Welcome to another episode of “10 Words or Less,” in which I ask brief questions of interesting people and request brief answers in return. Today’s participant is a health coach, financial adviser, and social activist — not to mention a passionate accordionist. Before we get started, a note to those playing at home: “10 words” is an target, not a limit, so please, no counting. If you think it’s so easy, let’s see you do it, especially on the fly.”

Twice now, I’ve seen the question of growing genetically modified crops framed as a farmers’ rights issue, after voters in two Oregon counties voted overwhelmingly to ban the planting of GMO crops.

If you arrived on this page via a link from elsewhere on this blog, you may think an error has occurred, that you would arrive at some post by the "Center for Consumer Freedom." But I long ago stopped linking to CCF, a liarly named lobbying front for Big Food based in Washington, D.C. and run by serial (and cereal) lobbyist Rick Berman, and, well, a link still seemed called for.

The headline reads, “Don’t tax my soda! Study shows consumers put choice first,” but what do we learn from it?

I do not have permission to post the following, and if the author, Paul McDonald — a lawyer, no less — wants me to take it down, I will. But I'm entirely in agreement with his views, and want to extend their reach by whatever small measure I can provide. This article was published on politico.com (maybe they'll object, too?), and I saw it via Michele Simon, a public-interest advocate I admire.

Opinion: Big Food bears some responsibility

From Marion Nestle, a list of 10 dietary guidelines promulgated in Brazil and now open for public comments.

One of the greatest harbors for sanctimony is when something is “for the children.” Children are the future, you know.

It’s not that I object to child protection as a motivation. I have a child, and I take seriously my role as one of his caregivers, guides, and educators. It’s going to take a lot more than me to care for, guide, and educate him, but it has to start with my wife and I.

What I object to, other than rank sanctimony of any kind, is how horribly unevenly “child protection” is defined.

Mom instructed me that if you can’t say anything nice, to not say anything at all. But at least one corollary just doesn’t hold up, as exemplified by an ad for cookies that Dr. Yoni Freedhoff highlighted on his blog.

When I saw the tweet a few mornings ago that Taco Bell would offer healthier fare, I RT’ed in a knee-jerk way, celebrating it and even claiming it as progress against the flood of food-like substances.

In a window-dressing sort of way, it was progress. Taco Bell puts sugar in its meat and is the contemptible promoter of “fourth meal,” so even if they're only flapping their gums about healthy food, it acknowledges that not everyone wants to eat total crap.

Friday, I argued against soda-tax proposals because I don’t see how proponents could win a high-enough tax to affect consumer behavior, which should be their only justification. And while weaker versions that were doomed to failure were being tried, industry would use them as justification to not try other measures.