Posted on 04/07/2008 7:24:40 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
Earlier this year, some of the most notorious food cops in the country (including Kelly Brownell and NYC Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden) attacked University of Alabama researcher and (at the time) Obesity Society president-elect Dr. David B. Allison for providing expert testimony to a federal court against mandatory menu labeling. The evidence he presented was damning. Rather than refute Allison’s claims, however, power-hungry health officials attacked his character. Now, evidence has come to light that challenges the reputability of the very same people who accused their colleague of bias.
Today’s New York Sun reported that the one study which comprises most of the support for the NYC Health Department’s menu labeling campaign was “criticized and rejected” by two of the most respected medical journals: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports and JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association. CDC editor Dr. Frederic Shaw wrote that the “conclusions being drawn by the study, are of course, problematic.”
After two rejections, researchers managed to get the study accepted by the American Journal of Public Health. This is problematic since deputy commissioner Mary Bassett -- who authored the study along with Commissioner Frieden -- is an associate editor at the publication. Basset also “tried to cherry pick scholars [such as Brownell and Marion Nestle] who have previously advocated for the regulation to act as peer reviewers of the study” (a big “no no” in the scientific community). Though Brownell attempted to backpedal when news hit the press, telling the Sun that he “would not review an article under such conditions,” he had previously agreed to review the study in an email exchange with Bassett. So much for academic transparency.
The city’s defense claims that there is “no basis for the plaintiff’s suggestion” that it’s unethical to ask menu labeling advocates to review a pro-menu labeling study. However, there are significant grounds for this ethics criticism. The academic community generally agrees that reviewers are not supposed to be the authors’ close colleagues, students, or friends. And if there is any conflict of interest, reviewers are supposed to immediately inform the editor. So Bassett effectively stacked the deck in her favor.
In the past, Frieden has acknowledged that “we don’t have 100 percent proof that it’s going to work.” Now it’s becoming apparent that menu labeling advocates don’t have any proof. And the one study they had is only evidence that Americans need warning labels on health officials more than we need them on our food.
On one hand, it's ourtrageous and not a legitimate Gubmint function.
On the other hand, as a taxpayer I am paying for these fat asses diabetes meds. The same women who waved their sausage like fingers in front of their face when I was smoking in the bar while they were burying themselves in a plate full of nachos.
Call it schedenfreude.
This has nothing to do with menu labeling or protecting people’s health. It’s another method employed by socialists to remove control and freedom from the masses and place it in the hands of a few to create a strong centralized form of government.
Good one.
gubmint is paying for their healthcare. Their house, their money, their rules.
Isn’t it their right to intervene and reduce their costs? Our costs as taxpayers.
Why should I pay for some fat guy’s diabetes medication because he racked disiprin and couldn’t resist the Big Mac, fries and vanilla shake?
Maybe if he sees that the meal he is about to order has 1,200 calories and 455 mg of sodium he will change his mind and order the salad instead.
This new layout is giving me agita.
Anybody else have a problem accessing and editing their home page?
The solution isn’t letting the camel of the nanny state further under the tent. The solution is to lift the financial public health burden of the irresponsible off the shoulders of the many, thereby denying the nanny statists justification for further regulatory encroachments.
I wish someone, somewhere would bring attention to what these people are doing, and haven't done yet but are trying to do, to our economy!
“Maybe if he sees that the meal he is about to order has 1,200 calories and 455 mg of sodium he will change his mind and order the salad instead.”
He went there for the Big Mac and the Fries, not a salad.
And why should you pay for some ________'s (smoker, skateboarder, extreme skier, motorcyclist, skydiver, scubadiver, hang-glider, bareback butt pirate..you fill in the blank) trauma room medical expenses, AIDS drugs, etc. Where does the intrusion stop?
If I ever bothered looking at my home page, it would probably bother me.
It doesn’t stop. The communists and unionists who welcomed the Nazis for ridding them of their Jew neighbors were pathetic fools. They had no idea that they were on the next boxcar to Auschwitz. Dumbasses.
I never cared about history in school, now I can’t get enough of it. I read every book I can find.
It’s fascinating.
The problem is very simple:
A)More laws governing what goes into food.
B)More information to the consumer about what they are consuming..
You won’t have any say unless you’re one of the select few who run the government
The last time I checked, voters selected those few who run the gubmint.
There aren’t any socialists — not in any significant way that can have an impact. There’s just the time honored American debate as to the role of government in the lives of citizens.
The move toward HDTV is driven by private industry, not the gubmint.
The global economic climate is changing rapidly. America has always adapted and we’re in the process of adapting once more. Again, it’s a debate on how much gubmint.
Salad is high in carbohydrates, that raises blood sugar immensely, and is the bad for a diabetic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.