Comments on: Medical costs of obesity http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/07/medical-costs-of-obesity/ Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:36:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Jeff Stier http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/07/medical-costs-of-obesity/comment-page-1/#comment-28672 Jeff Stier Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:08:39 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1482#comment-28672 So typical to attack our credibility rather than the substance of our comments. Why not take a look at our work? For instance, we have a new book out that - instead of telling people "What To Eat," actually warns them about the many negative consequences of obesity. http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubid.1746/pub_detail.asp Our funding profile is similar to that of the American Heart Association, or the Harvard School of Public Health-- it includes donations from individuals, foundations and yes, no strings attached grants from corporations. If you want to disagree with us on policy or science, that is fine. But to suggest somehow that our funding impacts our conclusions (rather than the other way around), is absurd. That would be like saying President Obama is carrying water for the labor unions only because they donated to his campaigns. Some time ago, CSPI made the same criticism of us- here is how we responded: http://www.acsh.org/about/pageID.86/default.asp If you want to know more about ACSH and our founding, without the ad hominem attacks, see: "Where Did ACSH Come From?" http://www.acsh.org/about/pageID.85/default.asp Sincerely, Jeff Stier Associate Director American Council on Science and Health So typical to attack our credibility rather than the substance of our comments.

Why not take a look at our work? For instance, we have a new book out that – instead of telling people “What To Eat,” actually warns them about the many negative consequences of obesity.
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubid.1746/pub_detail.asp

Our funding profile is similar to that of the American Heart Association, or the Harvard School of Public Health– it includes donations from individuals, foundations and yes, no strings attached grants from corporations.

If you want to disagree with us on policy or science, that is fine. But to suggest somehow that our funding impacts our conclusions (rather than the other way around), is absurd. That would be like saying President Obama is carrying water for the labor unions only because they donated to his campaigns.

Some time ago, CSPI made the same criticism of us- here is how we responded:
http://www.acsh.org/about/pageID.86/default.asp

If you want to know more about ACSH and our founding, without the ad hominem attacks, see:
“Where Did ACSH Come From?”
http://www.acsh.org/about/pageID.85/default.asp

Sincerely,
Jeff Stier

Associate Director
American Council on Science and Health

]]> By: susanne http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/07/medical-costs-of-obesity/comment-page-1/#comment-28651 susanne Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:51:05 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1482#comment-28651 the ACSH is the organization that railed against the obamas' installation of an organic garden at the white house, encourages the use of pesticides in gardening and farming, and claimed that if everyone only ate organic foods, there would be massive worldwide starvation because poor people can't afford organic and lower yields would mean less food for everyone. there was a hilarious interview on The Daily Show with ACSH reps (which of course took their words out of context for the shock value). they also claim that the BPA and phthalate concerns are based on junk science. not people that i would want to take health advice from. the ACSH is the organization that railed against the obamas’ installation of an organic garden at the white house, encourages the use of pesticides in gardening and farming, and claimed that if everyone only ate organic foods, there would be massive worldwide starvation because poor people can’t afford organic and lower yields would mean less food for everyone.

there was a hilarious interview on The Daily Show with ACSH reps (which of course took their words out of context for the shock value).

they also claim that the BPA and phthalate concerns are based on junk science.

not people that i would want to take health advice from.

]]> By: sid http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/07/medical-costs-of-obesity/comment-page-1/#comment-28628 sid Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:11:24 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1482#comment-28628 As Dr Nestle indicates and Sourcewatch.org confirms the ACSH is an organization highly biased on the side of (a.k.a. in bed with) the food industry. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_on_Science_and_Health When ACSH says "But I don’t trust these numbers.” I think that we can translate this to read "This whole fighting obesity thing makes our corporate masters very nervous, so we are attacking the messenger Dr. Thomas Frieden of the Centers for Disease Control. At least we can say that the CDC does have the health interests of Americans as it's focus, unlike the ACSH whose main interest is protecting the profits and obscene practices of the food industry. The medical doctors of the ACSH are a disgrace to their profession. As Dr Nestle indicates and Sourcewatch.org confirms the ACSH is an organization highly biased on the side of (a.k.a. in bed with) the food industry.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_on_Science_and_Health

When ACSH says “But I don’t trust these numbers.” I think that we can translate this to read “This whole fighting obesity thing makes our corporate masters very nervous, so we are attacking the messenger Dr. Thomas Frieden of the Centers for Disease Control.

At least we can say that the CDC does have the health interests of Americans as it’s focus, unlike the ACSH whose main interest is protecting the profits and obscene practices of the food industry.

The medical doctors of the ACSH are a disgrace to their profession.

]]>