As it turns out, Dr. Keys visited Crete during an unrepresentative period of extreme hardship after World War II. Furthermore, he made the mistake of measuring the islanders' diet partly during Lent, when they were forgoing meat and cheese. Dr. Keys therefore under counted their consumption of saturated fat. Also, due to problems with the surveys, he ended up relying on data from just a few dozen men-"far from the representative sample of 655 that he had initially selected. These flaws weren't revealed until much later, in a 2002 paper by scientists investigating the work on Crete-"but by then, the miss impression left by his erroneous data had become international dogma. In 1961, Dr. Keys sealed saturated fat's fate by landing a position on the nutrition committee of the American Heart Association, whose dietary guidelines are considered the gold standard. Although the committee had originally been skeptical of his hypothesis, it issued, in that year, the country's first-ever guidelines targeting saturated fats. The U.S. Department of Agriculture followed in 1980. Other studies ensued. A half-dozen large, important trials pitted a diet high in vegetable oil -"usually corn or soybean, but not olive oil -"against one with more animal fats. But these trials, mainly from the 1970s, also had serious methodological problems. Some didn't control for smoking, for instance, or allowed men to wander in and out of the research group over the course of the experiment. The results were unreliable at best. But there was no turning back: Too much institutional energy and research money had already been spent trying to prove Dr. Keys's hypothesis. A bias in its favor had grown so strong that the idea just started to seem like common sense. As Harvard nutrition professor Mark Hegsted said in 1977, after successfully persuading the U.S. Senate to recommend Dr. Keys's diet for the entire nation, the question wasn't whether Americans should change their diets, but why not? Important benefits could be expected, he argued. And the risks? "None can be identified," he said. In fact, even back then, other scientists were warning about the diet's potential unintended consequences. Today, we are dealing with the reality that these have come to pass. One consequence is that in cutting back on fats, we are now eating a lot more carbohydrates--"at least 25% more since the early 1970s. Consumption of saturated fat, meanwhile, has dropped by 11%, according to the best available government data. Translation: Instead of meat, eggs and cheese, we're eating more pasta, grains, fruit and starchy vegetables such as potatoes. Even seemingly healthy low-fat foods, such as yogurt, are stealth carb-delivery systems, since removing the fat often requires the addition of fillers to make up for lost texture- and these are usually carbohydrate-based. The problem is that carbohydrates break down into glucose, which causes the body to release insulin-"a hormone that is fantastically efficient at storing fat. Meanwhile, fructose, the main sugar in fruit, causes the liver to generate triglycerides and other lipids in the blood that are altogether bad news. Excessive carbohydrates lead not only to obesity but also, over time, to Type 2 diabetes and, very likely, heart disease. The real surprise is that, according to the best science to date, people put themselves at higher risk for these conditions no matter what kind of carbohydrates they eat. Yes, even unrefined carbs. Too much whole-grain oatmeal for breakfast and whole-grain pasta for dinner, with fruit snacks in between, add up to a less healthy diet than one of eggs and bacon, followed by fish. The reality is that fat doesn't make you fat or diabetic. Scientific investigations going back to the 1950s suggest that actually, carbs do. The second big unintended consequence of our shift away from animal fats is that we're now consuming more vegetable oils. Butter and lard had long been staples of the American pantry until Crisco, introduced in 1911, became the first vegetable-based fat to win wide acceptance in U.S. kitchens. Then came margarines made from vegetable oil and then just plain vegetable oil in bottles. All of these got a boost from the American Heart Association-"which Procter & Gamble, the maker of Crisco oil, coincidentally helped launch as a national organization. In 1948, P&G made the AHA the beneficiary of the popular "Walking Man" radio contest, which the company sponsored. The show raised $1.7 million for the group and transformed it (according to the AHA's official history) from a small, underfunded professional society into the powerhouse that it remains today. After the AHA advised the public to eat less saturated fat and switch to vegetable oils for a "healthy heart" in 1961, Americans changed their diets. Now these oils represent 7% to 8% of all calories in our diet, up from nearly zero in 1900, the biggest increase in consumption of any type of food over the past century. This shift seemed like a good idea at the time, but it brought many potential health problems in its wake. In those early clinical trials, people on diets high in vegetable oil were found to suffer higher rates not only of cancer but also of gallstones. And, strikingly, they were more likely to die from violent accidents and suicides. Alarmed by these findings, the National Institutes of Health convened researchers several times in the early 1980s to try to explain these "side effects," but they couldn't. (Experts now speculate that certain psychological problems might be related to changes in brain chemistry caused by diet, such as fatty-acid imbalances or the depletion of cholesterol.) We've also known since the 1940s that when heated, vegetable oils create oxidation products that, in experiments on animals, lead to cirrhosis of the liver and early death. For these reasons, some mid century chemists warned against the consumption of these oils, but their concerns were allayed by a chemical fix: Oils could be rendered more stable through a process called hydrogenation, which used a catalyst to turn them from oils into solids. From the 1950s on, these hardened oils became the backbone of the entire food industry, used in cakes, cookies, chips, breads, frostings, fillings, and frozen and fried food. Unfortunately, hydrogenation also produced trans fats, which since the 1970s have been suspected of interfering with basic cellular functioning and were recently condemned by the Food and Drug Administration for their ability to raise our levels of "bad" LDL cholesterol. Yet paradoxically, the drive to get rid of trans fats has led some restaurants and food manufacturers to return to using regular liquid oils-"with the same long-standing oxidation problems. These dangers are especially acute in restaurant fryers, where the oils are heated to high temperatures over long periods. The past decade of research on these oxidation products has produced a sizable body of evidence showing their dramatic inflammatory and oxidative effects, which implicates them in heart disease and other illnesses such as Alzheimer's. Other newly discovered potential toxins in vegetable oils, called monochloropropane diols and glycidol esters, are now causing concern among health authorities in Europe. In short, the track record of vegetable oils is highly worrisome-"and not remotely what Americans bargained for when they gave up butter and lard. Cutting back on saturated fat has had especially harmful consequences for women, who, due to hormonal differences, contract heart disease later in life and in a way that is distinct from men. If anything, high total cholesterol levels in women over 50 were found early on to be associated with longer life. This counterintuitive result was first discovered by the famous Framingham study on heart-disease risk factors in 1971 and has since been confirmed by other research. Since women under 50 rarely get heart disease, the implication is that women of all ages have been worrying about their cholesterol levels needlessly. Yet the Framingham study's findings on women were omitted from the study's conclusions. And less than a decade later, government health officials pushed their advice about fat and cholesterol on all Americans over age 2-"based exclusively on data from middle-aged men. Sticking to these guidelines has meant ignoring growing evidence that women on diets low in saturated fat actually increase their risk of having a heart attack. The "good" HDL cholesterol drops precipitously for women on this diet (it drops for men too, but less so). The sad irony is that women have been especially rigorous about ramping up on their fruits, vegetables and grains, but they now suffer from higher obesity rates than men, and their death rates from heart disease have reached parity. Seeing the U.S. population grow sicker and fatter while adhering to official dietary guidelines has put nutrition authorities in an awkward position. Recently, the response of many researchers has been to blame "Big Food" for bombarding Americans with sugar-laden products. No doubt these are bad for us, but it is also fair to say that the food industry has simply been responding to the dietary guidelines issued by the AHA and USDA, which have encouraged high-carbohydrate diets and until quite recently said next to nothing about the need to limit sugar. Indeed, up until 1999, the AHA was still advising Americans to reach for "soft drinks," and in 2001, the group was still recommending snacks of "gum-drops" and "hard candies made primarily with sugar" to avoid fatty foods. Our half-century effort to cut back on the consumption of meat, eggs and whole-fat dairy has a tragic quality. More than a billion dollars have been spent trying to prove Ancel Keys's hypothesis, but evidence of its benefits has never been produced. It is time to put the saturated-fat hypothesis to bed and to move on to test other possible culprits for our nation's health woes.

Thanks for all your hard work Karen! Can't wait to read it in its entirety. Jodi-

We were introduced to Canadian cheeses when we were on our honeymoon, 38 years ago. The Canadian cheeses were great then, and have only improved. Here in Texas we can get locally made goat cheese, which is good, and a lot of Mexican cheeses, some of which are good, also.

It's a shame when a community feels that they have no alternative but to ban a particular breed of dog. I am not a dog owner, but there was a time in the City where I live that not a week went by without a news item about another Pit Bull attack. The City Council finally enacted a Pit Bull ordinance. Only time will tell if it will do any good. I feel that it's not a dog problem, but a people problem. Responsible dog owners always suffer for the sins of the irresponsible ones. There seems to be a sub culture in our community of people who own vicious dogs in order to intimidate others. I am copying our Pit Bull ordinance here for your information. If any of you have a similar problem in your community, you may find this information helpful. I am not speaking pro or con. This is for informational purposes only. ____________________________________________________________ Sec. 14-75. Unlawful keeping of pit bulls or restricted breed of dog. (a) Prohibited . It shall be unlawful for any person to have, own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city any pit bull or restricted breed of dog. (b) Definitions. (1) "Immediate family" for purposes of this chapter, includes the owner's spouse, child, parent or sibling. (2) "Muzzle" for purposes of this chapter, shall mean a restraining device made of metal, plastic, leather, cloth or a combination of these materials that, when fitted and fastened over a snout/mouth/head, prevents the dog from biting but allows room for the dog to breath and pant. The muzzle must be made in a manner that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration, but must prevent it from biting any person or animal. (3) "Pit bull" for purposes of this chapter, is defined as any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds. (4) "Restricted breed of dog" shall mean any American Bulldog (Old Country Bulldog), Dogo Argentino, Canary Dog (Canary Island Dog, Presa Canario, Perro De Presa Canario), Presa Mallorquin (Pero De Presa Mallorquin, Ca De Bou), Tosa Inu (Tosa Fighting Dog, Japanese Fighting Dog, Japanese Mastiff), Cane Corso (Cane Di Macellaio, Sicilian Branchiero), Fila Brasileiro or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds. (5) "Secure temporary enclosure" for purposes of this chapter, is a secure enclosure used for purposes of transporting a pit bull or restricted breed of dog and which includes a top and bottom permanently attached to the sides except for a "door" for removal of the pit bull or restricted breed of dog. Such enclosure must be of such material and secured with a keyed or combination lock so that the pit bull or restricted breed of dog cannot exit the enclosure on its own. (6) "Secure pen or enclosure" for the purposes of this chapter, shall mean a six-sided structure designed to prevent entry of a child or escape of a pit bull or restricted breed of dog. Such pen or structure must have minimum dimensions of five-feet by ten-feet per animal housed within and must have secure chain-link sides, a secured top and a secure bottom. The enclosure must provide protection from the elements for the dog. All structures erected to house a pit bull or restricted breed of dog must comply withall zoning and building ordinances and regulations of the city and shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. The gate of the pen or enclosure shall be secured with a keyed or combination lock. (c) Exceptions. The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply in the following enumerated circumstances. Failure by the owner to comply and remain in compliance with all of the terms of any applicable exception shall subject the pit bull or restricted breed of dog to immediate impoundment and disposition. (1) The owner of a pit bull or restricted breed of dog who has applied for and received a pit bull or restricted breed of dog license within 60 days of the effective date of this section in accordance with subsection (d) of this section, and who maintains the pit bull or restricted breed of dog at all times in compliance with the pit bull or restricted breed of dog license requirements of subsection (d) of this section and all other applicable requirements of this chapter, may keep a pit bull or restricted breed of dog within the city. (2) The animal care division may temporarily transport and harbor any pit bull or restricted breed of dog for purposes of enforcing the provisions of this chapter. (3) Any veterinarian while treating or grooming a pit bull or restricted breed of dog, or holding such pit bull or restricted breed of dog after treatment until claimed by the owner or released to an animal care officer. (4) A person may temporarily transport into and hold in the city a pit bull or restricted breed of dog only for the purpose of showing such pit bull or restricted breed of dog in a place of public exhibition, contest or show sponsored by a dog club association or similar organization. However, the sponsor of the exhibition, contest, or show must receive written permission from the city manager or designee, must obtain any other permits or licenses required by city ordinance, and must provide protective measuresadequate to prevent pit bulls or restricted breeds from escaping or injuring the public. The person who transports and holds a pit bull or restricted breed of dog for showing shall, at all times when the pit bull or restricted breed of dog is being transported within the city to and from the place of exhibition, contest, or show, keep the pit bull or restricted breed of dog confined in a secure temporary enclosure locked with a keyed or combination lock and bearing a caution sign affixed in a conspicuous location warning people a pit bull or restricted breed of dog is confined within. (5) The owner of a pit bull or restricted breed of dog may temporarily transport the pit bull or restricted breed of dog through the city. During such transport the owner may not stop within the city for any reason not reasonably related to and necessary for travel. During such travel, the owner shall keep the pit bull or restricted breed of dog muzzled and either in a secure temporary enclosure or securely leashed with a leash no longer than four feet in length held by someone 21 years of age or older who is capable of effectively controlling the dog. Extension-style leashes may not be used. Leashes may not be attached to inanimate objects. (d) License. The owner of a pit bull or restricted breed of dog who has applied for and received a pit bull or restricted breed of dog license within 60 days of the effective date of this section, shall be allowed to keep such pit bull or restricted breed of dog within the city. As a condition of issuance of a pit bull or restricted breed of dog license, the owner shall at the time of application, comply with or otherwise provide sufficient evidence that the owner is in compliance with all of the following regulations: (1) The owner of the pit bull or restricted breed of dog shall provide proof of a current rabies vaccination and shall pay an annual pit bull or restricted breed of dog license fee to be set by city council. (2) The owner of the pit bull or restricted breed of dog shall keep current the license for such pit bull or restricted breed of dog through annual renewal. Such license is not transferable or renewable except by the holder of the license or by a member of the immediate family of such licensee. A pit bull or restricted breed of dog license tag will be issued to the owner at the time of issuance of the license. Such license tag shall be attached to the pit bull or restricted breed of dog by means of a collar orharness which must be worn by the animal at all times, clearly visible, and shall not be attached to any pit bull or restricted breed of dog other than the pit bull or restricted breed of dog for which the license was issued. (3) The owner must be at least 21 years of age. (4) The owner shall present to the city manager or designee proof that the owner has homeowner's or renter's insurance with a minimum of $100,000.00 for liability coverage which will cover any damage or injury caused by a pit bull or restricted breed of dog during the twelve month period covered by the pit bull or restricted breed of dog license. (5) The owner shall, at the owner's own expense, have the pit bull or restricted breed of dog spayed or neutered and shall present to the city manager or designee documentary proof from a licensed veterinarian that this sterilization has been performed. (6) The owner shall, at the owner's own expense, have a microchip containing an identification number implanted into the pit bull or restricted breed of dog. The city manager or designee shall maintain a file containing the registration numbers and names of the pit bull or restricted breed of dog and the names and addresses of the owners. The owner shall notify the city manager or designee of any change of address. (7) At all times when a pit bull or restricted breed of dog is at the property of the owner, the owner shall keep the pit bull or restricted breed of dog confined. When outdoors, all pit bulls or restricted breed of dogs shall be confined in a locked secure pen or enclosure or with an adult at least 21 years of age in the rear yard with the dog, and the rear yard enclosed by a six foot fence maintained in accordance with chapter 146 of this Code. A warning sign shall be affixed to the gate of the structure notifying people a pit bull or restricted breed of dog is contained within. (8) No pit bull or restricted breed of dog may be kept on a porch, patio or in any part of a house or structure that would allow the dog to exit such building on its own volition. (9) At all times when a pit bull or restricted breed of dog is away from the property of the owner, the owner shall keep the pit bull or restricted breed of dog muzzled and either in a secure temporary enclosure or securely leashed with a leash no longer than four feet in length held by someone 21 years of age or older who is capable of effectively controlling the dog. Extension-style leashes may not be used. Leashes may not be attached to inanimate objects. (10) The owner shall not sell or otherwise transfer the pit bull or restricted breed of dog to any person residing within the city except a member of the owner's immediate family who will then become the owner and will be subject to all of the provisions of this section. (11) The owner shall immediately notify the city manager or designee in the event that the pit bull or restricted breed is loose, stolen, at-large, unconfined, has mauled, bitten, attacked, threatened, or in any way menaced another animal or human, or has died. (12) The owner shall have posted at the front door entrance to the owner's property where the pit bull or restricted breed is kept a conspicuous and clearly legible pit bull or restricted breed warning sign obtained from the animal care division. (13) No person applying for a pit bull or restricted breed of dog license shall be granted a litter or fancier's permit pursuant to section 14-42 of this section for such pit bull or restricted breed of dog. (14) Failure to comply with any of these conditions shall result in a revocation of the license, impoundment and disposition pursuant to subsection (e) of this section. (e) Impoundment. The animal care division is authorized to immediately impound any pit bull or restricted breed of dog found within the city limits which does not fall within the exceptions listed in subsection (c) or (d), subject to a pre-trial hearing pursuant to section 14-4 of this Code. If the dog is found to be a pit bull or restricted breed of dog, it shall be destroyed unless the owner produces evidence deemed sufficient by the court that the pit bull or restricted breed of dog is to be permanently taken out of thecity. Sufficient evidence must include, but is not limited to, a notarized agreement from the person taking custody of the animal containing an address and date of transfer. Additionally, the owner must consent to an in-home inspection by the animal care division within 30 days of release for the purpose of verifying the dog's removal from the city. Prior to release, the owner must pay the cost of impoundment and microchip the dog pursuant to subsection (d)(6) of this section. If the dog is found not to bea pit bull or restricted breed of dog, the dog shall be released to the owner. (f) Penalty. Any person found guilty of violating this section shall, upon conviction, be subject to the payment of a fine of not less than $700.00. In addition to the fines stated in this subsection, a person convicted under this section may be subject to not more than one year in jail. None of the minimum monetary fines in this subsection shall be suspended by the municipal court and the penalties in this subsection may be imposed in addition to the court-ordered destruction provided for in section 14-4. (Ord. No. 2005-84, § 1, 10-24-2005) Secs. 14-76--14-100. Reserved.