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 “That advice will never be out of date.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.

In a victory for food freedom lovers everywhere, a Superior Court judged dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI, a.k.a the Food Police) on behalf of California mother, Monet Parham, who alleges that McDonald’s is “getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.”

Is she serious? If you think she’s making it sound like McDonald’s is the next evil villain in the latest sci-fi flick, be very afraid because she’s not alone! According to the LA Times, Michael F. Jacobson, CSPI’s executive director, released a statement Thursday suggesting that the very use of toys in the Happy Meal is simply a ploy to lure kids to unhealthy fast food and is “a predatory practice” that involves “unscrupulous marketing techniques.”

The judge did not give a reason for dismissing the suit, but all one needs to do is listen to the ridiculous rhetoric spewed forth by this organization to understand where the judge was coming from. CSPI has a long history of starting high-profile campaigns aimed at decreasing consumer freedom and increasing government control.

To counteract CSPI’s absurdity, McDonald’s released a statement saying,

“We are proud of our Happy Meals and will vigorously defend our brand, our reputation and our food,” spokeswoman Danya Proud said. “We stand on our 30-year track record of providing a fun experience for kids and families at McDonald’s.”

We are glad that this California judge was able to look past the smoke and mirrors to see what this really was… a vain attempt to shift blame away from the individual and onto a corporation. At what point does personal responsibility, or in this case parental responsibility, kick in?

Continue reading this story at the LA Times and Fox News.

Tell us what you think. Do you agree with the California judge’s decision to dismiss this frivolous lawsuit? 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.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 14, 2012

For media interviews contact Orit Sklar: (404) 931-6526 or orit@myfoodmychoice.org

United Nations ‘Food Expert’ Calls for Food/Beverage Taxes, Salt Restriction, and Marketing Regulations

“A report by the United Nations food expert calls for governments around the world to impose punitive taxes on ‘bad’ food and drinks, restrict salt consumption, and strongly regulate food marketing. This underscores that what the UN refers to as ‘right to food’ are actually code words for the end of ‘food freedom,’” says Orit Sklar, founder and executive director of the grassroots coalition My Food. My Choice!.

“Unfortunately, the United Nations continues to propose tyrannical measures that disregard scientific studies refuting the efficacy of their public health policies to combat obesity and disrespect the idea of free people and individual liberty,” Sklar says. “There’s no consensus among experts that taxing soda or junk food, instituting population-wide salt reduction, or restricting food marketing to children will solve obesity. However, we do have a growing body of evidence that suggests these initiatives are myopic and in the case of salt reduction potentially harmful. And, when it comes to children, government cannot be a substitute for parental involvement.”

“With United Nations bureaucrats – and U.S. elected officials who cater to the Food Police – more interested in dictating our diets than empowering individuals to make their own choices, food freedom is more at risk than ever,” Sklar says.

For more information:

United Nations Report: http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20120306_nutrition_en.pdf

Tax Foundation: Overreaching on Obesity: Governments Consider New Taxes on Soda and Candy http://taxfoundation.org/publications/show/27735.html

Scientific American: It’s Time to End the War on Salt http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt

Family meals, adequate sleep and limited TV may lower childhood obesity http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/homeroutines.htm

###

The Food Police have been trying to force consumers to abandon beverages other than water by imposing onerous taxes. With consumers defeating or derailing such measures in cities across the nation, the Food Police in California passed a law forcing companies like Coca Cola and Pepsi to add a cancer warning label to their products because of the minuscule amount of caramel coloring used in soda recipes, according to the Huffington Post.

What happens in California, doesn’t stay in California. In response, the change has already been made in the state, but consumers nationwide can expect to see the reformulated sodas on shelves in their local restaurants and stores.

Before you think the California bureaucrats have discovered what causes cancer consider this:

“A spokesman for the Food and Drug Administration…noted that a consumer would have to drink more than 1,000 cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered that have shown links to cancer in rodents. The American Beverage Association also noted that California added the coloring to its list of carcinogens with no studies showing that it causes cancer in humans. It noted that the listing was based on a single study in lab mice and rats.”

This change was not brought about by consumer demand. It was another example of the Food Police flexing their muscle, not based upon solid scientific inquiry, but an exercise in how easily big government public health activists and lawmakers can exert control over our lives.

It’s not the government’s job to regulate what we consume. It’s not the nanny state’s right to hand down frivolous mandates which force companies to make pointless changes or else risk damaging the marketability of their product. It’s time to take a stand. Sign the petition to protect food freedom.

Continue reading at The Huffington Post.

Tell us what you think. Do you want lawmakers in California deciding what you can drink or eat? Share your comments on Facebook.

Follow our #FoodPolice coverage on Twitter: http://twitter.com/myfoodmychoice. Get updates on what’s happening, share your opinion with a reply, or retweet to share with your followers.

This week the FDA informed the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and the Food Marking Institute (FMI) of its approval for the Facts Up Front program, according to FoodNavigator-usa.com. This means that consumers get the facts, not interpretation by the Federal Government. But there are still areas of our society that are not safe from government control.

At a panel discussion held Thursday on how the government can help ‘promote’ healthy eating habits in public schools, Lt. Col. Sonya Cable, a U.S. Army nutritionist, recommended implementing their “Go for Green” program, which labels healthy foods green, moderate foods amber, and high calorie foods red, throughout the nation’s schools. CNS News reports,

“The nutrition education program alerts soldiers that ‘red’ foods like bacon and apple pie should only be eaten rarely, with a warning: ‘limit intake.’ Foods labeled green, however, such as mustard greens, are deemed ‘premium fuel for the soldier athlete,’ ‘fresh and flavorful’ and ‘nutrient dense.’ Soldiers are advised to eat these frequently.”

Can nutrition really be summed up so easily? Can three colors paint the entire picture of health? The fact is nutrition is not a one-size-fits-all science, something that even Lt. Col. Cable points out to CNS News.

“I had some folks say to me, ‘Well, why on earth did you even include the red ones to begin with?’ Two reasons – one, we’ve got soldiers who have racehorse metabolisms that they needed every calorie I could get into them. And by taking off the ‘red’ we just found that we couldn’t get enough calories in them.’ The second reason for including ‘red’ foods, Cable said, was ‘so they could learn what contributed positively and maybe what contributed negatively. Not to say that every food is bad, it’s just how they fit into your performance goals.’”

Is fried chicken bad just because it’s fried? What about the protein in the chicken? Does a salad turn from green to red if you put ranch dressing on it? Who decides? It’s obvious that this traffic light system is more complicated than the three colors ‘Red, Yellow and Green’ would suggest.

Continue reading at CNS News.

Tell us what you think. Do you think a government mandated three-color traffic light food labeling system is warranted or is it an assault on food freedom and your intelligence? Share your comments with us on Facebook.