According to an Institute of Medicine (IOM) report published this week, obesity is not caused by an absence of willpower within the individual, but rather by the vicious food industry and its lack of regulation by the government. If you think that this sounds like a veiled attempt to limit consumer freedom through the promotion of greater government control, you’d be correct! With the publication of this report accompanied by a CDC article stating 42% of adults will be obese by 2030 (mind you, with no scientific premise), the Food Police are in full swing and ready to scare you into submission.

An article from Reuters highlights the misguided thought process of one committee member,

“People have heard the advice to eat less and move more for years, and during that time a large number of Americans have become obese,” IOM committee member Shiriki Kumanyika of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine told Reuters. “That advice will never be out of date. But when you see the increase in obesity you ask, what changed? And the answer is, the environment. The average person cannot maintain a healthy weight in this obesity-promoting environment.”

The idea that a lack of government intervention, not personal irresponsibility, is the major contributor to this nation’s obesity problem is an extremely dangerous road to travel down. By minimizing the power held by the consumer, one will never truly get to the root of the problem. Furthermore, it’s clear the American public does not support any additional tax as a method to shape eating/drinking habits. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds,

“…just 18% of American Adults support sin taxes on soda and junk food, down from 33% in March 2010. Sixty-three percent (63%) are opposed. Nineteen percent (19%) are undecided.”

The decline in public support for these nanny state control measures is of no surprise to us. The American public is tired of the Food Police and their big government cronies using taxes, bans and regulations to shape our consumer habits. It’s obvious that fighting obesity requires a multifaceted approach: one that involves the individual and NOT the government. Disregarding the role of the individual and downplaying our freedom to choose only serves as an means through which the Food Police gains more power over our daily lives.

Continue reading at Reuters, Rasmussen Reports and the Wall Street Journal.

Tell us what you think! Do you believe the Food Police use these scare tactics as a way to limit consumer freedom? Share your comments on Facebook.

Researchers out of Harvard University’s School of Medicine issued an utterly ridiculous recommendation this past week calling for a ‘tobacco-style’ tax on products containing salt. According to ‘preliminary’ research, they say a salt tax would lower the rates of cardiovascular disease in populations across developing countries. As reported by FoodNavigator.com,

“Presenting the findings at the World Congress of Cardiology in Dubai, lead researcher Dr. Thomas Gaziano from Harvard School of Medicine said that use of the strategies could reduce the number of deaths from cardiovascular disease (CVD) each year by 2-3 percent in these countries. Gaziano said that the preliminary data are the first findings from a new report from Harvard that will be published later this year.”

It’s amazing how a broad, and potentially detrimental, public health recommendation can arise out of ‘preliminary’ data! It’s clear that a salt tax, as well as other taxes and regulations pushed by the Food Police, should not be used in order to control consumer behavior. Furthermore, it is absurd for the Food Police to compare salt to tobacco and alcohol when there is a growing body of research showing that salt may not be the bad guy after all. An article in the LA Times pointed out the other numerous studies recently published highlighting salt’s benefits.

“A study published in the American Journal of Hypertension showed eating less salt will not prevent heart attacks, strokes or early death. On the contrary, low-sodium diets increase the likelihood of premature death. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that lower salt intakes resulted in higher death rates. An analysis published in the American Journal of Hypertension showed individuals placed on the U.S. Dietary Guidelines-recommended salt levels experienced significant increases in cholesterol and other risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.”

And that’s not all! The Food Police and their recommendations are foolish and outdated. It’s clear that salt has been vindicated. With no consensus from the scientific community regarding salt and its effects, it is reckless to suggest that a broad, overeaching tax should be implemented. Consumers should be presented with all of the facts and then WE can decide what to eat, not the government. Public health policy should not be based on fleeting studies, but rather on solid evidence, of which this ‘preliminary’ data is not.

To hear why experts are calling this war on salt ‘one big experiment’, watch the video below.

Continue reading at Foodnavigator.com and the LA Times.

Tell us what you think! Do you believe that preliminary data is enough to justify more government control over our food choices? Share your comments on Facebook.

According to the Food Police and their big government allies, ‘food deserts’ (the name given to areas where access to fresh, local produce is allegedly scarce) are to blame for obesity and various other public health crises. However, two new studies published this month in leading scientific journals suggest otherwise.

As reported by The New York Times, these studies not only found that poor, urban neighborhoods have as many food establishments as their affluent counterparts, but the research also showed no relationship between the type of food sold in a neighborhood and obesity among its children.

Nanny state government officials have jumped on the Food Police bandwagon regarding food deserts, justifying the exorbitant spending of tax-payer dollars which give companies funding to open new supermarkets in particular neighborhoods. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is giving stimulus grants of more than $372 million to 44 communities in an effort to reduce rates of both obesity and smoking. The research clearly does not support this irresponsible, ineffective public policy. Even public health activists who normally support government overreach do not endorse the approach taken here:

“It is always easy to advocate for more grocery stores,” said Kelly D. Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, who was not involved in the studies. “But if you are looking for what you hope will change obesity, healthy food access is probably just wishful thinking.”

The non-scientific labeling of ‘food deserts’ is just another over-simplified theory used by the government to gain more control over a complex problem such as obesity. Health and food decisions are best addressed by individuals and families, not government.

Continue reading at The New York Times.

Tell us what you think. Do you believe the government should acknowledge this research and stop funding the opening of new supermarkets? Share your comments with us on Facebook.

Tell big government to leave health and food decisions to individuals!

Send them a message:

No more public policies based on a false premise.
No more nanny state alarmism and control.
No more experimenting with our lives.

Stand for freedom in making your own food choices. Sign the My Food. My Choice! petition today and let your voice be heard!

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his Food Police cronies have sank to an all-time low. Expanding his taxpayer-funded war on salt, the administration is now forbidding you from donating food to government-run homeless shelters because he has to monitor the salt, fat, and calorie content of the food being served. You see just as Bloomberg believed he could stop food stamp recipients from buying beverages other than water, he believes he should the run the lives of the homeless. Is anyone asking why Bloomberg preys on the most needy in our society?

A mayoral task force and the Department of Homeless Services have joined forces to go beyond just dictating the nutritional standards at the city’s shelters. As Jeff Stier writes in a column for the New York Post:

“DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond says the ban on food donations is consistent with Mayor Bloomberg’s emphasis on improving nutrition for all New Yorkers. A new interagency document controls what can be served at facilities — dictating serving sizes as well as salt, fat and calorie contents, plus fiber minimums and condiment recommendations. The city also cites food-safety issues with donations, but it’s clear that the real driver behind the ban is the Bloomberg dietary diktats.”

It seems Bloomberg will go to any means necessary to force his nanny state agenda, even if it entails also limiting food for those who only have it in short supply. This goes beyond big government’s attempts to dictate homeless people’s food choices; the Bloomberg administration is now taking away our ability to provide charity through the donation of homemade goods to the less fortunate.

“It’s not just that the donations offer an enjoyable addition to the ‘official’ low-salt fare; knowing that the food comes from volunteers and community members warms their hearts, not just their stomachs.”

A local CBS affiliate reports of Bloomberg’s latest move towards complete food control.

This isn’t the first time New Yorkers have been outraged at the absurdity of this type of government intervention. Hear what they had to say about Mayor Bloomberg’s war on salt.

Continue reading at The New York Post.

Tell us what you think! Do you think Mayor Bloomberg has taken his Food Police agenda too far by banning food donations? Share your comments with us on Facebook.