Just some notes on the non-Taubes/Attia portions of John Stossel's Food Bunk program. I managed to catch and tape a rerun of it and watched in the background the other day. It still may be rerun (or watch online?) for anyone interested on FNC or FBC. It was on food freedom, government regulations, laws/bans and all that.
It began with Joel Salatin v. Felix Ortiz a NYC Councilman responsible for transfat ban, posting calorie counts, etc. Salatin came off rather well here in my opinion. Stossel shows video of a raid on a food coop. Scary. Ortiz was challenged on juices -- if you limit soda sizes, how about juice? His answer was more like "I ate my orange today" which disturbs me in spite of my recent defense of OJ. So many of the politicians and folks like Lustig and Diet Doc Eenfeldt are all in for banning and regulating and taxing their pet dietary peeves. They believe butter cannot be fattening, so Denmark's misguided butter tax was foolhardy, but tend to support idiotic things like Nanny Bloomie's cup size limits. In this regard, kudos to Salatin! I've had some less than favorable reactions to his notions of supermarket addiction. Unlike some, he comes off unhypocritical here -- I'm sure to say he's no fan of junk food would be an understatement, but he focused on the overarching unintended consequences of many of these regs/taxes supported by Ortiz.
Next up Pam Peeke author of Hunger Fix. Sugar, fatty, salty foods are addictive! But wait!! She (her own words) has been Stosselized about regulation, while still insisting certain foods are addictive. Should government have a role, NO! Well, not entirely, government can have a role in educating people. Food detox programs?? On the topic of food deserts where poor can't get fresh food, she blasts that myth. Good on her. Hmmm ... I'm in on the education, but what's the deal, with that? Education in schools about the addictive nature of junk foods along side the Just Say No education on drugs? Interesting to ponder if you believe in this.
On to the topic of "pink slime" that folks in this community jumped all over media reports of. In all honesty I haven't looked into this but the guy he had on, Don Gainor, debunking this sounded rather cogent to me. Feel free to comment if I'm off base here! He speaks of a process that saves the lives of cows because they get more meat from the cow. Sounds like something the animal rights people can at least stay out of the way of if not favor. I mean the beef industry is here to stay, so wouldn't it be better to involve fewer animals? And the purists out there? Well, just don't buy it? There are many ways to know your ground beef. Meanwhile apparently the company went out of business from the bad publicity and backlash from what was portrayed as shock journalism on the topic. What say you?
Next up, Taubes (and more Attia)