McDonald’s:

Nutritionist Dr Rosemary Stanton writes: Re. “Could the Weight Watchers deal with Macca’s promote weight gain?” (yesterday, item 4).  I give McDonalds a tick for changing their cooking oils – although they announced this would happen several years before it actually came to pass.

McDonald’s have had at least three tries to win over those who were starting to reject their fatty, salty, sugary, high kilojoule offerings. Their first try was Deli options. Some (but not all) of these choices were healthier, providing you ignored their high salt content. When questioned about the effect of the having healthier options at a conference in Brisbane on August 20, 2005, McDonald’s CEO admitted that sales of burgers and fries had gone up.

A couple of healthier choices got the punters in the door, but the cheaper junk food options won out. Excess weight is due to a sedentary lifestyle and poor food choices. Genes play a role, but they don’t explain why fat families also have fat dogs! A wise Weight Watcher will use the recipes she gets from her supporting organisation to teach her family how to make a healthy meal at home rather than leading them into junk food temptation.

Justin Templer writes: I had presumed that the article was a childish hoax until I realised that the Prevention Research Collaboration (PRC) whence this sprang does seems to actually have a home at Sydney University, where it addresses issues such as the psychosocial and community benefits of physical activity.

The PRC argument against McDonald’s is based on three rather primitive graphs of hypothetical and self-serving scenarios, blanketed with caveats and suppositions: what is not clear, we will never know the truth, in this scenario, possible trends, hypothetically, could have a detrimental effect, if only we could see.

One has to wonder if this was cleared by the university and, if so, whether the current process is sufficient.

The jury out on Rann:

Gavin R. Putland writes: Re. “Give jurors background, Rann says, despite all the evidence against” (yesterday, item 12).  If jurors are told of prior convictions of the accused, as proposed by SA Premier Mike Rann, then every time a crime is committed, police will know that they can increase their chances of a conviction by choosing a suspect with a prior conviction.

Hence offenders without prior convictions will know that they have a reduced risk of being charged.  Hence they will be more likely to offend — and to remain free to re-offend. This emboldening of new offenders is what critics such as Greg Barns should be concentrating on.

The risk of false convictions counts for nothing when it stands between a politician and a pile of votes.

Climate science:

David Hand writes: Re. “Are you now or have you ever been a climate scientist?” (yesterday, item 2). In yesterday’s email we are all whacked in the face by yet another superficial rant from your stable of Green Eco-fascists.  Clive Hamilton has bestowed on us this wisdom:

The accusation of McCarthyism has been thrown around for years, usually in situations where there is no real parallel with Senator Joe McCarthy’s1950s witch-hunt aimed at uncovering Communists.

I agree Clive and your item is a perfect example.  You give us more breathless prose of evil plotting by denialist conspirators to overthrow freedom and our way of life but it’s not  McCarthyism — not by a long way.

So what if some political figures in Washington got up and pushed an extreme climate sceptic barrow in favour of their point of view?  Memo to Hamilton, Keane et al:  It’s the science, fellas.  Talk about the science.

Restate the case.  I don’t even mind that neither of you are scientists.  And please stop calling everyone who differs from you “Denialists”. It smacks of McCarthyism.

The Oscars:

Joe Collins writes: Someone really needs to take the Oscars off Channel Nine. Clearly making us watch Richard Wilkins’ inane red carpet “interviews” with celebs who clearly can’t wait to get clear of him isn’t punishment enough for their the Network’s long suffering viewers.

In what seems to be an annual tradition, Nine’s 11.30pm news break, spliced in at the business end of their Oscar telecast (before Best Actress, Actor, Director, Picture), promises a full Oscar wrap and shows footage of Kathryn Bigelow and a team of people jumping up and down clutching Oscars. Gee, wonder who won Best Picture?

So much for staying spoiler free all day.  And so much for the advertisers whose face cream and car commercials I will now not watch.