Convenient letter editing or censorship?

Over the years, I have had several letters published in the Globe and Mail, Canada's newspaper of record. But I am continually surprised and exasperated by the savagery of their editing of my text.
I think most people are aware, and accept, that newspapers reserve the right to edit the letters they receive, to correct spelling maybe, to remove unproductive waffle or offensive or libellous language, to make it fit into the required space, etc. Some minimal editing is no doubt unavoidable and acceptable, but it routinely seems to be taken to a much higher level. Often, some of the more important points are excised completely, leaving the letter bowdlerized and lame. Sometimes, new phrases are inserted that I would not personally use, and which may change the tenor and import of the letter.
Just as an example, my recent letter on the subject of a McMaster University report on saturated fats was originally sent as follows:

Your editorial about saturated fats (Stop worrying. Dinner is served - Aug 13) was one of your most thoughtless, jingoistic and downright misleading that I can remember.

You should know that one study does not suddenly invalidate decades of research. And to say that many people have suffered earlier deaths by seeking out alternatives to saturated fats is disingenuous to say the least, as is talking about a "puritanical policy of absolute avoidance" and advocating that we "fall back on our best instincts".

Embarrassingly, I had to resort to a British newspaper for a bit of balance. The Independent also reported those parts of the McMaster study that cautioned, "we aren’t advocating an increase of the allowance for saturated fats in dietary guidelines, as we don’t see evidence that higher limits would be specifically beneficial to health" and, "We could not confidently rule out an increased risk of death from heart disease with higher amounts of saturated fat". It also bothered to ask other food scientists for their reactions to the McMaster study, which included the considered opinion that it should come with its own health warning, and that it employed a notoriously unreliable methodology.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and disseminating unjustifiable conclusions from a little knowledge is even worse.

What was ultimately published was as follows:

One study does not suddenly invalidate decades of nutritional research (Stop Worrying. Dinner Is Served – editorial, Aug. 13).

To suggest that many people have suffered earlier deaths by seeking alternatives to saturated fats is disingenuous, to say the least, as is talking about a “puritanical policy of absolute avoidance” and advocating that we “fall back on our best instincts.”

As reported elsewhere, the lead author in the McMaster University study also cautioned that researchers “aren’t advocating an increase of the allowance for saturated fats in dietary guidelines, as we don’t see evidence that higher limits would be specifically beneficial to health” and that “we could not confidently rule out an increased risk of death from heart disease with higher amounts of saturated fat.”

A little knowledge is a dangerous base for advocacy.

I actually sent them another letter after this, suggesting that maybe letter-writers should be given the option of vetoing the newspaper's edits, or withdrawing it completely. Or that maybe they should just print letters verbatim (or not at all, if they do not conform to their own internal rules).
Either way, I don't think I will bother submitting any more letters to the esteemed Globe and Mail.