Muhtar Kent, CEO of The Coca-Cola Company (NYSE: KO), took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal to argue against the government's proposed "fat tax" on soda. In a column titled "Coke Didn't Make America Fat," Kent noted that "our industry has become an easy target in this debate." However, he believes the sedentary lifestyle of Americans is to blame for our nation's obesity problem.

"If we're genuinely interested in curbing obesity, we need to take a hard look in the mirror and acknowledge that it's not just about calories in. It's also about calories out," wrote Kent. He also cited the "regressive nature and inherent illogic" of trying to rectify obesity by taxing soft drinks, observing that West Virginia and Arkansas -- two states which currently tax sodas -- are among the states with the highest obesity rates in the nation.

The stock price of Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) has been declining this morning. Pfizer canceled the development of an obesity drug for which many had high hopes, especially in light of the looming 2011 Lipitor blockbuster cholesterol drug patent expiration. Pfizer may find it hard to post growth without it.

Pfizer is not the only pharma that has recently canceled the same class of obesity drugs. Only Wednesday, Sanofy Aventis (NYSE: SNY), after stopping sales in Europe of its version of the drug, Acomplia, also stopped clinical trials on humans. Merck & Co. (NYSE: MRK) stopped development of a similar drug candidate called Taranabant a few weeks ago. Those companies all had high hopes the drug could be used for smoking, diabetes and high cholesterol along with obesity. According to Bloomberg, only Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (NYSE: BMY) is still developing a similar medicine.

Why are they all stopping? Mostly because they figured regulators around the world will not approve the drug due to negative psychiatric side-effects. This class of drug works on blocking the pleasure centers in the brain, specifically, it blocks the cannabinoid type 1, or CB1, receptors. If cannabinoid sounds familiar, it is because this is the very same pleasure centers that give marijuana smokers the "munchies." By blocking these centers, studies have shown people have become depressed and had suicidal thoughts.

Perhaps not having chemical and pharmaceutical degrees I'm missing something, but it seems rather straight forward that if one's pleasure centers are blocked, depression could ensue. Even if it just blocks one specific type, that could be enough to create an imbalance.

Usually regulators weigh costs, risks and benefits of the drug and the condition treated, often approving drugs with severe side effects. These drugs are our best option currently. But drug companies should change their attitude somewhat, and when developing new drugs, place more emphasis on looking at the the body as one whole entity, and see how the drug interacts with the rest of the body, not just if it can treat the specific condition.

Score a victory for corporate responsibility and good taste.

After drawing fire from nearly everyone when a Seminole County, Florida, mother complained that her 9 year-old daughter's report card arrived wrapped in an advertisement for McDonald's (NYSE: MCD), the company has decided it will discontinue that practice.

At the time of the original scandal, I wrote that I thought the ad campaign sent the wrong message: "The ad offered kids a free Happy Meal for their good work. Shouldn't kids be taught to work for knowledge and pride, not crappy food and imported toys?"

Apparently McDonald's ultimately agreed, saying it offered to reprint the report card envelopes without the ad at no cost to the school, "because we believe the focus should be on the importance of a good education."

It's a shame that young children are exposed to cynical cradle-to-grave marketing strategies on television, but parents should be able to send their kids to school without having to worry that second-grade teachers will be hocking Happy Meals.

As news of the nationwide obesity epidemic among children sweeps through the media, it's hard to fathom that one of major purveyors of crap food are the schools: Yes, those places we send children so they can be safe and grow up to strong, intelligent members of society.

Mercifully, Congress is close to dealing with the issue. According to the New York Times, "Federal lawmakers are considering the broadest effort ever to limit what children eat: a national ban on selling candy, sugary soda and salty, fatty food in school snack bars, vending machines and a la carte cafeteria lines ...Several lawmakers and advocates for changes in school food believe that an amendment to the $286 billion farm bill is the best chance to get control of the mountain of high-calorie snacks and sodas available to schoolchildren. Even if the farm bill does not pass, Mr. Harkin and Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, a sponsor of the amendment, vow to keep reintroducing it in other forms until it sticks."

Signing this bill would send the right message. It's important for schools to raise money to fund programs, but exploiting vulnerable members of society and selling them something that could have a very negative impact on their lives is not the right way to do that. Government should not fund programs, however worthy, that sell unhealthy stuff to people.

The next step is for some independent-minded, courageous politicians (yeah, I know) to take on the lottery, which is similar to junk food in schools, in that they raise money by selling unhealthy products to society's most vulnerable.

Restaurateurs are cheering a New York court's decision striking down a menu law implemented by the New York Board of Health. The law required fast-food restaurants to disclose on their menus how many calories were in their meals.

The Department of Health says it is disappointed its law was overturned on a "technicality", and that it will continue to explore ways to make it easier for the consumer to eat healthy. If you've ever tried to get nutritional information in a fast-food restaurant you know how hard it can be. If you have the foresight, you can get it quickly online, but I've been in McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) locations where I was told they did not have the information available on site. Even if they do, it can be a hassle, and displaying it on the menu is the logical way to make sure consumers have convenient access to the information they need to make a decision.

The idea of New York's law was very similar to the way our securities laws are in this country: It was based on clear and compulsory disclosure, rather than subjective requirements. A public company can have O.J. Simpson and Jose Canseco as its CEO and CFO, as long as it discloses the baggage they bring. Similarly, McDonald's should be allowed to serve whatever it wants -- but consumers should be warned that they may find themselves carrying extra baggage if they order the wrong item.

It's a shame that fast-food chains want to keep their customers in the dark about nutrition, and it's unfortunate that the court has stymied the Department of Health's efforts to provide the consumer with greater information.

In what could be seen as a major victory for child health advocates, 11 of the nation's biggest food and drink companies will be restraining themselves like never before when it comes to advertising food and beverage products to kids under the age of 12. It's always been a troubling question as to why breakfast cereal companies are allowed to use bright colors and free prizes to lure children into sugary cereals and why fast-food chains get away with using cartoon characters to sell junk food to kids. Perhaps that will change soon.

The companies involved with this major shift in marketing include well-known producers like Campbell Soup Co. (NYSE: CPB), General Mills Inc. (NYSE: GIS) and PepsiCo Inc. (NYSE: PEP). Interestingly, the new guidelines adopted by the companies came a day before the FTC meets to pressure food and drink manufacturers to limit their marketing to children. The hope is that such limits will help reverse the explosion of childhood obesity currently occurring in the U.S.

Will parents be able to make more reasonable decisions now that some of those attention-grabbing marketing pitches won't be enticing kids to want all the "bad stuff'?" Probably. And the limits are certainly a good thing, given that the 11 companies involved in the new advertising guidelines account for about two-thirds of food ads on television that are directed towards kids. So, no more processed, sugary, nutritionally empty foods using such colorful characters as Shrek, Dora the Explorer and SpongeBob SquarePants. This one is a victory for kids.

I've heard lots of excuses for weight gain -- depression, stress, work, injuries, kids, but this is a new one: Blame your credit cards!

According to a piece on BankRate, people tend to spend more when they use a credit card instead of cash, and that also applies to food purchases: "A Visa study of 100,000 restaurant transactions found that customers spent, on average, 30% more than those who paid with cash. That 30% can be the difference between a small order of fries and soft drink and a supersize order, or it can be the addition of a high-calorie dessert."

That an increase in the size of the check at a restaurant would lead to an increase in consumption is a no-brainer. So here's a diet tip: Pay cash when dining out. It'll keep your wallet heavier and you body lighter.

GlaxoSmithKline's (NYSE: GSK) Alli, the first ever over-the-counter weight loss drug approved by the FDA, will be available in late June, almost hitting the market in time for this summer's bathing suit season.

The drug will likely become immediately popular, because it will be FDA tested and approved (unlike Trimspa and Hoodia), but available over-the counter (unlike Meridia and Xenical). Helping it to become a household name is the $150M+ marketing push the drug is getting this year. The advertising has already begun -- I saw an ad for Alli while researching GNC's website for this blog. This should be enough to bring the drug to the forefront of our obese culture's mind. However, the advertising won't be able to keep it there. Only results will.

And unlike past drug treatments for obesity, this one is being very upfront about what it is and isn't. It is not a magic pill, says the website, myalli.com, and the most active ingredient for it to work is you. This is both good and bad for Glaxo. The good news for the company is that they will not be told they are advertising the product falsely -- the website is all about how you have to be ready to change your lifestyle for it to work, and how if you don't, the drug will give you less than desirable side-effects. The bad news is that this is much less likely to be a blockbuster drug if it is not the miracle obesity pill the market has been dying for, which it sadly doesn't appear to be.

All in all, I'd say this is no home run, but a stand-up double for Glaxo. Alli will help those willing to work at it, and strengthen the company's consumer healthcare products segment, fitting in nicely with anti-smoking drug Nicoderm. It will not, if Alli's website is any indication, revolutionize dieting in our instant gratification seeking country.

(On a totally unrelated note, Google ought to sue Glaxo for copyright infringement -- the Alli logo strongly resembles Google's own logo. Although I guess Google would have a tough time with anything like that, with all the heat they are facing since taking over YouTube and all.)

This morning, fast-food behemoth McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) reported that its same-store sales spiked 4.8% worldwide in April. Helping drive the sales growth last month, according to company officials, were the kid-friendly Happy Meal, breakfast items, and the new "Snack Wrap" menu offering.

On U.S. soil, same-store sales rose 3.5%. The figures rose 3.5% in Europe and surged 10.3% in the Asia/Pacific, Middle East, and Africa regions (this ties in with Zac's posting yesterday about the expanding waistlines among Japanese women). Total sales rose 9.6% across the globe and 4.2% in the U.S.

With the exception of its fries, and the Big Mac I crave about once every 18 months, McDonald's has never been my favorite, but it's inarguably a force to be reckoned with. And amid complaints from Morgan Spurlock and countless others, MCD has done its part to fight obesity - finding an oil free of trans fats for its french fries, for one, and introducing healthier menu options, such as veggie burgers and better salads.

The company's stock is also an exquisite performer. MCD has been trending higher since early 2003, more than quadrupling in value during the past four years. This month, the stock has eked above its November 1999 peak to peg a new all-time high.

Beth Gaston Moon is an analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research.

A piece in today's Wall Street Journal discussed the growing "curviness" of Japanese women. According to the Journal: "Japanese stores that used to keep just two or three sizes of clothing on hand are rushing to stock larger sizes. Juicy Couture, known for its figure-hugging terrycloth tracksuits, opened one of its biggest stores in Tokyo last year. And Tokyo's high-end Isetan department store, which used to relegate its bigger sizes to one corner, now prominently features larger items from designers such as Ralph Lauren, Diane von Furstenberg and DKNY."

The average Japanese woman's hips are 35 inches, about an inch wider than those of women a generation older. The emergence of companies like Kripsy Kreme and McDonald's, along with a generally more western diet is a key contributor to the trend. This got me to thinking: As America imports products from the developing world at a record pace, could our chief export become obesity? And if it does, how might investors make money from that trend? Here are a couple of my picks for companies that could look to capitalize on the globalization of obesity:

Casual Male Retail Group (NASDAQ: CMRG): With its current stable of more than 500 stores in the United States, Canada, and England, Casual Male is the largest specialty retailer of big and tall men's apparel. Could the company follow fast food chains around the world in a quest to corner the market on clothing for expanding waistlines?

Nutrisystem (NASDAQ: NTRI): This company markets monthly food packages containing breakfasts, lunches, dinners and desserts, which are delivered to your door every day. As people in foreign countries gain a taste for fattening American foods, will they also want to lose weight with low-calorie American foods?

These are just some of my ideas for capitalizing on a global trend, and you should always do careful bottom-up research before you invest. I don't own any of these.

With the tobacco industry's experience all too fresh in their minds, the nation's restaurants, beverage and food suppliers learned late last week that the Federal Trade Commission is going to subpoena 44 of them for all records of their marketing of junk food to children. The info will be gathered to aid in preparing a report to the Senate on child obesity.

In the wake of the film Fast Food Nation (based on the best-selling book of the same name) and the award-winning documentary Super Size Me, public opinion seems to be moving away from blaming we consumers for our inability to deny the fry, and placing it on marketers of less-than-wholesome foods. Already this year we've seen the nation's restaurants scramble to divest themselves of trans fats.

However, an attack on core products such as doughnuts, pizzas, burgers and soft drinks would have enormous financial ramifications for businesses such as KFC (YUM Brands, NYSE:YUM) and McDonald's (NYSE: MCD), since those items are the profit margin.

This could also enhance the climate for personal injury claims.

Sen. Edward "Sticks" Kennedy introduced the Prevention of Childhood Obesity Act in the last Congress, and although it didn't emerge from committee, it appears that the issue will be on the front burner this time. Don't be surprised if the clerk at your local 7-11 starts asking to see proof of age before you can buy a Ding Dong.

Last week, I linked to an article on the 12 most dangerous (and safest) states, based on various violent-crime statistics. Many New England territories were among those judged as "safest," and for the sixth time in seven years, Vermont has now topped the charts as America's healthiest state (I guess the locally made Ben & Jerry's ice cream is enjoyed sparingly!). The rulings, published by Morgan Quitno Press for the past 15 years, are based on 21 factors, including teenage birth rate, health coverage, and rate of certain diseases.

Next on the list is Minnesota, hitting number one in terms of the percentage of residents who exercise regularly and those carrying health insurance. The New England region rounds out the top five, with Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire taking the three-through-five spots.

The remainder of the top 12:

Last week I accompanied my 14-year-old son as he attended a weeklong baseball camp in Lakeland, Fla. He got to play and learn; I got to watch and yearn. I had a bit of spare time, about six hours a day, so I decided to ride around Lakeland, a city of about 100,000 residents, and do some real research: things like go to the mall and see which brands are hot and which ones are not. I even did something personally wicked and had lunch at a McDonald's Corp. (NYSE: MCD) restaurant. I had not been to a McDonald's in over a year. But, all in the name of research.

What struck me next was paralyzing as well as perplexing. Seated next to me was a family of six: grandma, grandpa, mom, dad and two 12- or 13-year-old brothers. I was astonished as I witnessed the amount of food on their table. I was also astonished by the obesity of this entire family. I figured between the six of them they weighed in at about 2,000 pounds. The two boys, even at their tender ages, probably tipped the scales at more than 200 pounds each. Mom and dad went an easy 300-350 pounds each, and grandma and grandpa, the same.

Then today I read that Florida ranks 46th out of our 50 states in fitness and health. My home state of Minnesota ranked second just behind Vermont. We'll catch 'em next year. But back to my story ...

I don't know about your neck of the woods, but where I live there seem to be an awful lot of super-sized kids wheezing their way up and down the sidewalk. Usually they're on a short walk to their parents' SUV, which will take them to closest fast food joint for another 1,000 calorie snack. Then it's back home for a few hours of relaxation in front of the tube. Ah, the joys of childhood in 21st century America.

Once settled in front of the electronic hearth, the average American child is in for a real treat: hours of advertisements for sugary cereal, candy and fast food. As reported today in The New York Times, the numbers are shocking: children between the age of 8 and 12 -- known as 'tweens' in ad-speak -- see over 20 ads for food products every day, which is over 7,600 per year. The vast majority of those ads are for junk food. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that half of all TV ads are for food, and the vast majority of the food ads are for products like sweetened cereals, potato chips and candy bars. Only 4% of ads aimed at kids are for dairy products, and no ads are for fruit and vegetables.

The massive corporations that produce the junk food and the ads that sell them are claiming to be concerned. Last year, a number of companies -- including PepsiCo, Inc. (NYSE: PEP), Kraft Foods (NYSE: KFT) and McDonald's Corporation (NYSE: MCD) -- agreed to make healthy foods and a healthy lifestyle the subject of half of their advertising aimed at kids. The new rules are, of course, completely voluntary. It's a good question whether such self-policing will have much an impact. (Hey, self-regulation works for the oil industry, right?)

Another question is: why do we allow advertising to kids under 12 at all? The American Academy of Pediatrics has called for a total ban on junk food ads for kids, and most countries in Europe ban or at least limit such advertising. I know, I know -- they're a bunch of dirty socialists. The Free Market must have access to our children, 24 hours a day. Limiting Ronald McDonald's right to sell milkshakes to 12 year-olds would be like putting handcuffs on Uncle Sam. So the let the ads continue, and sit back and enjoy the spectacle of an ever-expanding national waistline.

No doubt by now you have heard the good news regarding Pfizer Inc. (NYSE:PFE) and the shield it has in place for Celebrex. You can get some more insight on that by reading Douglas McIntyre's post.

Now the time is ripe for Pfizer to do something powerful. If it can accomplish one or two block buster product releases before mid-year, it'll be off to the races once again. In pursuit of that goal, Pfizer has a large stable of potential ground shakers in development. Here's an encapsulated view of what Pfizer has going right now in R&D:

I counted 49 formulations that Pfizer has in PHASE I of development. Of those compounds, ten are intended cancer treatments, eight are for inflammation and / or pain, including arthritis, 11 are directed towards cardiology, metabolic and endocrine conditions. Pfizer also has six compounds in PHASE I that are indicated for infectious diseases. Phase one drug testing focuses on compound safety rather than drug effectiveness.