The Center for Science in the Public Interest's flagship publication, Nutrition Action Health Letter is a prime fundraising tool for the Food Police. On its face, it looks like a well-written and visually appealing newsletter with health tips and recipes. But to the trained eye, it's not so pretty, at least from a scientific perspective.
Let's break down just a few things from their May 2004 feature "Sweet Nothings: Not All Sweeteners Are Equal." (Cute title. If only they did such a "Splenda-d" job with their science.)

Published in the New London Day (CT):
An article calls movie director and actor Morgan Spurlock a glutton for punishment. (“Expose or con job? Film takes a bite out of McDonald's,” May 16.) But what he demonstrated in his movie, “Super Size Me,” was just plain gluttony, compounded by an intentional lack of physical activity.

Letter published in San Luis Obispo (CA) Tribune http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/8712182.htm
The article that ran in The Tribune titled "Exposé or con job? 'SuperSize Me' takes a bite out of McDonald's," calls director-star Morgan Spurlock a glutton for punishment. But what he demonstrated in his movie, "Super Size Me," was just plain gluttony, compounded by an intentional lack of physical activity.

Overhyped stories of danger from fish, underhyped stories of lead in candy -- but are the activists the real threat?

An important new piece of evidence may explain some of the controversy surrounding antioxidants and heart disease. A protein called haptoglobin may modify the effect of antioxidants. Only people with one form of the gene for that protein benefited, while those with another form got worse, and the other group showed no real effect.

Today a report issued on the Reuters Health news service told us that "Sodas Raise Cancer Risk" according to a U.S. "study." How could this be, and upon what evidence is this assertion based?
Don't ask.
The meeting at which this alarm was raised went unnamed in the press report, but occurred in New Orleans and is devoted to the intersection of diet and cancer, apparently.

ACSH's Whelan v. CSPI's Wootan over vending machines on CNBC

Once again it seems Hollywood "scientists" and so-called environmentalists (tied closely to advocacy groups) are trying to sell a bill of goods to a gullible public, in the guise of science fiction. Hollywood, of course, uses fiction to get huge audiences and big-buck bottom lines. The motives of the activists are far more devious. We all enjoy science fiction movies (except, I suppose, for certain scaredy-cats like my wife who hide under their seats when monsters threaten).

Some of you may recall my battle with Whole Foods Market, the poster child for the "health food" movement. I threatened to sue them for violating California's ill-advised Proposition 65, which requires warning labels on just about anything that might harbor, even in an infinitesimal amount, a substance that can cause cancer at high doses when given to lab rats. (For more on that, please see: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58760,00.html.) The company claimed I was picking on them unfairly.

By Brad Rodu, Ph.D.