Should the Government Tell You

What to Eat?
August 3, 2014

Alan Caruba

Given the successive scandals and monster laws like Obamacare that have been imposed
on Americans, the federal governments efforts to control and determine what you eat
doesn't receive the attention that it should. The ultimate question is whether the
government should tell you what to eat and then seek to enforce their views about it? The
answer is no.
The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is one of those federal entities that should
have no role in determining what is on your plate, but among its recommendations is the
promotion of a plant-based diet, reduced meat consumption, and only eating fish after
reading up on which are good for you. Meanwhile the food police have been warning
against the natural element of mercury in fish even though it is so small as to constitute
no health threat.
Hanns Kuttner, a senior research fellow at the Hudson Institute, a Washington,
D.C. domestic and foreign policy think tank, says that the working premise of the
committee is that a good diet would increase consumers costs and imply the end of
entire sectors of American agricultureall in an effort to regulate behavior that has
nothing to do with nutrition. The committee, since 2010, has not included a member
who has any knowledge of food production and food regulation.
The committee reflects the United Nations global campaign to encourage the
consumption of insects. If you love dining on bugs, the UN wants this to be a part of
everyones diet. According to Eva Muller, the director of Food and Agricultural
Organizations Forest Economics, Policy and Products Division, bugs are nutritious, they
have a lot of protein and are considered a delicacy in many countries.

It should come as no surprise that Michelle Obama is leading the food police at this point.
A program of the U.S. Agriculture Department announced new rules in 2013 to remove
high caloric food and drink items from cafeterias and campuses of schools around the
country. As of this year, sodas, sports drinks, and candy bars are banned. Only diet drinks,
granola bars, and fruit are acceptable.
This is Big Government at work, but no one expects that kids will go along, nor are
shoppers likely to embrace a U.S. Department of Agriculture report that wants to steer
them toward more fruits and vegetables and away from sugar and fat-laden items. The
new guide was written for the 47 million Americans who participate in the food stamp
program. Yes, 47 million!
Michelle Obama also favors costly--$30,000 eachgrocery carts that are color-coded to
help consumers selected approved food items. This kind of intrusiveness is obnoxious.
Victor Skinner of the Education Action Group noted in early July that The federal
governments attempt to force public school students to eat healthier lunches is falling
apart at the seams. The New York Times News Service reported that the School
Nutrition Association (SNA) which initially welcomed the bans is now lobbying
Congress to dial back on the overly prescriptive and expensive changes.
Congress is listening, reported the Times, and is considering legislation to delay the
nutrition regulations for a year, some of which have already gone into effect. The SNA is
pointing out that many students are throwing away the additional fruits and vegetables
included in their lunches, amounting to $684 million in food waste every yearor
roughly enough to serve complete reimbursable school lunches to more than 228 million
students. Moreover, the nutritious federal lunch menu is also proving costly for many
school districts that are now forced to purchase more expensive foods to comply with the
regulations.
We have reached the point where some schools are banning birthday cakes or cupcakes in
classrooms where such celebrations have gone on for decades. Meanwhile many parents
have noticed that their children just skip lunch at school and wait to come home to eat
instead.
For as long as I can remember Americans have been told that something they eat or drink
is dangerous to their health, even though Americans now enjoy the highest life
expectancy since such data has been studied. Almost everything we have been warned
against has turned out to have some beneficial aspect to it.
In March, the journal, Annals of Internal Medicine published a study that concluded
that Saturated fat does not cause heart disease. Nina Teicholz, writing in the Wall Street
Journal in May noted that One consequence is that in cutting back on fats, we are now
eating a lot more carbohydratesat least 25% more since the early 1970sinstead of
meat, eggs and cheese, were eating more pasta, grains, fruit and starchy vegetables such
as potatoes.

The problem is that carbohydrates break down into glucose, which causes the body to
release insulin, a hormone that is fantastically efficient at storing fatexcessive
carbohydrates lead not only to obesity, but also, over time, to Type 2 diabetes and, very
likely, heart disease. Thanks to Big Government dietary guidelines and regulations, the
U.S. population (is) growing sicker and fatter while adhering to official dietary guidelines
has put nutrition authorities in an awkward position.
The latest group to join the Food Police are those opposed to food grown with genetically
modified organisms (GMO), calling for the labeling of them. This is intended to boost the
sales of organically grown crops that allegedly do not use pesticides or herbicides. It is
pure propaganda because, as Mischa Popoff, a former organic farmer and USDA-contract
organic inspector, and the author of Is It Organic? recently noted in a Daily Caller
article that A whopping 43% of all certified-organic food sold in America now test
positive for prohibited pesticides. And, of course, organic food items cost more.
Simply put, crops need to be protected against insects and weeds. Always have and
always will. There is no evidence that the proper use of insecticides and herbicides pose a
health hazard. As one farmer told me, My family eats what I grow. Do you think I would
do anything to harm them? Popoff notes that The GMO industry is now wellestablished, with 35 years of science and over 20 years of commercial success behind it.
The government has no business telling Americans what they should eat. It too frequently
offers bad science and almost always propaganda. In the home of the brave and land of
the free this is yet another intrusion in the lives of Americans. What you eat and even
how much is an individual freedom and choice.
Alan Caruba, 2014