Hey Teri,

Do let us know if you get a reply or redirection. I hope those addresses are supposed to be for everything, and not just the headline news. I want to write them, too.

"Folks - The author of this article was interviewed on NPR yesterday.
You
can hear what he has to say at

http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd0...7/2002&PrgID=10

and click on the "healthy fat" segment.

For the CNN segment which was on this morning, go to

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/

and click on the Elizabeth Cohen story at the top of the page."
I'm goin' there now!

Regards,
Brenda

Teri:

I am going to add some other places to contact the Times. I went to their web site - www.nytimes.com - and registered. It is free, and they say that they will not send you any mailings if you so request. Here are the other places that they suggest for letters.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E-mail to letters~nytimes.com.

TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
publisher~nytimes.com.

Janet L. Robinson, President & General Manager:
president~nytimes.com.

Teri (and others), it is a good idea to write, even if it is only a short message. The newspapers, even those as large as the Times, do read the letters, and they are influenced by what is written. A well written letter helps the cause.

AL

Brenda, thanks for posting that! The NPR blurb was pretty good (and my Realplayer actually worked for once. )

Wow!


Make no mistake, it's a hell of a lot more than merely the American people, we're talking about the whole of Europe, pretty much the whole globe too in my opinion. I was born in the early seventies. I remember being told that sugar was bad for you when I was young. People who are a little older than me remember the "go to work on an egg" poster ads. But, by the mid eighties, this message had mysteriously disappeared. Low fat was becoming "the new thing". It never occurred to me to question why, though.


Both good points .... there's a thought. That article says the food industry was very quick to jump on the low-fat bandwagon. So maybe they're having a look at today's tobacco industry, being hit with lawsuits, and are hoping that the same thing doesn't happen to them ..... If the established players start getting involved in low carb, then they've already kinda admitted that they've lost the game. New upstarts won't have this problem, though.

Plus I think the institution of carbs runs far deeper. I mean, let's face it - the phrase "Give us this day our daily bread" gets cited a lot more frequently in large gatherings than the phrase "Give us this day our daily 20 Marlboro Lights" Mind you, there are religious texts that speak of wine too, but that's not to say no-one's able to see the error in getting wasted on a regular basis. So perhaps it can be done .... Oh, and people have definitely been able to quit tobacco - so that's a good sign that people are capable of quitting carbs too.

As for investing, yeah, I'm hopeful of low carb getting going, but, as it is, keeping to a low carb diet is somewhat pricier than a low fat diet. So I think people are already starting to feel a bit resentful about having to spend more money to stay healthy, and are thus likely to watch their shopping bills very closely, and probably far more closely than the average carb addict who just wants to satisfy their craving at the first bakery they see. That could make for a risky investment in the future, especially if the market comes to be dominated by new upstarts with no track record. But hey, I think that's in the future some time, it looks like a good one at the moment, as long as you remember to sell when the going's good.

The bigger picture comes to light at last.

Why millions are suffering big time because of the egos of those in power to dictate behaving less than responsibly. There is an inspiring story about the 100th Makak (sp?) monkey washing his potato before eating it and suddenly all the makak monkies all over the world got the message and started doing the same.

I agree about {......Most docs seem to be allergic to phrases like "I don't know" and "I might have been wrong."....} Not just in the diet-advice field either. Personally gave in to their questionable expertise for too long before having the courage to assert myself re: anti-depressants.

Take care,

I think everyone here is missing the point. It's not that doctor's or the government don't want to admit they are wrong or have egg on their face. You are missing the big picture. I've said it before but I'm going to say it again:

Now let's get down to the real reason these doctors are shaking in their boots. Let's get down to the real reason the government has not given grants to researchers doing low-carb, no matter how reasonable the hypotheses appear to be.

Has anyone ever heard of the lawsuit against BIG TOBACCO? How about the one against Fen-Phen? How about the ones against utility companies like in Erin Brockovich? Well, guess what!? The government itself and the NIH National Institute of Health has backed a diet that was recommended to the entire American public that is responsible for an epidemic that has killed almost 1,000,000 Americans alone per year since 1980. We are talking almost 20 million dead Americans. More than died in any war, more than died from tobacco, more than died from any drug. And that is just deaths. Right now 62 million Americans have cardio-vascular (heart) disease. Let's not even mention obesity, type II diabetes, and hypertension.

Does anyone smell a lawsuit? A lawsuit so big, so enormous with every single American in a class action suit against the government and every institution (like Pritikin) that has pushed the low-fat diet upon us. Do you understand their reluctance to fund low-carb studies? Do you understand their reticence to publish findings? The cash outlay to every single American would have to be enormous to recompense a government backed dietary recommendation that has affected so many lives!

So enormous it's not likely to happen.

The lawsuits, generally, are EVENTUALLY successful against corporations. Governments are, on the larger scale of things, exempt... best efforts & good intentions (and they make the appointments to the highest benches in the land, whatever land that is, as well as write the rules) MAKE them generally exempt except in very extraordinary circumstances. And yet, "who" was it that was sucking up all that taxation revenue on tobacco or alcohol or any other "sin" product? Geez, they've even been seriously considering a fat tax for years... Governmental bodies rarely apologize or pay for even the most egregious sins.

It's an accepted principle in Common Law. Same reason parliamentarians (or for you Americans, Congresspersons, etc.) can't sue each other for things said INSIDE the chamber...

Actually no one has yet hit on what the really sinister plot is behind this AND it is a plot.

The real truth is this planet is over populated. If we were really to eat the way we should there'd be wars. Because there simply are not enough resources to go around. If you think about it who has been the most obese? Well it started with the poor. Then it's hit the middle class.

The need to stretch protein with grain. The truth is if the government(S) didn't promote a grain based diet there'd eventually be a war the likes of which has never been seen.

The current haves, who have adequate food supply would rapidly be overthrown. They are actually drugging us with carbs to keep us compliant, dumb, satisfied AND an earlier mortality as carbs will kill us earlier and that is all well and good in their minds. Further by our chronic diseases we finance a huge medical economy. Oh I could go on and on and most folks will simply think I'm paranoid.

Further they'll point to Copernicus/Gallileo, Pasteur and Germ theory, Sister Kenney and Polio to say, "No it's the intransigent old guard medical community." Well I believe it's the "old" guard. However there are those in power, in the know, who could push the old guard who do not because it is NOT in their best interest to disturb the inertia.

Jo

One of the biggest holes in this conspiracy theory is the fact that "those in power" are just as lured into the high-carb, low-fat lifestyle as all of us whom they are trying to eliminate - generally much more so. Unless, of course, "those in power" are the infamous, unseen, all-knowing "shadow government" that sit in their luxurious underground bunkers eating steak and butter and who seem to have an unending supply of silent, black helicopters.

Yup WBahn I'm of the black helicopter crowd. ::shrug:: Like I said most of you will think I'm paranoid. That's fine by me.
Jo

Hey Voyajer, you may be on to something... I don't think anyone has gotten around to trying to sue the US government over its food pyramid but there is talk out there of trying to make someone pay for the current obesity epidemic.

They aren't blaming the government for the whole low-fat thing but that may come in time.


Here is an article that appeared in the Financial Times this past Friday.

THE AMERICAS & MIDDLE EAST: Senate in first move to tackle obesity problem
By Victoria Griffith in Boston
Financial Times; Jul 12, 2002


The US Senate is next week set to introduce the first federal bill to address obesity, a sign the government is taking seriously the health risks associated with being overweight.

"This is a watershed event because it shows lawmakers are finally trying to deal with this health crisis," says Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University's Center for Eating and Weight Disorders.

Senators Bill Frist and Jeff Bingaman plan to submit their "Obesity Bill" as early as next Monday. It is a mild proposal, one that authorises federal agencies to spend more money educating the public about the dangers of excess weight. But the proposal is further evidence that the political battle aginst obesity is gaining momentum in the US.

Three states - California, Vermont and Texas - have considered or are about to consider a "sin tax" on soft drinks to curb consumption of the high-caloric beverages. And last month President George W. Bush turned the south lawn of the White House into a fitness centre, complete with a climbing wall.

Moreover, the Internal Revenue Service this year declared for the first time that weight-loss programmes are tax-deductible.

Lobbyists on both sides of the debate are gearing up for a big battle on Capitol Hill next year, when funding for the country's school lunch programme comes up for re-authorisation.

The impetus behind the new bill is political concern about the growing cost of obesity. More than half of Americans are now overweight, according to the National Institutes of Health. Obesity-related costs to the economy have reached an estimated $99.2bn per year in the US, while treating obesity-related conditions such as diabetes and heart failure now absorbs nearly 6 per cent of all health expenditure in the country.

The high cost and morbidity rates from the condition have led many to compare the fight with that against tobacco. This time, junk food makers are likely to be targeted as the primary villain.

"The smoking cessation campaign is a good model for us," says Bill Dietz, director of the division of nutrition and physical activity at the Centres for Disease Control. "High calorie foods are clearly part of the problem."

Yet fighting fat is more difficult than opposing tobacco. The condition cannot be attributed to any single food item, or even solely to junk food itself, as food makers are eager to point out. A sedentary lifestyle exacerbates the problem.

"If they're going to tax soft drinks where will it stop?" asks Sean McBride, spokesman for the National Soft Drinks Association, a trade group. "Will we start taxing video games? TVs? Sofas?"

Anti-obesity activists say they are happy the issue has grabbed politicians' attention but they are settling in for a long battle.

"We're talking about human behaviour," says Amy Myrdal, nutrition communications manager at Dole Foods. "We clearly need to do something. But it's difficult to legislate what people put in their mouths in their own homes."

Remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that the world ISN'T out to get you!

Voyajer said many people missed the point, but when I read it, I was quietly pleased that it wasn't a point that I missed!

As for IslandGirl's point, governments themselves may be exempt from sueing if on government business, but public sector bodies aren't exempt. I'm led to believe that the USA doesn't have a state healthcare system, but in countries where they do (such as the UK for example), yes, they most definitely do get sued from time to time.

As for jo's conspiracy theory, I must say, it crossed my mind when I read this .... http://www.observer.co.uk/internati...,750783,00.html

The average US resident uses resources equivalent to 12.2 hectares of the globe's land and sea space. UK and Europe are somewhat better, at 6.29 hectares of resources for each person, but that's still not as good as Ethiopia, which is 2 hectares each. If everyone were to consume like the US do, then there wouldn't be anywhere near enough to go round. Make no mistake, I think this is the kind of thing which will set US and Europe into direct competition with the third world, as well as with each other, and create civil wars too.

Market protectionism, in the form of import and immigration restrictions, has so far saved our jobs, businesses and the whole western economy from having to compete head-on with third-world sweatshops, and has thus preserved our affluent lifestyles, but that's not going to last forever if people live longer and the population grows. Sure, I can be guilt tripped into donating money to charities when they show pictures of third world famine as much as anyone else, but when we're faced with direct competion with developing countries, whether it be economic, environmental, or on the battlefield, then quite frankly, charity has got to go out of the window, for the sake of our own survival.

Oh - and don't overlook the fact that organic food requires more resources for production than mass produced food. So you're going to have to wave bye-bye to organic food, and gas-guzzling cars, along with many other materialistic trappings of the middle-class lifestyle, if you want to stand a chance of competing against the third world and surviving.

However, if there's any way in which it is at all possible to stick to low carb dieting and minimise the use of natural resources in the production, then I'd be interested. Course, I'm not sure how you might go about that yet, because I figure that grain is probably a lot easier to produce on a large scale than meat and fish. If it wasn't, then it would be more expensive to buy bread, pasta and cereals in the shops.

But if it comes to all-out wars between everyone, then I do believe that the ones who are eating low carb will be healthier, and therefore more likely to win it and survive.

So, ummm .... a bit of a dilemma. Anyone have any suggestions? Anyone have more info about how low carb food can be mass produced in the smallest possible space? Thanks.

Moreover, the Internal Revenue Service this year declared for the first time that weight-loss programmes are tax-deductible.

Does this mean I can write off my steak and butter?