The press release drips with dread: “Attention, college students cramming between midterms and finals: Binging on soda and sweets for as little as six weeks may make you stupid.”

So, was this a survey of students’ performance on their final exams after drinking some cola? Maybe it was a randomized controlled trial of a sugar-reduced diet on performance on a standardized test? Wrong and more wrong. No, this study — that a university press office said should lead students to reconsider cola and chocolate — was a study of rats in isolation running mazes. Strike one.

Additionally, the press office’s basic scientific literacy was awful. The press release says that the researchers “zeroed in on high-fructose corn syrup, an inexpensive liquid six times sweeter than cane sugar, that is commonly added to processed foods […].” Of course, the only part of that that’s true is that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a fairly inexpensive liquid ingredient.

Oddly for a study ostensibly examining its effects, the terms “high fructose corn syrup” or “HFCS” don’t appear in the full text of the article. A quick read of the experimental methodology shows that the rats were given fructose solution, not high-fructose corn syrup (which is not pure fructose, but 42 or 55 percent fructose, comparable with table sugar). The AFP notes that the authors gave no estimate of the human-equivalent amount of fructose the rats were fed. Strike two for the press office.

And then strike three: the claim that high-fructose corn syrup is “six times sweeter than cane sugar.” The high fructose corn syrup used in soda (the 55-percent-fructose kind) is formulated to be only as sweet as cane sugar (sucrose). It makes sense when you think about it, since the two sugars are almost chemically identical. You’d think they’d have learned from columnist Kathleen Parker.

The real takeaway from the actual study is that a diet high in omega-3 fatty acids is good for memory. Of course, that’s been common knowledge for some time, which is why Americans are encouraged to eat their fish. (Seafood is a good source of dietary omega-3 fats.) But restating stuff people already know isn’t going to snag headlines. Striking out sometimes does.

So it’s all over then, no?

Alas, bureaucrats, regulators and their elite allies have not yet begun to food-fight. A Reuters “Insight” piece reports extensively on the next front in the war on food, and it’s a direct, open assault on the very concept of consumer freedom.

You see, Reuters conducted a poll that showed that when people were “[a]sked to identify the main cause of the epidemic, 61 percent chose ‘personal choices about eating and exercising’; 19 percent chose the actions of food manufacturers and the fast-food industry.” That sounds like a victory for common sense. But consider what the Reuters writer said just before stating that result: “A new Reuters/Ipsos online poll […] captures some of the prejudicial attitudes [emphasis added].” You read that right: Our betters have decided that trusting the American people to make their own decisions is a “prejudicial attitude.” How insightful.

Of course, when the linchpin of your agenda, the reviled soda tax, polls 18 percent support, it’s easier to expel spittle than convince policymakers. Rebecca Puhl of Yale is happy to lecture us:

As long as we have this belief that obese people are […] lacking in discipline, it will be hard to get support for policies that change the environment, which are likely to have a much larger impact than trying to change individuals.

We’d expect no less from Kelly “Twinkie Tax” Brownell’s colleague. (After all, he thinks we are “addicted” to food. But what about he himself?) The motives are transparent: Classify personal choice supporters as bigots and shut them up, using the law if necessary. (It’s not like activists hold the First Amendment in any high esteem.)

The editors of The Wall Street Journal warned against this political science: “Beware of scientists who moonlight as politicians. A case in point is this week’s Institute of Medicine obesity report that endorses far more regulation.” The paper noted that “[activists] envision a government-led transformation ‘across all levels and sectors of society,’” concluding judiciously: “It’s never a good omen when planners use such language.”

To the social engineers, we are giant lab rats playing in a maze. Forgive us for thinking more highly of the American people.

That sounds like awfully providential news. And now, thanks to an op-ed in Newsday, we know a little bit more about how, in spite of falling added-sugar consumption and a leveling off of obesity rates, this result was generated. The authors note:

The assertion, however, is as reliable a predictor as a Magic Eight Ball. It’s based on projections like the number of fast-food restaurants likely to be built over the next two decades. Wall Street analysts can’t predict such things five years out. […] That’s about as nutty as predicting obesity based on Internet access.

And sure enough, that’s what the researchers did. The researchers also assert that their “projections assume that […] parameters […] from past data will continue to hold in the future,” failing to consider that since 2008 (when their data was generated) the restaurant and food landscape (to say nothing about the rest of American life) has changed. As consumers have demanded healthier options, for instance, restaurants and food companies have provided those options.

So if this projection isn’t an accurate reflection of the future of America’s health, what is it? One need only look at where the projections were announced. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now run by former New York City Health Commissioner and would-be dietary dictator Thomas Frieden, is holding its “Weight of the Nation” conference to build support for anti-obesity social engineering.

In order to serve the engineers’ ends, the food police are pulling out all the stops: Wild projections, manifestos for dietary central planning, ludicrous comparisons of food to tobacco, and even a week-long HBO documentary.

They’ve even proposed mandating the content of restaurant menus because they don’t think people are smart enough to make their own choices. Our Senior Research Analyst went on National Public Radio’s Diane Rehm Show to respond to this implicit insult:

Well, recommendation two [of the manifesto] is specifically related to the government’s attempts to make concerted efforts to reduce unhealthy food and beverage options. This is  [...] a sea change in government policy-making with respect to the government’s ability to tell us what we are allowed to eat. And I see it as really troubling and, frankly, very paternalistic. You know, no one seems to be questioning: At what point did it become legitimate for the government to tell us how much we’re allowed to weigh?

What’s missing in all this? Any acknowledgement that personal irresponsibility played a role in the causes of obesity and that only by restoring personal responsibility can we fix the problem. As we told USA Today:

Personal irresponsibility is to blame for obesity; personal responsibility is the only viable solution. We shouldn’t promote policies that serve only to diminish it.

And with an ear to activists’ new crusade to diminish the role of personal choice by concocting the notion of narcotic-esque “food addiction,” Reuters reports that the IOM declared that “people cannot truly exercise ‘personal choice’ because their options are severely limited.” Of course, as evidence on expanding access to healthy foods shows, you can lead people to healthy food, but you can’t make them eat it. It’s up to them to make good choices.

As for the other policies that IOM proposes, the evidence for the soda tax projects everything from mere failure to possible counter-productivity. (Perhaps soda is merely the thin end of the centrally planned diet wedge.) Marketing regulations didn’t help Quebec or Sweden buck the trend of expanding waistlines. And restaurant zoning bans are based on a false premise.

When it comes to children’s menu item regulation, it’s probably not even necessary as both chain and quick-service restaurants have responded to consumer demand for healthier products for their kids. Not to mention that parents can and should exercise appropriate veto power over what their kids eat. (What a concept.)

But the IOM didn’t pass up the opportunity to bash adults’ choices either. The “broccoli mandate” might be a thing of legal hypotheticals for now, but the IOM called for the creation of “strong nutritional standards” and ensuring that foods that meet them “are available in all places frequented by the public.” Does that mean movie theaters must serve carrot sticks—even if nobody buys them?

Of course, the report only suggests that the recommendations hold the force of law in government procurement. But we heard similar things recently said about “voluntary” advertising guidelines. True to form, the IOM now calls for those guidelines to be made mandatory if there aren’t enough volunteers. How far off can a national menu czar be? Let’s hope it isn’t Cass Sunstein.

Fundamentally, the IOM panel and its supporters in “public health” think that Americans are lemmings incapable of exercising restraint. (Were it 1899, they might have said we were “half devil and half child.”) Treating Americans as children or “McVictims” is only a recipe for fat-fighting failure.

If a bake sale is going on, it’s reported to administration and it’s taken care of […]. You can’t sell Girl Scout cookies, candy, cakes, any of that stuff.

We don’t know if MeMe Roth will be offering this bureaucrat a commission in the Junior Anti-Sweets Leagues or if Robert Lustig will commend her for services to the No-Sugar Party, but we can predict how parents and students will tend to respond to this kind of diktat: poorly.

When Los Angeles adopted school lunches praised by the vegan activists at Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, students rejected the “nasty, nasty” dishes en masse. In Austin, Texas, entrepreneurial students responded to a sweets ban by trading and selling candies they brought from home. The Austin American-Statesman called it “Willy-Wonka-meets-Casablanca.”  Businessweek tells the shocking story of a “napkin sale” in Colorado: Students peddled napkins with sweets in them, at least until Big Brother caught them.

Adults also think these bans go too far. One parent in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. responded to a ban by making cupcakes at home “for the first time in her life.” Students hardly need to wait for their parents to crack open the cookbook. As one Massachusetts man told Businessweek: “Who’s going to line up to buy apples and granola, he says, ‘when you can go right down the street and get Dunkin’ Donuts?’”

No surprise then that a survey found that “weight gain has nothing to do with the candy, soda, chips, and other junk food [students] can purchase at school.” Not that policy ineffectiveness has ever stopped a food cop.

In USA Today this morning, Brownell and Frieden try to draw parallels between the obesity fight and tobacco. “Fifty years ago, tobacco was ubiquitous. And I think in 50 years we’ll see the ubiquity of unhealthy foods today in a similar light,” says Frieden. “So if the tobacco industry can be taken on successfully by the public health world, then I don’t see any reason why the food industry can’t be the same,” Brownell offers.

The “food equals tobacco” has been a nice motivating speech for these guys to give to themselves, but it fails basic common sense. Nobody needs tobacco to live; in contrast, every person needs food to live. And while there’s a clear scientific correlation between smoking and cancer, the same isn’t true for certain foods and obesity.

Obesity is due to a calorie imbalance—people consuming more energy than they burn off. Any food with calories can contribute to obesity, whether it’s bread and pizza or soda and OJ. In fact, fruit juice often has the same number of calories as supposedly “obesogenic” soft drinks. That’s why the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics writes that “total diet or overall pattern of food eaten is the most important focus of a healthful eating style. All foods can fit within this pattern, if consumed in moderation.”

The latest bizarre turn is that food is “addictive” like hard drugs or nicotine—recently touted on 60 Minutes. Yes, hamburgers may send signals to the brain that they’re yummy and pleasurable to eat and hit the same brain centers. But people don’t get the shakes when they don’t get enough smoothies.

The motivation behind all of this is clear: To remove personal responsibility and invite a wave of lawsuits designed at enriching trial lawyers and taking away consumer choice. Obesity can be a serious issue, but let’s not cloud the debate with hazy and unscientific claims. Maybe then we’ll see some real solutions.

We’ve questioned “food deserts” before, and we’re glad Brownell seems to be coming around. But it’s a curious statement from him given that in the past he reportedly supported a federal tax subsidy program for businesses in so-called “food deserts” that made significant revenue from selling fruits and veggies. He also told the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s Nutrition Action Healthletter that “we […] have too little access to healthy foods.” But now, with evidence mounting that “food deserts” aren’t the major factor in obesity that some think they are, Brownell apparently has given up the carrot.

The question now becomes how long he can maintain the myth of the effective stick. Recent studies have shown the much-vaunted soda tax he endorses will reduce daily calorie intake by nine, twelve, or even as many as three calories per day. (For those keeping score at home, all those effects are fractions of a percent of the typical adult’s dietary energy intake.)

It’s wishful thinking to imagine that attacking only one of the many causes of obesity will solve a complex problem. But it’s simply blind to think that a policy that research consistently shows will not solve the problem will in fact solve the problem. Brownell has claimed that “society does not have the luxury to await scientific certainty” before adopting obesity-fighting policy. The “scientific certainty” appears to be in on healthy food access, and it didn’t go Brownell’s way. We eagerly await (but aren’t holding our breath for) Brownell’s similar realization that the soda tax won’t “change obesity.”

As Britain’s Daily Mail reports:

[Researchers] found that obese people who took part in ‘healthy activities’ like eating five or more fruits and vegetables daily, exercising regularly, consuming alcohol in moderation, and not smoking, carried roughly the same risk of dying young as their thinner counterparts.

The Mail also quotes an Occidental College professor who comments on the findings, “We should reject the idea that fat people are ‘killing themselves’ with their extra pounds. It’s simply not true.” (Don’t tell MeMe Roth.)

We’ve been saying for some time that the single-minded focus on diet and body weight is misplaced. Indeed, at least one contributor to our longer lives has been linked with weight gain: People who quit smoking tend to gain weight.

Will these findings convince activists like Kelly “Twinkie Tax” Brownell that food punishment is not the way to better health? Of course not. It’s much easier (and more lucrative for governments) to pick a tasty target and tax it than to address obesity and health in a comprehensive manner.

Instead of waiting for public health activists to save us from ourselves, we should drop the fad diet book and put on some running shoes. It’s more likely to help.

Two of the studies the prosecuting contributor presents rely on providing subjects with extreme levels of sugars, specifically fructose (which Lustig calls “poison”). One study provided subjects with 200 grams of fructose per day (that’s 800 calories, more than a third of a typical 2000-calorie diet); in the other, subjects received “25% of their calories from either fructose or high-fructose corn syrup.” (It’s important to note that both high-fructose corn syrup and table sugar are comprised of about half fructose and half sucrose.) These levels are well above average compared to typical dietary intakes: Research published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that Americans get only 14.6 percent of their total calories from all added sugars combined (a six-teaspoon-per-day decline from 2000, we would add).

It shouldn’t be surprising then that University of Minnesota in St. Paul nutrition professor Joanne Slavin told the Times that “Sugar isn’t a poison — diet is more complicated than any one single villain.” (Hmm, that sounds familiar.)

There’s also plenty of evidence that sugar in and of itself isn’t a problem. One Annals of Internal Medicine meta-analysis found: “Fructose does not seem to cause weight gain when it is substituted for other carbohydrates in diets providing similar calories.” An Australian study found that significant sugar reductions in that country didn’t make people skinnier. In layman’s terms, a calorie is (still) a calorie, and if you eat more than you use, you gain weight.

Unfortunately, food scolds like Lustig find it much easier to spread fear of particular ingredients rather than to promote balanced diets and exercise. Of course, there’s evidence that exercise can help people manage diabetes (among other benefits), but don’t expect that to stop the activists who can plaster themselves across the papers by trashing our favorite treats.

© Copyright 2004 Timothy Kelly