Aaargh! Forget nutrition and medical guidelines, carbon footprint is the new diet selector.
Climate Change Activists to Meet Food Police at Closed-Door Meeting March 14
New York, NY / Washington DC – At a closed-door meeting to take place March 14, the Obama Administration’s Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services plan to update the nation’s “dietary guidelines” — a document with significant repercussions for food stamps, military and school meals programs — to include anti-global warming activism.
In an article, “Obama administration pollutes guidelines for healthy eating with unhealthy ideologies,” published Sunday by the Washington Examiner, National Center Senior Fellow and Risk Analysis Division Director Jeff Stier says environmental activists within the U.S. government plan to change the nation’s dietary guidelines to promote foods that they believe have “a smaller carbon footprint.”
In the past, says Stier, the federal government’s dietary guidelines were intended exclusively to “promote health and reduce risk for major chronic diseases.”
No more, says Stier: “For the first time in the history of the guidelines, ‘sustainability’ is part of the agenda. Actual items on their Dietary Guidelines working group agenda include ‘immigration,’ ‘global climate change’ and ‘agriculture/aquaculture sustainability.'”
What’s more, says Stier, these new guidelines will cost the public money: “By favoring foods which activists think have a smaller carbon footprint, the new guidelines will increase the prices you pay for your food. It will also increase the cost to all taxpayers, since the Dietary Guidelines are used to set policy for food stamps (SNAP) and military diets,” he says.
“The food guidelines, by law, are supposed to be based on a ‘preponderance of scientific and medical knowledge,'” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research, who has studied climate change polices for over a quarter century. “Science can say with authority that eating green vegetables is good for you. It can’t say that humans are causing catastrophic global warming with any more certainty than it can explain why the planet hasn’t warmed since the Clinton Administration. Moms and Dads across America deserve — and, as taxpayers, have paid for — dietary guidelines they can use to help them feed their families wisely. No one benefits from causing people to wonder if the nutritional advice they are getting from their government isn’t focused on nutrition at all, but has been polluted by environmental activists.”
The full Washington Examiner article can be read here.
New York City-based Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and heads its Risk Analysis Division. Stier is a frequent guest on CNBC, and has addressed health policy on CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, as well as network newscasts. Stier’s National Center op-eds have been published in top outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, Newsday, Forbes, the Washington Examiner and National Review Online. He also frequently discusses risk issues on Twitter at @JeffaStier.
Washington-based Amy Ridenour, founding CEO of the National Center and currently co-CEO with her husband, David Ridenour, has been interviewed on television or radio thousands of times, and had her op-ed published in newspapers thousands of times, on nearly every major public policy issue since the National Center’s 1982 founding. Newspapers running her op-eds within the year include the Denver Post, Providence Journal, Las Vegas Sun, Arizona Daily Star, Boston Herald, Deseret News, Duluth News Tribune, Orange County Register, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Omaha World-Herald and many others. She discusses issues on Twitter at @AmyRidenour.
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.
-30-
jeff 5778 said:
March 10, 2014 at 11:57 am
Indoctrination gets more effective every day.
————
I agree with Jeff; this is infiltrating the warmunist message into the subconscious of the kiddies. They will absorb from their food menu the inimical nature of carbon and the association will stick with them for a lifetime.
Insidious.
If you wish, you can and really should contact your senator regarding this travesty
Here
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Maybe this is what Chipotle was worried about?
Unless the globe turns cooler, in which case the kiddies’ take-away will be, “If you learned it in school, it’s probably a lie.”
Counting ‘Carbs’ has reached a new low. Is this the new Atkins diet?
Isn’t it time we all ate our Greens? I understand it will be good for us.
They are one by one eliminating the very reasons that our ancestors risked their lives and fortunes to come here in the first place–freedom to choose our own fate. This is virtually forcing us to follow their religion (since it can’t be proven objectively anyway.) And in the meantime half the American food production is tied up by the ethanol mandate. At least they should be internally consistent and remove that stupid policy which is actually expending more fossil fuel than it spares.
I think that needs to be updated to the 21st century. Obama-Un
Is there any doubt left in anyone’s mind that it has been and always will be about control. Recently I have seen headlines about high protein diets being bad. Now we see why, that was the prelude to no more beef, it creates too large of a carbon footprint. Of course, that only applies to the general public, the ruling class will continue to eat whatever they desire.
Dennis Leary said it best in this scene from Demolition Man:
The warmists are in a bit of a bind in the US.
This fall the Senate will be ‘in play'(I.E. It’s conceivable that the ‘other party’ could end up in control. Actually bringing something to the floor of the Senate to vote on that might cost a Democratic Senator running for election a handfull of votes if strictly ‘verboten’ until after the election.
Hence…we are treated to a bunch of circus acts to keep ‘the choir’ engaged without actually doing anything.
One fact that will certainly not make it into the President’s report: the fact that increased atmospheric CO2 would substantially increase yields of plant nutrition. Over 4000 peer-reviewed studies have been performed on over 600 plant species to determine their response to CO2.
The results show that adding 300 PPM of CO2 causes substantial increases in crop yields.
The average improvement for 300 ppm extra CO2 is 48.66%. The most studied plants are Wheat, Rice, and Soybeans, with a total of over 600 studies. They show an average of +37.89% yield.
Other noteworthy results include: Peanut (+60.30%), Garden Bean (+64.30%), Common Beet (+66.30%), Pigeon Pea (+75.00%), Blackeyed Pea (+77.00%), Carrot (+77.80%), Red Raspberry (+111.80%), Scallion (+135.00%), and Blackberries at a whopping +675.00%! (By the way, blackberries are also one of the top 10 anti-oxidant foods.)
Data is available at co2science.org.
People were thinner in the 1940s through the 70s. The more the government gets involved the worse people are weight and health wise. Remember them telling us how much healthier margarine was than butter? Until they found out about trans fats, oops, my bad.
Personally, I can’t eat a lot of carbs. I crave carbs, could eat nothing but carbs all day long, but I pay for it by gaining a lot of weight and having no energy. When the government began pushing more and more carbs into the dietary recommendations we saw a lot more people overweight, and now obese. Anything the US government says to do, do the opposite.
Funny article here: http://perform-360.com/2012/09/07/a-110-year-history-of-government-food-advice/#prettyPhoto
The [snip] cult is at it again. Prey on the children, they can be taught the way.
No wonder Putin ignores Obama. The next POTUS is going to spend 4 years just fixing what has been broken before they can get on with developing the nation. ( … Oh wait. Maybe somehow Putin knows exactly what Obama’s goals are….nahhh. 😒 )
What? There is no known carbonless life. Inorganic meals ahead?
It must be spring time. The insanity is blooming rapidly. I hope it doesn’t start taking over the rest of the garden.
I’m rapidly losing patience with these unscientific fascists. Sanity must return and prevail soon.
Two words come to mind … “Da Comrad”
And, don’t forget to ‘carb up’ before heading to the beach.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10687135/Bondi-Beach-surfers-warned-of-fewer-big-waves-due-to-climate-change.html
regards
And here was I thinking all food was a carbon-neutral cycle. After all, whether veg or fish or meat, it only contains carbon derived from atmospheric CO2 which existed during its lifetime. And so it is returned. Dust to dust, and all that.
Oops, I was forgetting the energy used to produce/harvest the stuff.
Okay, what we need is some kind of Mao-esque quota-driven food-production program. That could never fail.
Oh, wait…
Obama food fetish.
I’m here to inform you all that whatever you believed up to this moment was totally incorrect. Here is the evidence, released just 5 days ago.
The cardiometabolic consequences of replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates or Ω-6 polyunsaturated fats: Do the dietary guidelines have it wrong?
Introduction
A recent publication by Malhotra1 was refreshing, inspiring and hit on an important topic that has been heavily debated for over 50 years, that is, are saturated fats as bad as we have been led to believe?
The final nail in the low-fat diet coffin is two randomised trials, one for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, PREDIMED38 (Prevención con Dieta Med- iterránea), indicating a reduction in the incidence of major cardiovascular events with a Mediterranean diet compared with a low-fat diet, and the other for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, the Lyon Diet Heart Study39 showing that a Mediterranean diet reduces all-cause and cardiovascular mortality as well as non-fatal myocardial infarction compared with a prudent diet.
Conclusions
In summary, the benefits of a low-fat diet (particularly a diet replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates or Ω-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids) are severely challenged. Dietary guidelines should assess the totality of the evidence and strongly reconsider their recommendations for replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates or Ω-6 polyunsaturated fats.
http://openheart.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000032.full?sid=5e6b0cad-75ea-41a1-85e6-e5461d77846c
Cordially.
Just saw this on the news today. They are going to be using the imagined water requirements for certain foods to advise against eating them, i.e. meat. I once did some back-of-the-napkin calculations on their claims of the amount of water used to bring beef to the dinner table, it came out to each bovine requiring nine times their volume of water each day. They claim that each egg requires 53 gallons of water to get to your table. It would be quite the task but it would be interesting to see the total imagined water use for the food we eat. My money would be on the number being quite unbelievable or even impossible.
There go Doug Cotton’s pizzas…
D Nash says:
March 10, 2014 at 12:38 pm
“Counting ‘Carbs’ has reached a new low. Is this the new Atkins diet?”
No. The Atkins diet works.
Atkins diet was not Atkins idea ; and 100 years before invented
How Bad Science and Big Business Created the Obesity Epidemic
David Diamond, Ph.D., of the University of South Florida College of Arts and Sciences shares his personal story about his battle with obesity. Diamond shows how he lost weight and reduced his triglycerides by eating red meat, eggs and butter.