A few moments ago a tweet from Andrew Tobert rang up on Tweetdeck.
He was tweeting about a WebMD advertorial that explicitly states not only is sugar not bad for you, it's actually good for you and that your children can eat nearly as much of it as adults,
"A panel of world health experts recently reviewed the scientific evidence and concluded that a high sugar intake is not related to the development of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure or cancer.The advertorial was written by Kellogg's and according to WebMD, they have sole discretion over content.
Sugar was also not connected to behavioural problems like hyperactivity in children.2-3 As well as this, the panel did emphasise the beneficial role that carbohydrates like sugars play in health.
Children do have different needs to adults, so they have different Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs) for sugar. But not as different as you might think.
Because they are active and growing, children are not vastly different to the "average person" used on the front of the pack. In fact, for sugar, it is very similar indeed."
I decided to clip that pic up above from the website, as I'm guessing the page will probably get yanked - it's spreading like wildfire on Twitter.
I wonder who the BootsWebMD genius was who decided giving sponsors sole editorial control over content was a good idea?
Anyone out there still wonder about the intentions of Big Food?
Still think it'd be a great idea to partner with them, that they're part of the solution?