" . . . there is a yawning divide between this nutritional folklore and science. During the last two decades the connection between the foods we eat and the cellular anarchy called cancer has been unraveling string by string.
In the opening plenary session, Dr. Walter C. Willett, a Harvard epidemiologist who has spent many years studying cancer and nutrition, sounded almost rueful as he gave a status report. Whatever is true for other diseases, when it comes to cancer there was little evidence that fruits and vegetables are protective or that fatty foods are bad.
About all that can be said with any assurance is that controlling obesity is important. . . .
[N]ow that smoking is on the wane in this country, obesity is on the rise. Being fat (as opposed to eating fat), Dr. Willett proposed, may now be causing more fatal cancers than cigarettes.
Does the US have the fortitude to stigmatize Big Fat the way it did Big Tobacco?
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
[N]ow that smoking is on the wane in this country, obesity is on the rise. Being fat (as opposed to eating fat), Dr. Willett proposed, may now be causing more fatal cancers than cigarettes.
Does the US have the fortitude to stigmatize Big Fat the way it did Big Tobacco?
[N]ow that smoking is on the wane in this country, obesity is on the rise. Being fat (as opposed to eating fat), Dr. Willett proposed, may now be causing more fatal cancers than cigarettes.
Does the US have the fortitude to stigmatize Big Fat the way it did Big Tobacco?
No way. Big tobacco became public enemy number one (actually, three or five) when it started costing the country far more than it brought in. Being fat generates so much revenue for so many industries ensuring that it will always be around.
WildGorillaMan wrote:Enthusiasm combined with no skill whatsoever can sometimes carry the day.
