> especially the "too much is bad for you" rant at 2m00s. It's also pretty futile. The point is not that a theoretical excessive quantity of something does you

> especially the "too much is bad for you" rant at 2m00s. It's also pretty futile. The point is not that a theoretical excessive quantity of something does you significant damage, the point is whether or not you are exposing yourself to that amount now, and/or enough people are for it to be a public health problem. You could make the same rant about being obese, or about hardly moving throughout the day. That is especially relevant when you have food companies engineering their products to be as pleasurable as possible, without reference to the health consequences - see the enormous amount of sugar in ready meals, or the introduction of trans fats previously. Of course, that doesn't mean we actually can tell what is good and what is bad for you, or what doesn't matter either way, which is the point of Goldacre's statement.