something is rotten in the state of your diet? Not in Denmark

inappropriate shoes: say 'cheeeeeeeeeeeeze' ...

**Warning links may contain seriously disturbing images of cheese and substances meant to resemble cheese...

So refreshing, this little gem about savvy Denmark's tax on saturated fat  (with widespread coverage, ha haa, at least in Oz). Yeah. Seems forward thinking on good design  extends well beyond rollators...

Butter, milk, cheese, pizza, meat, oil and processed food will all be taxed if they contain more than 2.3 per cent saturated fat. [ABC news]

Especially when contrasted with the the butter-sure-wouldn't-melt-in-those-official-mouths over in the grand ol' You Yes of Yayy, where the lil miss muffle-it government has subsidised companies to increase patriotic citizens' consumption of cheese (do note, the use of the word 'consumption' rather than 'eating'). For anyone who wants to be put off eating cheese, and particularly processed cheese - who needs a tax when there are deals like these to be had? -  look no further than this disturbing article from late last year to be put off for life (or the orginal investigative piece in the NY Times by Michael Moss).

One of the easiest strategies to boost sales is to convince fast food companies to spike their products with extra cheese.

DM reported that its efforts boosted cheese sales by 30 million pounds that year. That's small curds compared to the "Summer of Cheese," a joint effort by DM and Pizza Hut that shifted 100 million extra pounds of cheese from the stockpiles to the American consumer in 2002.

Americans now eat an average of 33 pounds of cheese a year, or nearly three times the rate in 1970. In addition to being rich in protein and calcium, cheese is high in saturated fat, salt, and calories. Cheese can be part of a healthy diet, just not in unlimited quantities. [Big Think]

glug glug glug

Blood and brain curdling, says I. 

Continuing the jaw dropping displays of 'food washing' is this little number that appeared in September 2011 in the Washington Post, proposing that processed foods can be 'good' for you. Further drilling down ie actually reading the article, suggests a slippery slope on what actually constitutes 'processed food'. It goes on with an additional caveat that it is not advocating that all processed foods are automatically good; the uncharitable might suggest the heading belies the article's actual detail?? Hmmm.

MS-ers and their families who already embrace the Swank, Jelinek, Wahl  or similar theories on what constitutes healthy eating approaches will have already weighed up the advantages of minimising sat fats and will, no doubt, be tip of the hatting to debonair Denmark - with these articles methinks, it becomes hard not to ponder the idea that those mindful appoaches are just as savvy for all. MS advantage for all?

As Horatio might well ask, To what issue will this come?