I was one of those who expressed qualified praise for McDonald’s Happy Meal changes: Apple slices, smaller French fries, slightly better beverage options. Other commenters, particularly “Appetite For Profit” author Michele Simon, drew different conclusions, which she discusses in a blog post headlined, “Who Put McDonald’s In Charge of Kids’ Health?" at appetiteforprofit.com.

I don’t know her, but I follow her Twitter feed and respect what she writes, including this one, even though I find enough disagreement in it that I feel compelled to rejoin, even on a day when I should be writing other stuff.

Let’s start with the headline: To my mind, we did. Doing nothing more than taking full advantage of the capitalist process, they advertised and promoted until we made them, via our billions and billions of purchases, the leader in fast food. They could have spent all that promotional cash and if we hadn’t bought what they were peddling, they would have failed. But we have bought, and now they have enormous influence.

The Twitter is atwitter with McDonald's announcement that it now has a "comprehensive plan aims to help customers — especially families and children — make nutrition-minded choices whether visiting McDonald’s or eating elsewhere."

One of the dodges that food-industry lobbyists and apologists use is that those foods are fine when eaten occasionally as part of a balanced food plan. I would dispute even that, because crap food is crap food, regardless of how often it is consumed. But certainly, consuming more of it is worse than consuming less of it.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has sued McDonald's in California over the fast-food giant's use of toys as come-ons to kids to purchase their products.

According to an NPR dispatch, "The lawsuit asserts that under California's consumer protection laws, McDonald's toy advertising is deceptive. It targets children under 8 years old who don't have the ability to understand advertising."

Faced with fresh assaults on fast food from politicians and anti- obesity activists, the restaurant industry is gearing up to fight back, emphasizing the role fast-food businesses have played in providing jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities.

That's the lead paragraph from a story in the Los Angeles Times yesterday, and I just have to laugh at the attempt to misdirect.

Actually, my headline is wrong. Fast food is absolutely a battlefront in the culture war. But that's part of the misdirection I wrote in my previous post.

I don't know how far I'll get with it, but this is the first in a series of data gathered and interpreted by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. The center released its extensive f.a.c.t.s. report this week. The acronym stands for Food Advertising to Children and Teens Score.

The Daily Mail reports from Hong Kong on the McWedding, in wich 100 guests can enjoy an entire catered affair for only $400, at the local McDonald's.

I suppose it has the virtue of being unusual, at least until billions and billions decide to do it too, but it's not without drawbacks:

Here's an approximation of a letter I sent to the San Francisco city supervisor who is the swing vote in an effort to bar toys from being used as incentives to purchase food:

One in three children born today will develop Type 2 diabetes in their lifetime. Based on current rates of overweight and obesity, more will suffer a range of debilitating chronic diseases related to diet.

I'll concede that uncertainty has been developing in my stance on soda taxes. For me, they are such an obvious target — there's NOTHING essential about sugary sodas, and lots to argue against them.

But where does it stop?