Thorough examination of Clinton’s emails warranted
Thorough examination of Clinton’s emails warranted
It’s tempting to dismiss chatter about Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server, while secretary of state, as political theater staged by opponents and pundits — the same crowd that can’t stop talking about Benghazi.
But this is serious. New revelations that several emails on her server were classified as “top secret” and a widening inquiry involving the FBI, as reported by McClatchy, are pushing the issue from a sideshow into the spotlight.
It might turn out that the flap is overblown, excusable errors were made, the “classified” label is overused and Clinton truly is the Democrats’ best candidate for president. Wisely, she finally agreed to give the server in question to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Still, the practice of official correspondence straddling public and private computers is problematic and risky. It disdains public-record laws and muddies transparency, as Sarah Palin demonstrated when she was governor of Alaska. Perhaps it should be banned.
In the meantime, the Obama administration must proceed quickly with inquiries into Clinton’s email handling, regardless of political alliances. This is no time to dawdle and obfuscate.
To be fair, the administration should give Clinton the same level of scrutiny that it has applied to other government employees suspected of mishandling sensitive material and putting it on personal devices outside the firewall.
The federal government has plenty of experience after aggressively cracking down on those who have stepped outside the line with sensitive information.
Under President Barack Obama, more than twice as many people have been prosecuted for leaking information than under all previous presidents combined.
Even so, the administration has a mixed record of dealing with higher-ups who are sloppy with classified material. One former CIA director, David Petraeus, was prosecuted for disclosing secrets while his predecessor, Leon Panetta, was not.
A fast and thorough assessment of Clinton’s email practices is needed to clear the air, build faith in the system and help voters know whom to trust.
— The Seattle Times
Adding to the sugar problem
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is shifting its obesity focus from fat to sugar, as it should. Recent studies have provided evidence of how overconsumption of sugar, often through sodas and energy drinks, has contributed to the rise of weight-related health problems among Americans. But the FDA’s draft proposal to add labeling information on sugar has so many problematic inconsistencies that it could backfire.
The familiar nutrition labels on packaged foods would continue to tell consumers how many grams of sugar a serving contains. A new second line would break out how many of those grams were from “added sugar,” as well as what percentage that represents of all the added sugar a person should consume in a day. The idea is to direct shoppers away from empty sugar calories and toward foods that, although they naturally contain sugar, also provide other nutrients.
But sugar can be complicated stuff. Fruit juice concentrate would count as “added sugar” under the proposal rather than as “natural sugar,” even though its sugar occurs naturally. But the sugar in regular fruit juice would be considered natural — unless more sugar were added. And what about juice reconstituted from concentrate? How would that be labeled?
The FDA’s reasonable concern was that companies would switch to sweetening their products with fruit concentrates and thus load them with sugar calories while avoiding the “added sugar” label. But if the nutritional values of fruit juice and concentrate are the same, it’s misleading to label them differently.
Overall, the emphasis on added sugar could lead consumers to think that natural sugars aren’t something to watch carefully, which could encourage them to consume more, not less, sugar. Some fortified, flavored sports drinks contain a third of the sugar in fruit juice and just as much or more nutrition. But those drinks would all carry the “added sugar” stigma while the juice would not.
That might not matter, because consumers could see that the juice contained far more sugar, as well as more calories. But by setting a daily allowance on added sugar, and not all sugar, the FDA risks sending a message that naturally occurring sugar somehow doesn’t “count.” It does.
Before issuing its final rules, the FDA should reexamine the message it’s sending. Admittedly, this isn’t an easy problem to solve, but above all the agency should avoid giving consumers information that might lead to unintended consequences — such as higher overall sugar consumption. The words “natural” and “added” don’t necessarily mean “healthy” and “unhealthy.”
— Los Angeles Times