Everybody jokingly refers to the ‘fashion police’, the ‘speech police’ and of course, with the unprecedented involvement of the President’s wife in nutritional rules and regulations in schools – along with former Mayor Bloomberg’s attempt to limit beverage choices, the ‘food police’.
Even so, the idea of actual ‘food police’ sounds comical. No one would actually go so far as to propose that we be harassed on a daily basis on what we prefer to eat and drink, right? Apparently, not right. Are you sitting down? Better not, the ‘activity police’ say it’s bad for you. Get up.
Yes, Virginia, a plan is in the works for the implementation of the Gastronomic Geheimstaatspolitzei. An unknown, but probably significant amount of your hard earned tax dollars went to the formation of a task force dubbed the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC).
This bunch of busy bodies and obsessive do gooders, produced a 571 page report of recommendations to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Thursday, which detailed its plans to “transform the food system.”
Essentially what is afoot here is yet another iteration of Cultural Marxism. In the report this expert assembly of buttinskys laid out a series of “solutions to address obesity, and its promotion of what it calls the “culture of health.”
“Government at local, state, and national levels, the health care system, schools, worksites, community organizations, businesses, and the food industry all have critical roles in developing creative and effective solutions”, the report is quoted as saying.
In the report, they referenced “The persistent high levels of overweight and obesity require urgent population- and individual-level strategies across multiple settings, including health care, communities, schools, worksites, and families.”
Here’s where the food police rear their ugly and uncalled for heads. DGAC called for diet and weight management interventions by “trained interventionists” in healthcare settings, community locations, and worksites. ‘Interventions’? No thank you. Don’t we already have enough personal acquaintances and presumptuous and intrusive strangers pimping their individual beliefs as it is?
The group also recommended ‘policy interventions’. Now, your hackles are up. You’re wondering, “policy interventions – where is this going?” The answer is reminiscent of Mayor Gloomberg and Mooochelle. Policy interventions are for the purpose of “reducing unhealthy options”. This is a polite way of saying your choices are going to be limited. Never forget that liberal tyranny often gets it’s foot in the door with “awareness campaigns”. Suggestions morph into mandates.
Access to high calorie foods (who defines that?), will be curtailed and the government will be authorized to “limit the exposure” of advertisements for junk food, implement a draconian soda tax, and the taxation of high sugar, salt items and dessert
Government will be empowered to use the taxes resulting from the nanny nutrition Nazi taxes to, “For example, earmark tax revenues from sugar-sweetened beverages, snack foods and desserts high in calories, added sugars, or sodium, and other less healthy foods for nutrition education initiatives and obesity prevention programs.”
At this point, it won’t come as any surprise that there is a Global Warming angle involved in all of this. The group recommended that citizens be discouraged from consuming meat, in favor of vegetarian and vegan fare, because such foods, in their estimation, are friendlier to the environment and do not produce as much GHG (Greenhouse Gases) in their production, preparation and consumption.
“The major findings regarding sustainable diets were that a diet higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in calories and animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with less environmental impact than is the current U.S. diet.”
You and your Pepperoni Pizza and your Big Mac, Bacon, Hot Dogs, Steaks, Pork roasts, tacos and all the rest, are careless, callous, polluters as well as the people who prepare them and serve them to you and you need to be scolded and hounded into submission towards more sensible and ‘sustainable’ alternatives.
“Sustainability” has attained a lofty status in the lexicon of progressives, right up there with ‘diversity’, ‘inclusiveness’ and ‘social justice’. If you’ll pardon me for saying so, liberals get hard nipples just hearing the word ‘sustainability’ mentioned. It’s kind of an aphrodisiac to them. Not that you would ever want to spontaneously sexually arouse a liberal, but an injudicious sprinkling of these terms would do the trick. The committee flatulates on:
“Current evidence shows that the average U.S. diet has a larger environmental impact in terms of increased greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and energy use, compared to the above dietary patterns. This is because the current U.S. population intake of animal-based foods is higher and plant-based foods are lower, than proposed in these three dietary patterns.”
The enforcement of this regime will be pretty comprehensive. Behavior modification is crucial. The infamous behavior modification researcher would be ecstatic with the DGAC.
“New well-coordinated policies that include, but are not limited to, agriculture, economics, transportation, energy, water use, and dietary guidance need to be developed. Behaviors of all participants in the food system are central to creating and supporting sustainable diets.”
If you think your eating habits are the only targets of these effete, impudent, lifestyle snobs, you would be sadly mistaken. If they can’t get your guns, they at least want to control your entertainment options. TV – the kind of TV, no doubt that you prefer and they disdain, has to be curtailed.
They recommended “coaching or counseling sessions,” “peer-based social support,” and “electronic tracking and monitoring of the use of screen-based technologies” as a way to limit screen time. The screen-time recommendations came from The Community Guide, a group affiliated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reviewed studies that used an “electronic monitoring device to limit screen time” of teenagers.
“Coaching or counseling sessions”? It’s easy to see how all this can open the door for all sorts of coercion, sanctions and bullying designed to stamp out individual lifestyle preferences and personal decisions. Don’t get me wrong, I do see the value in a balanced, healthy diet. I just am narrow minded enough to believe that our bloated, dysfunctional, national government needs to go on a weight reduction program of its own and that we’re more than capable of educating ourselves about nutrition without some meddling yenta bureaucrats bullying us into it.
This mentality is pervasive in regional planning with reference to pushing people into public transportation, new laws proposed to make buying ammunition as involved as obtaining a driver’s license, penalizing you for the number of miles you drive, dictating the kind of health insurance policies are acceptable and which are not and penalizing you if you opt out and on and on. The focus and intent behind DGAC seems to dovetail with that of Agenda 21 and Common Core.
If you want to let this agency to know you do not approve of their meddling and imposition on your personal choices and tell them to butt out, you can do so, here – and I recommend that you do so. Silence equals agreement in the minds of these compulsive central planners.