Skip to content

Your brain – Are you using it?

February 24, 2015

People have historically accepted as truth all the data provided by government, under the premise that the government will provide both good source data and objective conclusions to create policy. That might be a somewhat naïve conclusion in today’s world.

Case in point…the nutrition debate.

In an odd juxtaposition of environmental and dietary science, or what currently passes for same, the Washington Free Beacon reports that the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) apparently thinks the U.S. should go vegan, and as usual they are advising that we should increase taxes and government surveillance to shrink both our waistlines and our carbon footprint.  The  571-page report, which will eventually form the basis for the government’s latest attempt to define what constitutes a healthy diet is open for public comment for 45 days.

Not that anything the public thinks about the report will have the slightest effect on what the government decides to do, particularly when there is a chance to add another tax to the mix.

The report goes into great detail attempting to show how reducing the consumption of meat, particularly red meat, would have a positive effect on our “carbon footprint.” How dietary science got woven into environmental science isn’t hard to understand, given the amount of money at stake for the backers of both doctrines.

Still, given that this administration is all about “transforming” anything they don’t like into a revenue stream, and the goal of this report is to “transform the food system” you can be sure that this report will result in some revision to how Americans are allowed to eat.

The motive of this report is not just about reducing obesity in America.  It’s about further government control of the American experimental organism, er, people.

In an article in the Washington Free Beacon   by Elizabeth Harrington on February 20, 2015, the DGAC is quoted as saying the following:

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,” they said.”

The article continues in part as follows:

“In response, DGAC called for diet and weight management interventions by “trained interventionists” in healthcare settings, community locations, and worksites.

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,” they said. 

DGAC also called for policy interventions to “reduce unhealthy options,” limit access to high calorie foods in public buildings, “limit the exposure” of advertisements for junk food, a soda tax, and taxing high sugar and salt items and dessert.”

Regardless of your views on obesity and freedom of choice, this is uncomfortably Orwellian, or if that reference is too archaic for you, you could equate it to Jonathan Nolan’s “Person of Interest” TV show (

On the plus side, the DGAC did rescind its 30-year old warning about foods containing dietary cholesterol such as eggs, doubling down against saturated fats found in cattle products such as red meat, butter and whole milk instead.

Interesting, given that untold millions or our tax dollars have been spent to fund research and public education campaigns to convince us that all animal-based food products contain higher concentrations of cholesterol than plant-based foods and are thus bad for us.

Can we get a refund now that the DGAC has concluded that probably isn’t true, at least for otherwise healthy people?

Many people, if they bothered to read the news reports at all, simply scoffed and said “fat chance of any of that happening.”

The problem is, like ISIS when it threatens violence, when this administration says it wants to do something to “transform” American behavior, it promptly follows through and does it. It’s one of the few areas that they actually take seriously.

You can absolutely bet that the FedBizOpps and websites will very shortly reflect an urgency to accomplish the goals of the report by throwing millions at “community nutrition re-education” and ever more “nutrition-based obesity control” research.

Of course, this report isn’t about healthy eating at all. If it was, it would simply say, “learn about portion sizes and your particular calorie needs, and limit your food intake to levels that do not cause you to gain weight.” No, it’s about propping up environmental opposition to meat and energy producers and generating new sources of tax revenue.

More importantly, it’s about government control in general.

Supposedly, we developed brains for a reason. If you want to eat a vegan diet, that should be entirely up to you. Only you and your doctor know if that’s healthy for you. By the same token, if you want to go on a red meat and salad diet, that should be your choice as well. One size actually doesn’t fit all, in clothes or policy.

Obesity is not just about food choices. If we were really serious about it, we could ban all electronic devices, TV’s and vehicles of any kind, including the planes these people use to get to their conferences. There’s nothing like walking 10 miles to work every day to trim the old waistline and it would sure reduce our dependence of fossil fuels. Getting to Europe might be a little tricky, but hey, swimming and rowing are good forms of exercise too.

About that superior brain we supposedly developed because of a better and more diverse diet? Wouldn’t it be nice if we collectively used it occasionally?

From → op-ed

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: