Similar losses would take place
if fat replacers such as Olestra and Z-Trim were made more available as
well.

Weight-loss aids like these will help people take small steps, rather
than demanding they take large leaps. This initial success at weight
loss may also motivate people to commit to an exercise program. Yet the
products of food technology, both products that exist and ones in the
pipeline, are demonized by those who are supposedly promoting the
public interest.

They're contributing to the health problems they purport to combat.
Isn't it time we held them accountable?

Jeff Stier, Esq., is an associate director of the American Council on
Science and Health.



This information was found online at:
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsI...ews_detail.asp

(top posting only due to long post...)

Yes, the food police should shut up when it comes to deadly food
additives.

After all, dead people are really skinny aren't they? ;-)



In article >,
"Bob (this one)" > wrote:

> (Food) Police Corruption Scandal
>
> By Jeff Stier, Esq.
>
> Nutrition activists like the Center for Science in the Public Interest
> are scaring Americans away from technology that could help us lose
> weight.
>
> There is plenty of blame to go around for America's growing obesity
> crisis. Responsible or not, fast food, sodas in schools, and even
> SpongeBob Squarepants (see http://cspinet.org/new/200311101.html) have
> all come under attack. But one villain has gotten off scot-free. Until
> today. By scaring consumers about "unnatural products," "processed
> food," and "artificial additives," the food police, led by Michael
> Jacobson's Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), are guilty
> of interfering with American's effort to battle the bulge.
>
> Some background: The federal government's recently published dietary
> guidelines (see http://www.healthierus.gov/dietaryguidelines/) provide
> a science-based approach to healthy eating. But while the guidelines
> are good, they are a radical departure from how most Americans eat
> today, and for the vast majority of obese Americans, willpower,
> discipline, and guilt only go so far. For those most at risk, the "eat
> only good foods" approach doesn't work. People need help to bridge the
> large gap between how they _are_ eating and how they _should be_
> eating, especially with respect to the number of calories they consume.
> Food technology, while certainly not the only solution, is one
> important tool to help us get there.
>
> Yet the activists fight scientific advances that could provide
> appealing lower-calorie options, preferring to wag their fingers at us
> until we change our eating behavior. They told us saccharin caused
> cancer, for instance, and they made a big joke out of the promising fat
> substitute, Olestra (see:
> http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/new...sue_detail.asp).
> Yet the artificial sweeteners and fat substitutes on the market are
> perfectly safe. And the food police hype hypothetical threats at the
> expense of our effort to combat the real threat of obesity. Worse yet,
> the predictable opposition to each new technology has a chilling effect
> on the development of new products that can make food taste good with
> fewer calories.
>
> While consumption habits vary, imagine that a typical overweight person
> drinks a 12-ounce can of cola a day. At 155 calories, that adds up to
> 56,575 calories a year. While it would be nice to replace the soda with
> a more nutritious beverage, or with zero-calorie water, that is too big
> a lifestyle adjustment for some people to make (at least at first). But
> if one replaced full-calorie soda with a diet soda (while maintaining
> the same activity level), that modest change alone would result in a
> loss of 16.2 pounds in just one year. Similar losses would take place
> if fat replacers such as Olestra and Z-Trim were made more available as
> well.
>
> Weight-loss aids like these will help people take small steps, rather
> than demanding they take large leaps. This initial success at weight
> loss may also motivate people to commit to an exercise program. Yet the
> products of food technology, both products that exist and ones in the
> pipeline, are demonized by those who are supposedly promoting the
> public interest.
>
> They're contributing to the health problems they purport to combat.
> Isn't it time we held them accountable?
>
> Jeff Stier, Esq., is an associate director of the American Council on
> Science and Health.
>
>
>
> This information was found online at:
> http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsI...ews_detail.asp

Not That It Matters wrote:

> (top posting only due to long post...)

Perhaps the concept of editing is too difficult...?

> Yes, the food police should shut up when it comes to deadly food
> additives.

Well, you named yourself well. Nothing matters when it doesn't apply to
the topic at hand. There aren't any "deadly food additives" mentioned in
the piece. I guess you just felt the need to type something... Anything.

> After all, dead people are really skinny aren't they? ;-)

What a splendidly stupid thing to say.

Sounds like NTIM is endorsing the wacko "Center for Science in the
Public Interest." Those cranks who are neither scientific nor operating
in the public interest.

Intelligent...? Not that it matters...

Pastorio

> In article >,
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote:
>
>
>>(Food) Police Corruption Scandal
>>
>>By Jeff Stier, Esq.
>>
>>Nutrition activists like the Center for Science in the Public Interest
>>are scaring Americans away from technology that could help us lose
>>weight.
>>
>>There is plenty of blame to go around for America's growing obesity
>>crisis. Responsible or not, fast food, sodas in schools, and even
>>SpongeBob Squarepants (see http://cspinet.org/new/200311101.html) have
>>all come under attack. But one villain has gotten off scot-free. Until
>>today. By scaring consumers about "unnatural products," "processed
>>food," and "artificial additives," the food police, led by Michael
>>Jacobson's Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), are guilty
>>of interfering with American's effort to battle the bulge.
>>
>>Some background: The federal government's recently published dietary
>>guidelines (see http://www.healthierus.gov/dietaryguidelines/) provide
>>a science-based approach to healthy eating. But while the guidelines
>>are good, they are a radical departure from how most Americans eat
>>today, and for the vast majority of obese Americans, willpower,
>>discipline, and guilt only go so far. For those most at risk, the "eat
>>only good foods" approach doesn't work. People need help to bridge the
>>large gap between how they _are_ eating and how they _should be_
>>eating, especially with respect to the number of calories they consume.
>>Food technology, while certainly not the only solution, is one
>>important tool to help us get there.
>>
>>Yet the activists fight scientific advances that could provide
>>appealing lower-calorie options, preferring to wag their fingers at us
>>until we change our eating behavior. They told us saccharin caused
>>cancer, for instance, and they made a big joke out of the promising fat
>>substitute, Olestra (see:
>>http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/new...sue_detail.asp).
>>Yet the artificial sweeteners and fat substitutes on the market are
>>perfectly safe. And the food police hype hypothetical threats at the
>>expense of our effort to combat the real threat of obesity. Worse yet,
>>the predictable opposition to each new technology has a chilling effect
>>on the development of new products that can make food taste good with
>>fewer calories.
>>
>>While consumption habits vary, imagine that a typical overweight person
>>drinks a 12-ounce can of cola a day. At 155 calories, that adds up to
>>56,575 calories a year. While it would be nice to replace the soda with
>>a more nutritious beverage, or with zero-calorie water, that is too big
>>a lifestyle adjustment for some people to make (at least at first). But
>>if one replaced full-calorie soda with a diet soda (while maintaining
>>the same activity level), that modest change alone would result in a
>>loss of 16.2 pounds in just one year. Similar losses would take place
>>if fat replacers such as Olestra and Z-Trim were made more available as
>>well.
>>
>>Weight-loss aids like these will help people take small steps, rather
>>than demanding they take large leaps. This initial success at weight
>>loss may also motivate people to commit to an exercise program. Yet the
>>products of food technology, both products that exist and ones in the
>>pipeline, are demonized by those who are supposedly promoting the
>>public interest.
>>
>>They're contributing to the health problems they purport to combat.
>>Isn't it time we held them accountable?
>>
>>Jeff Stier, Esq., is an associate director of the American Council on
>>Science and Health.
>>
>>This information was found online at:
>>http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsI...ews_detail.asp

Bob (this one) wrote:
> (Food) Police Corruption Scandal
>
> By Jeff Stier, Esq.
>
> Nutrition activists like the Center for Science in the Public Interest
> are scaring Americans away from technology that could help us lose
> weight.
>
> There is plenty of blame to go around for America's growing obesity
> crisis. Responsible or not, fast food, sodas in schools, and even
> SpongeBob Squarepants (see http://cspinet.org/new/200311101.html) have
> all come under attack. But one villain has gotten off scot-free. Until
> today. By scaring consumers about "unnatural products," "processed
> food," and "artificial additives," the food police, led by Michael
> Jacobson's Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), are guilty
> of interfering with American's effort to battle the bulge.
>
> Some background: The federal government's recently published dietary
> guidelines (see http://www.healthierus.gov/dietaryguidelines/) provide
> a science-based approach to healthy eating. But while the guidelines
> are good, they are a radical departure from how most Americans eat
> today, and for the vast majority of obese Americans, willpower,
> discipline, and guilt only go so far. For those most at risk, the "eat
> only good foods" approach doesn't work. People need help to bridge the
> large gap between how they _are_ eating and how they _should be_
> eating, especially with respect to the number of calories they consume.
> Food technology, while certainly not the only solution, is one
> important tool to help us get there.
>
> Yet the activists fight scientific advances that could provide
> appealing lower-calorie options, preferring to wag their fingers at us
> until we change our eating behavior. They told us saccharin caused
> cancer, for instance, and they made a big joke out of the promising fat
> substitute, Olestra (see:
> http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/new...sue_detail.asp).
> Yet the artificial sweeteners and fat substitutes on the market are
> perfectly safe. And the food police hype hypothetical threats at the
> expense of our effort to combat the real threat of obesity. Worse yet,
> the predictable opposition to each new technology has a chilling effect
> on the development of new products that can make food taste good with
> fewer calories.
[snip]

It's the same as gun control in Chicago. The politicians rail against a
problem, while their policies make things worse -- they have a vested
interest in prolonging the problem. If the problem ever goes away, from
what will they draw power? Meanwhile, the stupid people keep reelecting
them because they are seen as *at least doing something*.

Bob

Bob (this one) wrote:
> (Food) Police Corruption Scandal
>
> By Jeff Stier, Esq.
>
> Nutrition activists like the Center for Science in the Public
> Interest are scaring Americans away from technology that could
> help us lose weight. [snip article]
> Jeff Stier, Esq., is an associate director of the American Council on
> Science and Health.

Non-U.S. rfc-ers may not be aware that the conflict between the CSPI
and the ACSH is sadly typical of the current American political
landscape. That is, the CSPI is a "liberal" organization, generally
very skeptical of corporate practices and motives and in favor of
oversight and regulation, while the ACSH is a "conservative"
organization, generally very skeptical of government and regulation.
They fight with one another about just about everything except tobacco,
and whatever actual science supports the position of either group gets
quickly lost in ideological rhetoric. -aem

In article .com>,
aem > wrote:
>Bob (this one) wrote:
>> Nutrition activists like the Center for Science in the Public
>> Interest are scaring Americans away from technology that could
>> help us lose weight. [snip article]
>> Jeff Stier, Esq., is an associate director of the American
>> Council on Science and Health.
>
>Non-U.S. rfc-ers may not be aware that the conflict between the CSPI
>and the ACSH is sadly typical of the current American political
>landscape. That is, the CSPI is a "liberal" organization, generally
>very skeptical of corporate practices and motives and in favor of
>oversight and regulation, while the ACSH is a "conservative"
>organization, generally very skeptical of government and regulation.

ACSH hadn't entered my awareness until now, but the CSPI you
could hardly avoid hearing about in the U.S. -- They have nearly
weekly press conferences, with extensive fawning media coverage,
always with all-too-predictable hyperventilated scaremongering.
Chinese food is loaded with deadly sodium and if you eat it you
will die. Fettucini Alfredo is a heart attack on a plate and
if you eat it you will die. Etc., etc., etc.

>They fight with one another about just about everything except
>tobacco, and whatever actual science supports the position of
>either group gets quickly lost in ideological rhetoric. -aem

Actual science... What a concept.

--
Mad Science means never having to say | Mike Van Pelt
"What's the worst thing that could happen?" | mvp at calweb.com
-- Kevyn, schlockmercenary.com | KE6BVH

Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>
> ACSH hadn't entered my awareness until now, but the CSPI you
> could hardly avoid hearing about in the U.S. -- They have nearly
> weekly press conferences, with extensive fawning media coverage,
> always with all-too-predictable hyperventilated scaremongering.
> [snip]

Right. The one tends to announce positions as an organization. The
other tends to write and speak through its staffers bylines, with the
organization sometimes identified in the headnote or footnote, as in
the OP here. They have been opposing advocacy groups for decades on a
broad range of issues. I first heard of ACSH when they opposed
regulating/banning DDT.

When conservative media like the National Review, Fox News, the
Washington Times, and the Wall St. Journal want articles, op-ed pieces,
or quotes on issues like FDA proposals, food safety issues, drug
reviews and other pharmaceutical industry issues, they often get them
from the ACSH.

> Actual science... What a concept.

We would do better with actual science AND with mad science, if we
could rid ourselves of politicized science. -aem

aem wrote:
> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>>(Food) Police Corruption Scandal
>>
>>By Jeff Stier, Esq.
>>
>>Nutrition activists like the Center for Science in the Public
>>Interest are scaring Americans away from technology that could
>>help us lose weight. [snip article]
>>Jeff Stier, Esq., is an associate director of the American Council on
>>Science and Health.
>
>
> Non-U.S. rfc-ers may not be aware that the conflict between the CSPI
> and the ACSH is sadly typical of the current American political
> landscape. That is, the CSPI is a "liberal" organization, generally
> very skeptical of corporate practices and motives and in favor of
> oversight and regulation, while the ACSH is a "conservative"
> organization, generally very skeptical of government and regulation.
> They fight with one another about just about everything except tobacco,
> and whatever actual science supports the position of either group gets
> quickly lost in ideological rhetoric. -aem

Dueling wackos. If it weren't symptomatic and emblematic of the
divisions facing the U.S., it might almost be funny. Science has been
the greatest casualty with both these fringies.

CSPI wants everyone to eat veggies only. ACSH wants to go shopping in
their SUV's for fatty meats while consuming whatever "food supplements"
they like, testing be damned.

Pastorio

Before making silly characterizations, please take a moment to visit
www.acsh.org.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:11:00 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:


>They're contributing to the health problems they purport to combat.
>Isn't it time we held them accountable?
>
>Jeff Stier, Esq., is an associate director of the American Council on
>Science and Health.
>
It sounds like another class action suit in progress.

I have a problem with a council appearing to be about science and
health headed by a lawyer


Pan Ohco

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:13:07 -0500, Pan Ohco > wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:11:00 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>
>>They're contributing to the health problems they purport to combat.
>>Isn't it time we held them accountable?
>>
>>Jeff Stier, Esq., is an associate director of the American Council on
>>Science and Health.
>>
>It sounds like another class action suit in progress.
>
>I have a problem with a council appearing to be about science and
>health headed by a lawyer
>
It's Elizabeth Whelan's group, for what that's worth. (Not much in my
book).

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!