The Hightower Report

Smarting Over 'Smart Choices'

How can you tell when a consumer product might be one you should avoid? Easy. Whenever a corporate spokesperson declares that the product in question "complies with all U.S. laws and regulations," run away as fast as you can.

After all, for the past couple of decades, industry has essentially been the one writing the laws and regulations.

Now, the food industry has written its own private regulation for a nutritional label. It's a snappy green-and-white logo to designate certain edibles as nutritionally desirable. A panel led by brand-name food manufacturers has developed a loosey-goosey criteria for letting a product use the Smart Choices label. So goosey, in fact, that Kellogg's Froot Loops cereal qualifies as nutritionally sound, even though it is 41% sugar! Likewise, products with cancer-causing additives, saccharine, and caffeine get the Smart Choices approval.

While the green checkmark certification was devised by private interests, with no governmental sanction, it is now garnering the government oversight that food corporations had hoped to bypass. The attorney general of Connecticut, who says the label seems "overly simplistic, inaccurate, and ultimately misleading," is investigating whether it violates that state's consumer protection law. He's also probing whether the criteria for certification of products were "shaped by an advertising strategy rather than scientific evidence" – a question that seems to be answered by the Froot Loops loophole.

In addition, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, finally awakening from its long Bush-induced regulatory stupor, is now scrutinizing how smart the Smart Choices program really is. So the irony is that the industry's deceptive PR ploy might end up producing a valid nutritional label that actually serves the interest of consumers.

Afghanistan's Biggest Loser

Let us all praise his Excellency, Hamid Karzai, for his magnificent beneficence!

Karzai – the head of Afghanistan's corrupt and widely despised government – has finally admitted the obvious: He stole the Aug. 20 presidential election. Karzai and his henchmen were not even slightly subtle about fixing the vote to install him for a second term, including bribing numerous warlords to deliver their followers' votes to Karzai, as well as creating fictional polling places that magically voted unanimously for him.

Then, the country's "Independent Election Commission" – made up entirely of Karzai appointees – dutifully stepped up to certify that their patron had won 55% of the vote, thus negating the need for a run-off. Beyond incredible, this result was politically impossible, causing an outcry in Afghanistan and around the world. Finally, Karzai petulantly conceded that – gosh – maybe he was a couple of decimal points short of a legitimate victory, so he then agreed to a Nov. 7 run-off.

Western powers subsequently embarrassed themselves with a ridiculous outpouring of effusive praise for this thief. Desperate to have a credible central government in Afghanistan to support our military goals there, Washington is backing Karzai. President Obama himself hailed Karzai for his "constructive actions ... for Afghan­istan's new democracy" – as if the guy is George Washington reincarnated!

It would be folly to think that anything credible could come from November's rushed-up run-off vote to keep Karzai in power. Apparently his challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, agrees – he has now pulled out of the race, saying a fair election is impossible. Karzai has won, but he's a loser, and Washington should not be attaching America's good name to him – much less using his "election" as a rationale for committing more American lives and money to the misguided war there.