Comments on: CSPI treachery/idiocy

By: Deb

Deb — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:26:02 +0000

Notice that the study you refer to about interesterified oils was written by the Malaysian Palm Oil Board. Not really fair to base an opinion on one study anyway.

By: Scott Kustes

Scott Kustes — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:07:10 +0000

I agree. The CSPI is a sham. They target saturated fats and get trans fats put in fast food in place of the saturates. Then when it’s found out that trans is bad, they sue to have them replaced with something else. I guess fixing their previous mistakes keeps them busy and justifies their existence.

But I love PETA…People Eating Tasty Animals.

Hi Scott–

I love that PETA, too.

Cheers–

MRE�

By: David LaCivita

David LaCivita — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:50:48 +0000

One (of many) problems is that Americans generally don’t believe that sugar is bad for you. And to display 3/8 of a cup is really a bad excuse for a visual aid to most of them. The number needs to be bigger, how many grams of sugar is that? Americans would probably react better to a large number of grams then 3/8 of a cup. 3/8 is a fraction and fractions are small so even if sugar is bad it’s just a small amount. Americans are not well known for being bright.

Dave

Hi Dave–

It’s about 75 grams or 15 times the amount of sugar dissolved in the blood at any given time.

Best–

MRE�

By: David Futoma

David Futoma — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:22:53 +0000

Well said Doc: As a scientist-educator myself, I am astounded at how resistant the scientific community is to the many success stories like the Drs Eades, my wife and I, and countless others, who routinely test out with fabulous lipid profiles while consuming low carb meat and veggie dishes prepare in coconut oil. Do they think we’re lying, mere charlatans? I remember the outcry after Dr. Atkins died that the real culprit might have been heart disease, yet high carb/low fat dieters get a pass when they suffer coronaries. Thanks for your public display of outrage – we second it!

Best,

David and Susan Futoma

Hi David and Susan–

Thanks for the support.

Best–

MRE�

By: Jay

Jay — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:17:09 +0000

This may be a little off topic, but I see where they are supposedly replacing transfats oils with interesterified oils. These are fully hydrogenated vs partially hydrogenated. How is this oil any better than the previous oil? My thought is that all hydrogenated oils are bad. My other question is how can a city ban the use of transfats in restaurants? Don't get me wrong, I think transfats are bad but what happened to the freedoms we are suppose to have in this country? Why isn't someone challenging this ban in court? I think these new fake fats are going to be as bad as the old transfats and with the current low fat mania you know that food preparers will not go back to saturated fats like coconut oil, etc. Hi Jay-- These oils aren't any better than trans fats.� Here's a link to a recent study discussing the issue. As to why someone doesn't fight it in court...whoever would do it would be portrayed as someone militating to feed people unhealthful food.� It would be a losing situation.� And if they lost it would be even worse. Best-- MRE�

By: Anna

Anna — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:12:03 +0000

Sorry, I answered my own question from my earlier comment. http://www.cspiscam.com/ is run by Center for Consumers Freedom, who I think, are the same folks behind the anti-Peta campaign. http://www.consumerfreedom.com/

I’ll have to take a closer look at CCF.
Ciao, Anna

Hi Anna–

That’s what I get for answering these comments as they come up on my list instead of reviewing them all first.

Best–

MRE�

By: Anna

Anna — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:58:41 +0000

Dr. Eades, I couldn't agree with you more! Do you know of any campaigns against CSPI as there are for those against PETA? Cheers, Anna Hi Anna-- The same people who are against PETA: The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), which has its own set of biases since it is underwritten by the food and restaurant industry. Best-- MRE�

By: George Mead

George Mead — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:02:42 +0000

An afterthought, if wordpress allows a preview function for comments, dolts like me might catch a few more of our typos! Hi George-- Don't worry about it.� I do have a spell checker on WordPress, so I always check and correct misspellings and other typos on the comments. Cheers-- MRE�

By: George Mead

George Mead — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:58:50 +0000

Mary Enig wrote a scathing article on CSPI. The bottom line:

Who benefits? Soy, or course. Eighty percent of all partially hydrogenated oil used in processed foods in the US comes from soy, as does 70 percent of all liquid oil. CSPI claims that its support comes from subscribers to its Nutrition Action newsletter, which continues to issue hysterical warnings against "artery-clogging" fats in steak, whole milk and fettucine Alfredo. One million subscribers provide more than 70 percent of CSPI's $13 million annual income, according to a recent report, but CSPI is extremely secretive about the value of its assets, salaries paid and use of its revenues. If CSPI has large donors, they're not telling who they are, but in fact, in CSPI's January, 1991 newsletter, Jacobson notes that "our effort was ultimately joined. . . by the American Soybean Association."

Yeah, I have to agree CSPI is worse. It is some what like the frying-pan-into-the-fire problem though. Hi George-- Thanks for reminding me of Dr. Enig's expose.� I had forgotten about it.� And thanks for the link and excerpt.� Cheers-- MRE�