Food & Beverage (page189)

The Buffalo News (by repeating a Zanesville, Ohio, Times Recorder editorial), The Austin American Statesman, and The San Antonio Express-News all express their distaste for an unnecessary and onerous "Twinkie tax" on high-calorie foods.

The bird-brained anti-choice chicken rights activists at United Poultry Concerns say the "Survivor" television show participants should not eat the chickens they win in an upcoming episode, but instead feed them. Not too long ago, these "Survivor" people were eating rats. Of course, the radical animal rights activists at the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals protested that too.

July's Consumer Reports Travel Letter joins the chorus of nannies making the unfounded link between restaurant portion sizes and rising obesity rates. ("Portion distortion," Consumer Reports Travel Letter, July 2000.)

Newsweek repeats the absurd calls for an onerous "Twinkie tax" from super-nannies Kelly Brownell and Michael Jacobson (CSPI), saying "protecting our kids may ultimately require such initiatives." We must remind you, the real idea behind the "Twinkie tax," as expressed by Brownell when first explaining it, is not to use the tax to fund "healthful alternatives" as is currently being argued, but to sharply increase the cost of high-calorie foods so they will be priced out of reach. ("Time for a Twinkie tax?," U.S. News & World Report, 1/5/98.)

Los Angeles Times columnist Sandy Banks reminds us that the "normal" weight range for a healthy body has been shifted downward through the years, "Which means you can be skinnier than you were two years ago, yet be fatter in the experts' eyes." Banks thinks "we all need to lighten up…in ways that have nothing to do with charts and calories."

Marion Nestle spews her anti-choice rhetoric in Newsday, again blaming obesity on "overwhelming industry pressures to eat more." Nestle repeats her support for "taxing soft drinks and other high-calorie junk foods" to fund government programs to change the foods you eat. The real idea behind the "Twinkie tax," as expressed by Kelly Brownell, father of the tax, is to sharply increase the price of these foods so they will be priced out of reach. ("Time for a Twinkie tax?," U.S. News & World Report, 1/5/98.)

Despite the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration continues to affirm that olestra is perfectly safe, Canada has banned the use of the fat substitute. The "Don't eat fat, but don't eat fat substitutes either" nannies from the Center for Science in the Public Interest support the action, saying Canada's ban should prompt the FDA to follow suit or at least strengthen the label currently on all olestra-containing products.

A new study contending that girls who drink soda aren't getting enough milk and are therefore more likely to break bones continues to get press, despite the fact that the study does not specify how much soda or milk girls that break bones drink. The media has also yet to pick up on the fact that the study's author, Grace Wyshak, works with Center for Science in the Public Interest sympathizer and anti-soda activist Walter Willett.

Calling for a "very, very steep tax" on snack foods, Tampa Tribune business reporter Mike Stobbe sides with the Center for Science in the Public Interest's (CSPI) Kelly Brownell and Michael Jacobson in calling for a national "sin tax on junk food" to "raise a lot of money for health efforts... and subsidize the costs of healthy [foods]." Stobbe's proposal for a $3 Snickers bar was rebutted by another reporter, who wisely noted "You can't legislate people's behavior." ("Opinion divided over sin tax for junk food," Tampa Tribune)

Based on a new study, Grace Wyshak, an associate professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, contends that girls who drink soda aren’t getting enough milk and are therefore…