Let’s face it: One of the best parts about the weeks between Thanksgiving and New Year’s is the endless opportunity to stuff your face along with family, friends and coworkers. But just in time to ruin the beginning of some good holiday cheer, America’s food police have an ominous warning: Our favorite munchies may be addictive like cocaine and other hard drugs.

Yale University academics have proposed a new “food addiction” scale for measuring if someone’s “hooked,” and activists are fingering sugary snacks and beverages as potential crack-like culprits. (They must interpret “sugar high” a bit too literally.)

Elsewhere, the animal rights group Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine compares hot dogs and bacon to addictive cigarettes. And former Food and Drug Administration official David Kessler thinks that food companies engineer a seductive combination of sugar, salt and fat to get us hooked.

There are plenty of old wives’ tales about chemicals in food. Tryptophan in turkey, after all, is supposed to put us into a “food coma.” (It doesn’t actually do this. And turkey has less tryptophan than soybeans and cheddar cheese, according to the USDA.)

So is there any credibility to this new theory? In truth, these claims are just dopey.

The insidious “cookies-equal-cocaine” calls have come forth because a handful of studies have found that sugary foods trigger dopamine activity in the brain, which is a similar neurological pathway used by hard drugs like cocaine.

But here’s the rub: Lots of things affect the brain. Exercise affects dopamine receptors, according to research in Neuromolecular Medicine. Doing pleasurable things leads to increases in dopamine, whether it’s listening to your favorite music, playing games or having fun in the sack. But these increases aren’t predictive of behavior — and it’s hard to argue that you can get addicted to Beethoven or Radiohead.

There are also fundamental physiological differences that makes food and hard-drug comparisons ludicrous. Addicts going through drug withdrawal can experience vomiting, shakes, agitation and paranoia. Nobody, however, holds up a convenience store because of a “Twinkie fix.” There’s no such thing as cupcake-driven delirium tremens.

Blurring the line between food and hard drugs also risks sending the wrong message.

Addiction advocates see it primarily as food taking away our ability to control ourselves. But the facts don’t back this up. Obesity is not the result of a sudden “addiction,” but gradual overeating that builds up over time.

The “addiction” argument is appealing to activists because it removes personal responsibility from the obesity debate.

Additionally, addiction shifts the burden from individuals to food makers (“Big Food”), who will be the target of endless lawsuits from hungry trial lawyers. Anti-tobacco lawyers like John Banzhaf of George Washington University are leading pushers of “food addiction,” no doubt hoping to cash in.

Fundamentally, there’s nothing wrong with scrumptious snacks. Advances bring improvement in quality of life, and it’s hard to argue that we’re worse off because we have more (and tastier) choices.

A swath of groups, from bulge-battlers to animal rights activists to trial lawyers, sees food “addiction” as the key to furthering their agendas. But you can tell them to stuff it by eating what you want this holiday season — in moderation, of course.

But for America's self-anointed food watchdogs, Thanksgiving may as well be Black Thursday. These public health puritans look at a typical holiday meal and see nothing but slaughtered animals and clogged arteries. Their solutions? Tofu, bland vegetables and unrecognizable soybean concoctions.

Naturally, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is on the leading edge of this hysteria. Last year, the nutty anti-everything group ran an ad depicting a girl thanking God for when turkeys get killed by "people who think it's fun to stomp on their little turkey heads." NBC refused to air it during the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

PETA wants everyone to go vegan. Since that means no turkey, the group has a few alternatives in mind. How about Tofurky? Or an "artisan-made vegan grain meat"? If this crowd had been at the first Thanksgiving dinner, everyone would have gone home hungry.

Then there's the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), an animal rights front disguised as a doctors group. PCRM darkly warns that turkey dinners leave Americans "lethargic," "several pounds heavier" and possibly sick from food poisoning.

Of course, their solution is the same as PETA's: Go meatless. And butter-less. And gravy-less. According to this misnamed "physicians committee" (whose membership is 96 percent free of physicians), Thanksgiving recipes should be limited to mixed salad greens, dinner rolls, and squash and lentil stew.

The same recommendations come every November from the Humane Society of the United States. It's helpful to think of it as PETA with a suit and tie — both made of polyester, because sheep and silkworms have rights.

You'd better also make sure no killer fruits and vegetables are lurking on your dinner table. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), the undisputed champions of food paternalism, have published a list of what they call the "riskiest" foods in America. Somehow, lettuce, tomatoes, sprouts and berries all made the list. Potatoes too.

Once you've assembled a food-police-recommended, PETA-approved Thanksgiving meal, it might taste a little bland. But don't reach for that salt shaker. CSPI schoolmarm-in-chief Michael Jacobson actually calls salt "the forgotten killer" and relentlessly hectors the government to limit how much can be in foods.

Thanksgiving meal traditions all seem to come with someone's finger wagging at the serving spoon. That gravy will clog your arteries. That chocolate pie is a heart attack waiting to happen. And it won't be long before your dinner guests will be able to sue you for all the trans fat in your margarine.

Luckily, we all have the power to leave the Turkey Day naysayers where they belong: on the outside looking in. Be thankful we live in a country where good food is plentiful and where everyone can eat what he chooses.

Enjoying your Thanksgiving dinner is the best revenge against food activists who like to stick their noses into your kitchen. And when it comes to holiday meals, this sort of revenge is best served hot.

As usual the focus is on why and how: Why are we fat and how do we fix it?

The report from the Trust for America’s Health offers a slew of government-focused solutions: Support farmers’ markets and improve school lunch nutrition and health care guidance.

But the government’s track record on obesity shows that bureaucrats and pols shouldn’t be relied on for a weight-loss plan.

The best strategy to fighting this battle of the bulge lies in another of the report’s findings: Massive Mississippi has the highest rate of inactivity – while svelte Colorado has the second lowest.

Coincidence? Not likely.

It’s a pattern that runs throughout the states. States like Tennessee, Alabama, and West Virginia have top 10 rates for both obesity and couch potatoes. Meanwhile, states like Utah, Vermont, and Hawaii are in the top 10 for being both slim and active.

It’s not that people in Dixie have larger appetites than Coloradoans and Hawaiians. It’s simply that after a day of hiking, skiing or surfing, it’s easier to keep off the weight by balancing calories in (from food) and calories expended (through exercise).

Is it that simple? Aren’t restaurants to blame? They’re certainly a common target. Greasy fast-food, large portions and convenience must be a culprit, right? Not exactly.

The University of California-Berkeley and Northwestern University looked for a relationship between living near restaurants and the prevalence of obesity. Bottom line: Nada.

It’s an inconvenient truth for the steady cadre of public health experts and food police who are yearning for strong government controls – read: taxes and bans – on foods and business they deem unhealthy. Their goal is to take away choices in the name of health.

But we need not get heartburn over the food fanatics who are trying to shove their agendas down our collective throats.

If we eat in moderation and get plenty of exercise, we can have our cake and eat it, too.

Once again Mississippi is numero uno in America when it comes to obesity, with over 33 percent of residents officially obese. And once again Colorado is the slimmest in the nation, coming in just under 20 percent. (North Carolina is ranked tenth in the U.S., with 29.4 percent.)

As usual the focus is on "why" and "how": why are we fat, and how do we fix it?

The report from the Trust for America's Health offers a slew of government-focused solutions: support farmers markets, improve school lunch nutrition, and improve health care guidance.

A lot of them are anything but controversial. But the government's track record on obesity shows that bureaucrats and politicians shouldn't be relied on for a weight-loss plan.

Just look at Ohio, where teachers unions recently opposed legislation that would give kids up to 30 more minutes of exercise every school day. Why? Because it would take time away from academics. (Never mind the well-established finding that exercise improves kids' test scores along with their health.)

And federal legislation to improve school lunch nutrition funding has come under assault from all kinds of special interests, from organic lovers to animal rights activists, who want their agendas on the menu.

The point is that even the simplest, most no-brainer of policies can run into political roadblocks.

The best strategy to fighting the Battle of the Bulge lies in another of the report's findings: Massive Mississippi has the highest rate of inactivity-while svelte Colorado has the second lowest.

Coincidence? Not likely.

It's a pattern that runs throughout the states. States like Tennessee, Alabama, and West Virginia have top 10 rates for both obesity and couch potatoes. Meanwhile, states like Utah, Vermont, and Hawaii are in the top 10 for being both slim and active.

It's not that people in Dixie have larger appetites than Coloradoans and Hawaiians. It's simply that after an afternoon of hiking, skiing, or surfing, it's easier to keep off the weight by balancing calories in (from food) and calories expended (through exercise).

Is it that simple? Aren't restaurants to blame? They're certainly a common target. Greasy fast-food, large portions, and convenience must be a culprit, right? Not exactly.

A recent study by researchers and UC-Berkeley and Northwestern University looked for a relationship between living near restaurants and the prevalence of obesity. Bottom line: Nada.

And a 2007 study in the International Journal of Obesity concluded: "The obesity epidemic is often speculatively blamed on fast food, when actual evidence shows very little, if any, association of fast food with weight gain."

It's an inconvenient truth for the steady cadre of public health experts and "food police" who are yearning for strong government controls-read: taxes and bans-on foods and business they deem unhealthy. Their ultimate goal is to take away choices in the name of health.

But we need not get heartburn over the food fanatics who are trying to shove their agendas down our collective throats. If we eat in moderation and get plenty of exercise, we can have our cake and eat it, too.

How? The proof is in the condiment.

Hunt's ketchup recently decided to shake things up by switching sweeteners. Instead of using high fructose corn syrup, a type of sugar made from corn, Hunt's will now use processed sugar from sugarcane or beets. But Hunt's is playing catch-up; its top competitor Heinz has already beaten Hunt's to the punch: "America's Favorite Ketchup" released a high fructose corn syrup-free variety in March.

Unfortunately, both brands have jumped on the latest food fad. They're more concerned about the company's bottom line than making changes that will promote healthier lives.

That's right – switching from high fructose corn syrup to processed sugar won't change the nutritional value of their products one drop. Hunt's has admitted as much, saying the sweetener swap was in "response to consumer demand" and apparently not based on science.

And it's similarly telling that Heinz labels its corn sugar-free variety of ketchup as a "lifestyle-driven" product.

The corn-based sweetener has been demonized by a small cadre of food activists and blamed for obesity to the point where the false image has stuck in the minds of consumers.

Despite the public's misconceptions, the science is clear: There appears to be no difference in how our bodies absorb the two sugars. This is a view held by the American Medical Association. One of the original speculators of the idea that high fructose corn syrup might uniquely contribute to obesity, UNC professor Barry Popkin, has since said his theory was wrong.

The American Dietetic Association, which represents 70,000 food and nutrition experts, says that "high fructose corn syrup … is nutritionally equivalent to sucrose." (Sucrose being the refined white sugar we use in coffee, homemade cookies, and now ketchup.)

High fructose corn syrup is simply a sugar made from corn.

In other words, a dollop of the "new" Hunt's will be just like the old variety. Same old ketchup, brand new bottle.

It's worth noting that ketchup makers aren't trailblazers in the high fructose corn syrup-free arena. In fact, they are both playing catch-up. Starbucks pulled the same stunt last summer with its baked goods. And 41 soft drinks or energy drinks were released last year without corn sugar, according to the market research firm Mintel International Group.

As you might expect, companies that make processed sugar have tried to extend the shelf life of this misinformation campaign by claiming their products are "all natural" in contrast to the industrial-sounding high fructose corn syrup. In fact, Hunt's "new" ketchup is touted as "100% Natural." But table sugar is processed – it's not as though sugar cubes grow on trees.

So the next time you reach for your "all natural" ketchup, don't be fooled. You're eating a PR campaign, not a healthier condiment.

J. Justin Wilson, Senior Research Analyst at CCF, made the following statement regarding this ludicrous legislation:

New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz must be hell-bent on making New Yorkers' diet as costly and bland as possible. Between taxing soda and banning salt, he has single-handedly insulted the intelligence of the entire state – no small task. Calling Ortiz's assault on salt "ill-conceived" doesn't do justice to just how hilariously inappropriate it is. I had to call his office just to make sure it wasn't a joke (it’s not).

What's next from Assemblyman Ortiz? How about regulators at swimming pools ensuring people don't swim within 30 minutes of eating? Levying a fine on anyone who snacks before dinner? Establishing a squad of "Floss Police"?

Assemblyman Ortiz must not cook for himself because his bill shows his ignorance of how food is made. Forcing a restaurant to stop using salt is the equivalent of telling a carpenter to stop using nails or a barber to not use scissors. If Ortiz were a competitor on Hell's Kitchen, Gordon Ramsay wouldn't even bother wasting a rant on Ortiz before sending him packing.

Though the “Tarnished Halo” doesn’t feature a red carpet ceremony, it does shine the spotlight on the year’s best (of the worst). People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the assassination-endorsing physician Jerry Vlasak took home awards. So did “dietary crusaders” like Yale professor Kelly Brownell and the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and the Chicago Tribune were also “honored,” and are listed with all the “winners” at www.ConsumerFreedom.com. Awards for 2005 included:

“If an Old Dog Won’t Learn New Tricks, Inject It with Lethal Drugs” Award
Given to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for the combined 42 felony animal-cruelty charges brought against two PETA employees. Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook allegedly killed dozens of dogs, puppies, and kittens in the back of a PETA-owned van, less than an hour after promising to find them good homes. Police say they saw Hinkle and Cook tossing the dead animals into a trash dumpster.

“First Thing We Do, Let’s Kill All The Doctors” Award
Given to Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a California trauma surgeon who advocates the “political assassination” of medical researchers whose search for AIDS and cancer cures requires the use of lab rats. When asked during a U.S. Senate eco-terrorism hearing in October if he was indeed advocating murder, Vlasak insisted that killing other doctors “would be a morally justifiable solution” — adding later: “These are not innocent lives.”

“Talk Out of One Side, Eat with Other” Award
Given to California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, for spreading needless fears about a food that he eats. Lockyer has made it a goal to push warning labels frightening Californians out of eating foods containing trace amounts of a chemical called acrylamide. Science suggests that people can eat their weight in an acrylamide-containing food (such as bread, olives, or French fries) — every day, for life — without putting their health at risk. Still, Lockyer has bravely vowed to go on eating fries, regardless of his own fear mongering.

This standard, called the Body Mass Index (BMI), is decidedly faulty since it only takes height and weight, and not muscle mass, into consideration. A BMI over 25 means you’re “overweight” and a BMI over 30 means you’re “obese.” President Bush, with a BMI of nearly 27, is officially overweight, but in good company; Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, with a BMI of 33, is considered “obese” and celebrities like Matt Damon, Will Smith, and Bruce Willis are in the “overweight” category. Is this the face of the “obesity epidemic”?

Even more ridiculous, in 1998 the U.S. government changed the standard by which overweight is measured. As a result, over 35 million Americans were shifted from a government-approved weight to the overweight category — without gaining an ounce! President Bush, famous celebrities and athletes, and millions of ordinary Americans have all fallen victim to this flawed standard which is also the basis for the faulty claim that 65% of Americans today are overweight or obese.

In addition to the use of the faulty BMI standard, Trust for America’s Health also uses creative averaging to paint the worst case scenario and conclude that obesity rates in 49 states went up from 2003 to 2004. But a straight look at the same data shows that 14 states actually saw a decline in obesity rates between 2003 and 2004.

Additionally, in what experts might also deem statistical malpractice, the group conveniently selects the higher end of the CDC’s estimated range of deaths from obesity. This suggests that there are close to 60,000 more deaths a year from obesity than the CDC’s reported estimate.

“This state report card deserves an F for flawed science,” said Center for Consumer Freedom senior analyst Dan Mindus. “Any expert would agree that the findings in this study are exaggerated and any person on the street would agree that President Bush is not overweight.”