Research opportunities

Here's a round-up of research opportunities relating to eating disorders. If you're eligible for one of these studies and you feel comfortable participating, I encourage you to do it. God knows we need more research on e.d.s. Do it for yourself and for all those who will come after you.

And let's raise a fork to the end of eating disorders.


San Diego, CA: UCSD Researchers Seek Males and Females with Anorexia Nervosa: The UCSD researchers are currently seeking adolescents and adults currently suffering from Anorexia Nervosa to participate in one of our three current studies. To qualify for any of the studies one must be at least 15% below ideal body weight and be fearful of weight gain, despite being underweight. Both adults and adolescents between the ages of 14-45 are needed to participate in a taste study and would be compensated for up to $70 for completing the assessments, taste tests and interview. Adults 18 years of age and older are needed to participate in a randomized control trial of the medication Quetiapine, in which they will receive either the study medication or a placebo. Subjects will be compensated up to $360 for completing study related assessments and the medication treatment. In addition, we are offering several months of family therapy treatment for families with adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18 at no cost. The adolescents in this study will also be randomly assigned to receive either the medication Fluoxetine or a placebo. For more information, contact UCSD Eating Disorder Treatment and Research Program at 858-366-2525 or email edresearch@ucsd.edu.

San Diego, CA: UCSD Researchers Seek Women Recovered From an Eating Disorder: Help UCSD researchers understand what causes eating disorders. They are seeking female participants between 18 and 45 years of age who are recovered from Anorexia or Bulimia Nervosa. By participating in the study, subjects will be assisting physicians and researchers in developing new treatments for these complex and serious disorders. Subjects will be compensated for your participation in this study. For more information contact the UCSD Eating Disorder Research and Treatment Program at 858-366-2525 or email edresearch@ucsd.edu.

Massachusetts Research Study - Massachusetts General Hospital Study of Therapy for Bone Loss in Anorexia Nervosa: The Neuroendocrine Unit of Massachusetts General Hospital is conducting research studies on anorexia-induced bone loss. Their screening study is for men and women age 12-50 with anorexia nervosa. They are investigating causes of osteopenia (or bone loss) in the spine, hip, wrist and total body. The study involves one visit of approximately 3 hours. Their treatment study is for women aged 18-45 with anorexia nervosa and absent or irregular menstrual periods. They are investigating the combined use of a natural hormone and a medication that is effective for bone loss in postmenopausal women as a novel treatment for the bone loss seen in women with anorexia nervosa. They hope that the combination of these two investigational medications will help rebuild depleted bone and prevent further bone breakdown in women with anorexia nervosa. The study consists of 6 visits over 12 months. A stipend of up to $675 is awarded throughout the course of the study. If interested, call Erinne Meenaghan, N.P. at 617-724-7393 or email nedresearchstudies@partners.org.

Massachusetts: Bulimia Nervosa Study: Free confidential treatment is available to those who are eligible. Do you or someone you know binge eat? Do you or someone you know compensate by vomiting or other extremes? Do you or someone you know have severe moodiness or relationship problems? Researchers are now enrolling participants (ages 18-65) in a free treatment study investigating two active treatments, including education and counseling, for bulimia nervosa. If interested call 617-353-9610 or click here.


New York, NY: NIMH-funded, IRB-Approved Study of Adolescents with Bulimia Nervosa (ages 12 - 21 years). This study takes place at NYSPI/Columbia University and compensation is provided for participation ($100). For more information, contact Laura Berner at 212-543-5316. P.I.: Rachel Marsh, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology, Columbia University/ New York State Psychiatric Institute, phone 212-543-5384, email marshr@childpsych.columbia.edu.


New York, NY: The National Institute of Mental Health is sponsoring a multi-center international study to compare two types of family therapy as well as fluoxetine or placebo (an inactive medication) in the treatment of adolescents with anorexia nervosa. They are looking for families with an adolescent with anorexia nervosa between the ages of 12-18 years. Participation involves completing assessment interviews, questionnaires, and engaging in 16 family therapy sessions over the course of nine months with medication continuing for another six months. The study is being held at the Eating Disorders Research Program, The Westchester Division of New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Medical College of Cornell University. Contact the Research Coordinator, Samantha Berthod, MA at 914-997-4395.


Pittsburgh, PA. Seeking Women Recovered from Anorexia or Bulimia Nervosa. Dr. Walter Kaye and his research team at the Eating Disorders Research Program at the University Pittsburgh Medical Center are looking for women who have recovered from anorexia or bulimia nervosa for a research study on brain chemistry in eating disorders. Study participants must be between 18 and 45 years old, medication free (birth control pills acceptable) and not pregnant or nursing. The study involves phone interviews, questionnaires, PET and MRI scans, lab work, physical exam, two visits to Pittsburgh and 8 weeks of fluoxetine (generic form of Prozac). (Note: All expenses incurred during the study, e.g. travel expenses, lab work, physical exam and etc. are paid for by the study.) In addition, eligible participants will be compensated up to $1300 upon completion of the study. For more information, email EDResearch@upmc.edu or Dr. Kathy Plotnicov at plotnicovkh@upmc.edu or Dr. Sharon Barnes at barnessd@upmc.edu. Interested parties can also call toll-free at 1-866-265-9289 or submit a Contact Form online here.

An open letter to parents

Dear Parents,

I know it's hard to raise a child in this day and age for all kinds of reasons. And I know that one of those reasons is all the messages you get about your child and weight.

I know that parents often get shamed, these days, if their child's weight is too high (or too low). That there's enormous pressure for kids to slim down and look a certain way. To fit the current cultural norms around appearance and weight.

But for god's sake, I beg you, don't send your child off to a place like this. If you've ever been tempted to send your child off to fat camp, read this article in the Washington Post. Read about a "camp" where growing teenagerss are forced to eat such a low-fat low-everything diet that eight of them developed gallbladder disease in the last year.* Where six of them needed gallbladder surgery. Where kids routinely douse their food with ketchup and mustard.** Where hungry teenagers drink 12 or 15 cans of diet soda a day, all of it laced with Splenda.*** Where the director of the whole place thinks it's OK if kids gorge on cake occasionally because they'll just throw it up again.**** Where kids are put into "solo" when they break the rules.

Most of all, what a place like this does is reinforce the idea to your child that s/he is not OK as s/he is. That she's acceptable only if she loses weight. That she's not lovable as she is.

And that's the very worst part of this whole trend. As parents, we're supposed to build our children up, not undermine them. We're supposed to be voices of reason in a sometimes crazy world.

So if your child doesn't fit today's paradigm for weight or attractiveness, love her anyway. Tell her she's beautiful and strong and lovable and smart. Teach her to love herself. That's the way to health and beauty. The other will lead her down a lifelong path of hating herself. And I can tell you from personal experience that that's not the way to health and beauty.


*Gallbladder disease can be caused by weight loss that's too fast.

** A classic sign of malnutrition/starvation. The volunteers in Ancel Keys' starvation study did the same. So did my daughter when she was anorexic.

***A friend of mine was temporarily blinded by Splenda. She leaned over a pot on the stove at just the wrong moment, and was blinded by the chlorine gas released from the Splenda-laced concoction. You definitely don't want your child drinking Splenda. Especially not 15 servings a day.

**** As my friend Jane says, hello bulimia.

The real face--and sound--of Russian ballet

The online trailer to David Kinsella's new film about Russian ballet, A Beautiful Tragedy, shows a young woman who is training at one of Russia's premier ballet schools. Against a background of piano music we see her beautiful, expressive face contort with effort as she works. And we hear--most extraordinarily--her panting. It's the sound of ballet, a sound you don't hear from the audience at a performance. It's the sound of a young athlete and artist working to her fullest capacity.

We also see her face, and the faces of several other young dancers in the film. They have the gaunt and haunted eyes, the protruding bones, of anorexia. According to Kinsella, dancers at this school in Russia must keep their BMIs down to about 14. These young, growing girls learn to punish themselves, to starve, to obsess about fat, all in the name of beauty. A particular notion of beauty.

I'm glad I'm not a ballet lover, because I don't think I could sit through another ballet without seeing these girls' faces and hearing, in my mind, the sound of that determined, exhausted breathing.

Childhood obesity: the deconstruction

Over at the Rocky Mountain News, Paul Campos has posted a brilliant response to some of the hyped-up points made in the Washington Post's current (and ridiculously overblown) series on childhood obesity--and issued a challenge. A $10,000 challenge, to be exact, to the lead author of the 2005 study that predicts a two-to-five-year drop in life expectancy "unless aggressive action manages to reverse obesity rates."

Campos rebuts some of the war-on-childhood-obesity's usual points with elegance and clarity. For instance, to put some of the current hyperbole in context, he points out, "Ever since public health records began to be compiled in America in the mid-19th century, the following statement has always been true: Today's children are both larger and healthier, on average, than those of a generation ago."

One of the most commonly repeated predictions by fervent generals in the war on childhood obesity is that because children are fatter today, their lives will be shorter. What could possibly strike more fear into a parent's heart? I think this prediction is at the heart of the current hype, and clearly Campos agrees, because his challenge to the author of the 2005 study involves a more thorough examination of the data:

If, at any decennial census going forward, obesity rates have risen or remained the same, and life expectancy in America has declined, I'll pay [the author] $10,000. If we don't get any thinner but life expectancy has risen, he'll pay me the same sum.

I look forward to Round 2.

Sex and drugs and pharmacies

Over at Junkfood Science, Sandy Szwarc had an excellent post today on the rather incredible prevalence of prescription drugs in America today and the financial motives behind such large-scale prescribing.

Full disclosure: I'm in favor of meds for those who need them. Actually, I often wish SSRIs had been around when I was a teenager. I often wonder who I might have become had I not had to deal with the continuous panic attacks that started around age 11. Living in constant terror shaped me, body and soul. For better or worse.

Still. Some of the statistics Szwarc quotes are staggering: More than half of all insured Americans take some kind of prescription for a chronic condition. (Note that it's 50 percent plus of insured Americans.) Nearly half of all young women in this country now take ongoing meds. Likewise one in three children.

As Szwarc points out, pharmacy benefit managers stand to gain big bucks from the rise in chronic prescriptions. But most doctors don't benefit directly from prescriptions. They have patients' best interests at heart. The trouble is in how one defines best interests.

Case in point: The women in my family tend to have high cholesterol. My mother has it. My grandmother had it. And I've got it. When my cholesterol level first turned the wrong way, my (former) doctor encouraged me to "eat right and exercise." I did, and I do. I'm no fitness queen, but I try to walk or bike for 45 minutes every day, and I try to be active in other ways too. I eat a wide variety of foods, including plenty of fruits and vegetables. None of this affected the cholesterol numbers, which continued to inch upward. Then my doc started trying to convince me to go on statins. Every time I saw her she suggested I give them a try. After about two years of this she sat me down and said, "If you were my sister I'd put you on these right now." She went on to scare the living crap out of me with accounts of young people who'd had heart attacks and strokes. Statins, she said, would prevent all that.

Never mind the fact that there's pretty much no history of heart disease or stroke in my family. None of us are thin. Few of us die early. I've got grandparents and great-grandparents on both sides of the family who lived into their upper 90s.

Still. I was scared. I went on a statin. I felt like crap, but I kept taking it. I never developed the full-blown myopathy that some people get from taking statins, but I did get increasingly depressed and never felt good. Two years later, I got a new doctor, and at our first appointment she asked about the statins. I told her how I felt--scared and crappy--and she took a thorough family and personal history. She told me my risk of having a heart attack or stroke were less than .5 percent, at least at this point, and took me off the statins. Within a couple of weeks I felt great again.

Back when Doctor #1 prescribed the statins, I asked her if she really thought a relatively healthy woman in her early 40s needed to be on cholesterol-lowering drugs for the rest of her life. She looked at me like I was nuts.

I'm sure she believed she was doing the right thing. And I'm just as sure that she wasn't. I guess time will tell.

Sarcastic Saturday

Insurers in Illinois may soon have to cover eating disorders, according to this article from the Chicago Sun-Times.

What a novel idea! Covering treatment for an illness! Why didn't we think of that sooner?

It's official!

Now that the deal has appeared in Publishers Weekly, I am free to announce that HarperCollins has bought the right to publish my next book, which will be a memoir of our family's struggle with anorexia. Working title: BRAVE GIRL EATING. Dr. Daniel le Grange of the University of Chicago has agreed to write the foreword, and my daughter Kitty will write an afterword.

I couldn't be happier. If I can do what I'm supposed to do, the book will be published in spring 2010.

To all the mothers . . .

This is for all the mothers who have watched their children suffer the torments of an eating disorder. Who have been told it was their fault. Who have cried in silence, in darkness, in shame and helplessness.

Your child's eating disorder is not your fault. But you have the power to help her heal.*

On this Mother's Day, I wish you and your family healing and joy and hope. Full recovery is possible. And you are an important part of that recovery. Don't give up. Fight for the child you love who has been taken hostage by the disease. Know that s/he can come back from the brink . . . with your love and your support.




*If you're new to the idea that parents can help heal eating disorders, please visit this site for information and help.

Fat matters

If you're a regular reader of this blog, you know that my family used the Maudsley approach to help our 14-year-old daughter recover from anorexia. (Here's a link to the whole story as published in the New York Times Magazine.)

In Maudsley, parents take charge of their child's eating while they're in recovery. So it was up to my husband and me to devise meal plans for our daughter. Like most anorexics, she needed a lot of calories each day to gain weight--upwards of 4,000 calories a day during one phase of recovery. Because the act of eating was so terrifying and difficult for her, and because, like most anorexics, she endured many stomachaches, our strategy was to get as many calories as possible into the smallest volume of food.

What this meant, practically, was that our daughter ate a lot of high-quality, high-fat and -protein foods: Almond butter. Ice cream. Mac and cheese. (Some of our favorite recipes are here.)

Now this study confirms our instincts about what to feed our daughter. Fat, it seems, matters a lot when it comes to recovery from anorexia. Recovering anorexics who ate higher-density (translation: higher fat) foods were less vulnerable to relapse. I could speculate about why, but the bottom line is that for true recovery, you've got to eat fat. Lots of it. Not just x number of calories, but high-fat calories.

Fat can make the difference between true recovery and a lifetime of suffering.

Fat matters.

Drug money and DSM

Tara Parker-Pope's blog about DSM, the psychiatric bible, and ties to Big Pharma, hits on a point of particular interest to anyone who's had experience of an eating disorder.

The truth is that there are few if any medications that have been shown to help treat an eating disorder, especially in the acute phase of the illness (and isn't that when you want them to help?). Psychotropic meds do not seem to help when someone is severely malnourished through anorexia or bulimia. (There are a few atypical anti-psychotics being looked at for treatment, but the jury is still way out on those.)

Despite the accumulating evidence that meds are not the first-line treatment for eating disorders, pretty much every doc you'd see for an e.d. will prescribe an SSRI, or several.

In my daughter's case, she had bad reactions to nearly everything she was put on, which meant more suffering was piled on top of what she was already going through. Oh, and we had to pay big bucks for it, too.

Of course, my daughter was never officially diagnosed with anorexia nervosa. I'm not sure why; she certainly met all the diagnostic criteria listed in DSM-IV. Parker-Pope's piece suggests that such criteria tend to be overly inclusive and vague. I don't think that's true for eating disorders--on the contrary. My daughter's psychiatrist-in-training diagnosed depression with secondary EDNOS--eating disorder not specified. I don't know if it made a difference in her treatment, but it did saddle her with a diagnosis that was completely inaccurate. I don't know how that might affect her down the road.

Any doc treating eating disorders should know that depression is a typical presentation when someone is acutely ill with AN, and it usually goes away with weight restoration.

I know from friends who are psychiatrists and M.D.s that it's increasingly tough to steer clear of drug money and influence. Even if you refuse the free dinners and concert tickets and cutesy pens and other freebies, as Parker-Pope points out, much of the research in the U.S. is being paid for by Big Pharma. For those of you think that's all right because, after all, everyone wants the Best Thing, think back a month or two to this report about cholesterol-lowering drugs. Drug companies will in fact behave unethically if the bottom line is at stake.

Personally, I don't want Big Pharma writing the rulebook for psychiatric disorders. I'm just not sure how to stop them.

Apparently you can fool all the people all the time

At least that's the story making the rounds about Dove's "Real Beauty" campaign, which was praised to the skies by many FA bloggers and others. According to this story, those unretouched photos of beautiful-but-not-"perfect" women may actually have been, you know, retouched.

I got a good laugh out of the last line of the story:

If only for the excessive amount of self-righteousness that accompanied the PR effort surrounding this ad campaign, let's sincerely hope these retouching allegations are true.

As one of the commenters points out, the company that owns Dove also owns Slimfast. Corporate hypocrisy, anyone?

The virtues of a high-fat diet

Since fat has been demonized so consistently in the media lately, I thought it was worth reporting this study on the link between diet and seizures.

For children with seizures, eating a diet high in fat and low in carbohydrates can significantly reduce the number of seizures they have. Which, when you think about it, is a fascinating bit of information.

People in recovery from anorexia need a lot of fat in their diets to restore normal brain functioning. Something I told my daughter over and over while she was recovering was that her brain needed fat in order to work properly.

It's true.

Fat karma

This study, reported in the New York times, confirms what some of us have known for years: Fat cells, like other matter, cannot be destroyed. Each adult has a certain number of fat cells, and that number remains constant throughout your life. When it comes to anything to do with metabolism, the body seems to be very efficient at seeking out and maintaining a state of homeostasis.

E.A. Sims' famous Vermont Prison Studies found that prisoners who were fed 75 percent more than normal gained relatively little weight, and quickly returned to their normal weights when their normal eating resumed, we've understood this mechanism. Notice that the word their is highlighted, because, as we know, there is no one weight that's "normal" for everyone.

So it's not surprising to find that the number of fat cells in an adult human remains more or less constant. But you can bet your sweet tooth that corporations--I mean obesity researchers--are going to keep scrambling to find ways to change that magic number.

So far, every effort we've made to futz with metabolism has either been unsuccessful or backfired and created more harm than good. Maybe we'd do well to take a more Buddhist approach: Your fat karma is unalterable, at least in this lifetime.

Deconstructing Self

If you haven't seen Sandy Szwarc's cogent analysis of the much-touted Self magazine eating disorders survey, get thyself over here right away and read it. Sandy's done a brilliant job at unpacking some of the most subtly disturbing elements of this "report" on women and disordered eating and on how it's been received. The cognitive disconnect she highlights refers not just to this particular study and the reactions to it but the disconnect we all experience of living in a society where food and eating and what we look like are bound up with so many judgments and with our most essential feelings about ourselves.

Food for thought indeed.

More scare tactics?

This story from the AP adds yet another entry to the annals of fat and thin. It covers new research that claims to show that fat-but-fit is a figment of the fatties' imagination.

The new study followed some 39,000 women with an average age of 54 over a period of 11 years, tracking their weight, levels of physical activity, and incidence of heart disease. Says the article:

Compared with normal-weight active women, the risk for developing heart disease was 54 percent higher in overweight active women and 87 percent higher in obese active women. By contrast, it was 88 percent higher in overweight inactive women; and 2½ times greater in obese inactive women.

Makes you want to start that diet now, right? But it's important to note that the women in the study were self-reporting their levels of physical activity, and self-reporters tend to overestimate when it comes to things like how much exercise they get. Steven Blair of the University of South Carolina points out that fat people who passed a treadmill fitness test did not face higher mortality from heart disease, a fact that seems to support the self-reporters' loophole.

Despite this study's sensationalized headlines, we still have no idea what is and isn't true when it comes to fatness, fitness, and mortality. But we do know that on the whole, diets don't work; that being physically active is better for your health than being sedentary; and that, as Ellyn Satter has shown time and time again, it's much better to be a competent and joyful eater than to be obsessed, anxious, and fearful around food.

So don't despair when you come across this study and the many news reports about it. Read it in context, understand what it does and doesn't say, and dance as much as you want.

Facebook me

I've finally been dragged into 2.0, not exactly kicking and screaming but certainly clueless. Which is another way to say I've got a Facebook page now and could use some Friends. So if you're out there, look me up, would ya? Maybe we can get a new group going.

Another book the world doesn't need

Spring is here, and I've been feeling mellow. A new book deal is proceeding apace. Life is good. I was beginning to think I'd used up my quotient of outrage for the year.

And then Maggie sent me this.

"This" is a book written by a plastic surgeon, aimed at kids to explain their mothers' plastic surgery.

As you can see from the sample panel I've included, it's worthy of outrage on many counts, including lousy illustrations and self-serving, poorly written text. Amazingly (or not), it's gotten quite a bit of national press, much of it rather positive.

I'm giving it two thumbs down. I only wish I had more than two hands.

Penny wise, pound foolish

That truism can apply to so many corporate decisions, can't it? But when it comes to treating eating disorders, the truism becomes both literal and deadly.

Take the case of this Connecticut family, fighting for their insurance company to do the right thing and cover treatment of their 17-year-old daughter's anorexia. While insurance covered her previous treatment, her last admission was kicked out because of a treatment delay that triggered a "within 3 days" rule.

In fact, treatment delays are common and are usually--as in this case--the result of a shortage of beds or space in treatment programs. There's nothing a family can do to prevent them. To have coverage denied because of such a delay--a delay that can be lethal to the adolescent being treated--is both cruel and immoral.

Readers of this blog know how I feel about the health insurance industry: Any industry that profits from people's pain and suffering should be abolished. Until that day, the industry should be held accountable for decisions like this one, which risk lives and add suffering for families already dealing with the torments of an eating disorder.

The girl in question said it best: "If someone needs help, give it to them. Because people don't ask for help if they don't need it. Trust me."

This is especially poignant given the fact that so many people with anorexia cannot recognize that they're ill or ask for help.

Our former insurance company denied coverage for much of my daughter's treatment because we live in a state without mental health parity. (One more reason why I can't wait to move back to New York.) As we know, there are people whose entire work life consists of looking for reasons to deny people coverage. How do they sleep at night?

I hope folks from the company in question read this. And I hope they do the right thing. For once.

Race and place (off-topic)

So after 16 years of living in the midwest--a place I hated passionately for at least the first 6 or 7--I've come to appreciate some of its finer points. Like the access to nature. The relative cleanliness of my small city. The neighborly feeling on our block and on many blocks.

I'm actually going to miss all that when we head east to Orange Country this summer. But there are things I won't miss, like the totally whitebread nature of our small city.

We bought a house this weekend (a house!) in the university neighborhood, which, unlike the one in this small midwestern city, is gritty and urban and integrated. I remember when we moved here from Manhattan's Lower East Side. I remember thinking, Where are all the African American people? They're here, of course, but there's not much integration here. People divide along race and class lines. I don't think I've made a single black friend since moving to the Midwest.

On our new block, on a chilly Saturday afternoon, we saw two kids on bikes. One was learning to ride. The other was running along beside her friend, holding on. Both were black. Both were adorable. A few minutes later we were able to meet one of the families on the street, a white couple in their late 50s with two soon-to-be-adopted African American daughters, former foster children. They were friendly-ish, and I'm looking forward to getting to know their family better.

Right now, our move seems scary and ridiculous. I mean, why change everything when we're relatively comfortable? So what if I don't love my job? How do I know I'll like the new one any better?**

But another part of me looks forward to adventure and change and challenge. Or at least it will when I can shake this damn midwestern flu we've all had going for weeks now.

Our new house has no fireplace (even though we've hardly used ours I like having it) and very little yard, but it does have a pantry, which will be lovely once we've gutted and redone the kitchen, redone the roof, stripped the godawful paint off the woodwork, installed full-size toilets (for some reason the previous occupants put in teeny-tiny toilets; maybe they all had teeny-tiny tushies), redone the attic, propped up the carriage house in the backyard (which Mr. Professor is thrilled to have), and a few other things.

I'm going to grow some things in pots this year in the front yard. Next year we'll figure out how to put in some raised beds somewhere. I'm a rotten gardener but I love picking veggies out of the backyard.

There's a metaphor in here somewhere, but I'm too congested to figure it out.



**The boss thing I already know is better. My new department chair is fabulous--warm, friendly, outgoing, funny.

For readers in the U.K. . . .

Maybe you've already heard about Scarlet Magazine's campaign to ban fat jokes on TV. As editor in chief Sarah Hedley puts it:

Ordinarily, I’m a big fan of Alan Carr, but I only got as far as the second episode of his new Channel 4 show Celebrity Ding Dong before I began to feel uncomfortablewith the format. Pitting celebs against ‘civilians’, as we’re referred to on the show, is one thing, but having a laugh at the expense of the morbidly obese is quite another. Sadly this is what viewers were expected to do in episode two when Davina McCall and team were asked which was bigger, Posh Spice’s waist or obese civilian Tracey’s arm. The celebrity team hazarded a guess, then Tracey was brought on set and measured to prove just how big she was, while the world was invited to point and laugh.

She then goes on to compare obesity to cancer, unfortunately. Still you have an opportunity to sign a digital petition on the subject if you like.

Makes you wish for the good old days of Benny Hill, now, don't it? :-)