Headlines (page400)

Bad news for nannies… A new Cornell University survey indicates that the constant barrage of the "nutrition study of week" headlines do more to confuse people than promote healthy eating habits. The study indicates consumers are most confused by nannies' often contradictory claims about salt, red meat, coffee, and butter vs. margarine. ("Food fight! Eggs…Butter…Salt. Where do you draw the battle lines? Even nutritionists don't seem to know," Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, 2/6/00, No link available.)

In their ongoing campaign against modern technologies and agricultural methods, the nannies from the Turning Point Project took out another senseless full-page ad in today's New York Times attacking factory farming and GE foods.

The eco-nannies at Earth Island Institute weigh in on the "Fat Epidemic." They suggest that fast-food restaurants' marketing to children is to blame and they practically endorse the infamous "Twinkie tax."

The Washington Post article on America's new dietary guidelines quotes lots of nannies, including the Center for Science in the Public Interest's Margo Wooton and 1999 Nanny of the Year Neal Barnard of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, but no food industry representatives.

The food police at Consumers Union are deputizing their 5 million Consumer Reports magazine subscribers, asking for their critical comments on chain restaurants. The magazine plans to run an upcoming…

Harvard University's prestigious law school now offers an animal rights law class taught by long-time animal rights activist Steven M. Wise. Wise makes the ridiculous claim that a "person" is merely a technical term and under his view of common law, animals "should be legal persons."

The Chicago Tribune warns, “It would be a travesty if the U.S. allows fear and ignorance to crowd out crucial public education about biotechnology’s potential.” Meanwhile, Food and Drug…

TIME magazine features a far too sympathetic story on "the food police" and their overzealous attempts to change what we eat. Many of our favorite nannies are featured in this puff piece, including The Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and Jeremy Rifkin. ("Watchdogs who bite: nutrition activists attack everything from milk to fettuccine Alfredo," TIME, 2/7/00, No link available.)

Professor of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London attack nannies who back organic farming. "The idea that organic farming can ever be a large-scale alternative to other forms of farming is a pernicious recent myth. There are also other elements to this myth, namely that organic farming is 'safer,' 'better,' and more 'natural.'"

The radical animal rights activists at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have erected four billboards in New Hampshire asking, "If you choose to eat meat, why should I pay your hospital bills?" PETA says it hopes presidential candidates campaigning in the state will see "the need for a tax on meat" that could "pay for dietary education programs that would help reduce health care costs and save consumers' and animals' lives" and "pay for the meat industry's huge detrimental effect on the environment."