Not content with blathering about the politics of soda and the urgent need to label GMO-containing food to protect America's consumers from science, Prof. M. Nestle has come up with an impressive non-sequitur in her latest blog posting. Entitled "House Appropriations Bill Affects Dietary Guidelines," she goes over in detail (down to posting several draft sections of the "Omnibus" budget bill in their entirety) proposed sections relating to diet in the bill. Those sections she posts discuss the attempts, by (one assumes) the Republican majority, to keep the Federal Dietary Guidelines from ranging too far off the nutritional, food-related reservation and into the areas of political ideology, regarding both "we know what's best for you to eat," and also to toe the line on dietary measures to fight that darn global warming.

So here's her concluding comment (don't forget, her ostensible theme here: The Dietary Guidelines):

"Comment:  I continue to be astonished that the House of Representatives would take such an intense interest in the science of nutrition when it is so uninterested in the science of climate change."

Right? I don't know either. But at least someone should tell her that the "House of Representatives" is far from uninterested in the science of climate change. In fact, recently the Chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, Lamar Smith of Texas, having been stonewalled by the administrator of NOAA (the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration), Kathryn Sullivan, when he requested scientific information pertaining to the data on the so-called warming "hiatus" over the past 18-20 years, issued her and NOAA a subpoena for the data. That was in October: no compliance has been forthcoming, despite a crescendo of threats emanating from Committee counsel (her rationale: such scientific data is "confidential"). Ironically, an op-ed by the creator of the infamous "hockey-stick" graphic of global warming, Michael Mann, turned this around and accused Rep. Smith of exerting his "denialism" in service of intimidating anyone true to the catastrophic global warming paradigm.

Whatever else anyone, even Prof. Nestle, can say about the climate controversy as it pertains (if it does) to dietary guidelines, no one can say that legislators (even Republicans) are "uninterested." Marion, stick to your sweet spot (oops, sorry!): castigating food manufacturers for failing to offer us foods that are healthy enough to satisfy you. Relax, have a Coke and a smile!