We’ve all heard the media mantra that “sex sells.” So does sensationalism. And it’s abused regularly by agenda-driven groups who want to indoctrinate us with their view that one food or another is harmful and in need of government control.
Consider soda. For years, the nation’s self-anointed food police have said soft drinks are making us fat and should therefore be hit with a punitive tax to discourage consumption (and fund bureaucracy).
They’ve further claimed that soft drinks are the leading source of added sugar in kids’ diets — exploiting the especially cynical “do it for the children” angle, as if the idea of parenting doesn’t exist.
It’s curious, then, to read last week that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that soft drink sugars should be far less of a target than other foods.
And we’ve seen this movie before. Instead of waiting to make a considered judgment, activists all too often jump the gun the minute “the latest study” comes out. It’s a well-worn pattern: a study finds a surprising alleged link between a food or beverage and some kind of health problem. The media goes nuts, and it takes years for the science to get hashed out.
No comments:
Post a Comment