The Nutritional Junk Science of Our Government Nannies

The Nutritional Junk Science of Our Government Nannies


Meanwhile, over in the public-school cafeterias, food is being wasted, and money is being lost by the school districts, because kids refuse to purchase or eat what Michelle Obama thinks is good for them. The goal of her Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, passed in 2010, was to wage war on childhood obesity. But unsurprisingly, the children, obese and otherwise, find the high-fiber, low-fat, low-salt fare unappetizing, and when they don’t brown bag to avoid having to buy it, they throw much of it away. Worse, and particularly insanely, the law makes no distinction between different kids’ dietary needs, and completely fails to take into account physical activity — the football player gets as many (or few) calories as the chess champ.

Leaving aside the legitimate issue of whether or not such one-size-fits-none policies are actually in the purview of the federal government, the worst thing about them is that they’re based on junk science.

The calorie counts are based on the flawed theory, per basic thermodynamics, that a calorie is a calorie, in terms of weight gain or loss, regardless of whether it comes from fat, protein or carbohydrates. The reduction in sodium is mandated on the notion that salt is bad for everyone. The low-fat and reduced-cholesterol items are based on the primitive thinking that “you are what you eat.” In short, the FDA and USDA food “pyramid” (which the first lady recently replaced with a “plate”) upon which these laws and regulations are based is (like the scene from Woody Allen’s movie Sleeper) almost exactly the opposite of what we now know to be nutritionally healthy.

The FDA’s early 1990s Food Pyramid is a creature of the “knowledge” that salt is bad, fats are bad, saturated fats and dietary cholesterol are evil, and proteins should be severely limited. It pretty much embodies all that we are learning to be wrong or badly oversimplified. Sadly and ironically, Mooch-chelle’s pet school lunch program is probably having the perverse effect of driving kids away from being more careful and thoughtful about what they eat and drink.

Just one more instance of liberal thinking(???) that can’t see more than 10 minutes into the future of their feel-good nanny statism.

Yeah, well, I am actually losing faith in the private sector’s fight against obesity. shock Yes, I am that adamantly against our high obesity rates. Shame.

The only ones “fighting obesity” is the government, that is why America got fatter; if the private sector was fighting it they would be winning.

Every claim that has began with “recent studies show” in my lifetime has been proved complete B.S. based on junk science, when we rejected truth we rejected legitimate science, the entire discipline is now blind, deaf and dumb to facts.


No, responsibility doesn’t only apply to individuals.

Individuals are the only thing that exists. Even governments and associations are just individual people acting out on their own desire and reason, that’s why public choice theory is a thing.

But to address the topic more directly, the reason government can’t get involved, is because of the approach.

It’s top down, from upon high action. You’re trying to deny people their own sense of agency, many of whom don’t care if they’re fat or not. And in the frame of individual rights, we must admit that they have that choice.

Just as people have the right to smoke, or consume alcohol, something being bad for you, doesn’t mean the govt has the right to stop you from doing it.

Sure, there is such a thing as “corporate” responsibility. But “corporate” means a number of individuals - and those individuals have to collectively agree to take responsibility. The “government” is made up of a bunch of individuals. The school board is made up of individuals. The responsibility of these (and other groups) can only be taken by all the individuals in said group.

But what’s your point? Even if all governments and associations are made up of single individuals, those individuals that are in the government have a theoretical responsibility to their constituencies. So, yeah, responsibility applies to all individuals in general, whether they are in a government, corporation or other group.

The government has no “responsibility” or right to decide what dietary choices are made by free people.

1 Like

You say that, but how it tends to work out is that it’s skinny people demanding to politicians that they do something about all the fatsos.

It’s politicians, taking decisions away from people, who are more and more likely to be the ones who did not give their consent to them mucking about on the issue to begin with.

That the “perps” in NYC violating their tax laws on cigarettes are mostly minorities, is occurring for the same reason. They (minorities) smoke more than the white majorities or pluralities, with the latter being the ones that called for that policy.

In short, it’s certain people forcing their tastes preferences onto others. That the certain taste they’re trying discourage has bad health effects is irrelevant.

Adults understand the risks inherent to their decisions, that’s why they have rights. If you instead treat adults like children, telling them “oh, you don’t know what you’re doing”, and micromanage their lives, you’ll find people not react poorly, but that it runs into conflict with rights themselves.

So, yeah, responsibility applies to all individuals in general,

Individuals are responsible for themselves, that’s what “self-governance” means. The govt only has the right to get involved when two or more persons are in conflict with one another, or when a person is shown to be mentally deficit, and family members who could decide for them are ether unavailable or unsuitable.

The government doesn’t have ANY “rights.” Neither does it have any “responsibility” to intervene when “two or more persons are in conflict with one another.” The issue of smoking is one case in point. If being in the same room, restaurant, bar, etc. is “offensive” to a non-smoker, they ALWAYS have had the option to go somewhere else, work somewhere else, eat or drink somewhere else. There was NEVER a reason (or a “right”) for the government to intervene. Instead, they had the EPA cook up a totally phony meme about “second-hand smoke” causing deaths. They got called on it by the federal courts, but that didn’t slow them down one iota.


As was said elsewhere; The facts aren’t becoming obsolete; just the number of people willing to listen to and/or accept them.

1 Like

Please site the Article or Amendment that gives the government the authority or responsibility over individuals’ dietary choices.


I thought the government also had a “responsibility” or idea that we should prefer heterosexual marriage. Didn’t it?

Also, a society cannot truly survive if a lot of its people are whale sized, anymore than that argument people say about homosexuality.

Who says a “society cannot truly survive if a lot of its people are ‘whale-sized,’” Rudolph? Besides you, of course.

[quote=“rudolph, post:14, topic:45648”]
Also, a society cannot truly survive if a lot of its people are whale sized
[/quote]So you’re advocating government intervention in dietary choices?

As 2cent asked, where is that in the Constitution?

Would it be fair for me to say you supported Bloomberg in his campaign to outlaw “Big Gulps”? And would it be fair for me to say that you support Michelle Obama in her “school lunch” programs?

Sure sounds like it from what I quoted above, but perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. 'Splain it to those of us that think you are advocating government intervention.

If your attempt was to convince us, you just did.

If someone lights up in a restaurant, some little kid sitting with his parents isn’t going to just stand up and walk out of the building. Public smoking is a negative market externality–a situation where a pure market fails to account for all of the costs being incurred upon bystanders.

Typical Liberal, you want laws because you are certain that you know better than a childs own parents what they should be exposed to and you know better than customers and businesses do about what they should want from each other.

And of course, all of the reasoning you have for using government guns to enforce your opinions has been proved complete B.S., the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association have both now said that the second hand smoke claims are bogus and have no basis in science.

That additional cherry appears at the top of almost every Liberal argument so it is not shocking, just great fun to point out when I see it.

1 Like

Hear! Hear!

Heaven knows, it does get old. But if you look at it as you do - with a bit of a sense of humor - it does help some.

Still, though, if most of the general public did not want smoking in restaurants, the business owners would react to the simple demand of people who want their supplies.
Liberals can’t handle a simple thing like capitalism working to meet natural course of things, though, so they run to Mommy Government to force others to succumb to their petty little wants. Not needs; wants.
There was a time in this country when people treated spoiled little brats who were out to do nothing but ruin everybody’s day like they were supposed to treated - shunned.
Time we brought some of that back for the comfort of our own sanity, if for nothing else.

And just for the sake of it, I can near guarantee you that the nitwits who fall for the ‘second hand smoke’ B.S. also believe that every actor shoved in a white or blue smock really are doctors, pharmacists, and “experts.”

What’s next? Forcing a privately owned bakery to bake cakes against his will?
Oh, wait…