Eating is Racist, Seriously…

Looks like the next time you’re really craving Chinese you’re going to get a side order of ‘racist’ from the far-left.

Insanely left-wing website “Everyday Feminism” has written a guide titled “Being a Foodie Without Being Culturally Appropriative”.

From Everyday Feminism:

Cultural appropriation is when members of a dominant culture adopt parts of another culture from people that they’ve also systematically oppressed. The dominant culture can try the food and love the food without ever having to experience oppression because of their consumption.

With food, it isn’t just eating food from someone else’s culture. It might not be appropriation if you’re White and you love eating dumplings and hand pulled noodles. Enjoying food from another culture is perfectly fine.

But, food is appropriated when people from the dominant culture – in the case of the US, white folks – start to fetishize or commercialize it, and when they hoard access to that particular food.

It’s also harmful when the dominant culture controls the economic and material resources to produce that food for their own consumption and profit.

So it’s capitalism that’s evil as well. Gee, never saw that coming… 🙂

While food from Western Europe is still connected to ethnic roots, ethnic food has become reserved only for ethnicities that are perceived as exotic and foreign to White folks.

This is where her Social Justice Warrior seeing racism everywhere overpowered the dish like too much salt or garlic.

For example, what is now Vietnam had been occupied by China for a thousand years and then colonized by France. This period of colonization is also what led to things like banh mi (sandwiches) and banh ex (crepes). The use of spam in different parts of Asia and the Pacific Islands, like spam musabi or spam in hot pot, are a direct result of US colonization.

If you love a dish and think it’s delicious, great! If you’re searching for a place that serves a particular dish, also great!

However, seeking “authenticity” fetishizes the sustenance of another culture. The idea of the “authentic” food experience is separated from reality. It also freezes a culture in a particular place in time.

What hilarious is that ANOTHER group of Social Justice Warriors were wanting people fired for NOT serving a Banh Mi on the traditional French Bread and called THAT “cultural appropriation”.

So even the Social Justice Warriors think each other positions are a “cultural misappropriation”.

Oberlin College: The traditional Banh Mi Vietnamese sandwich that Stevenson Dining Hall promised turned out to be a cheap imitation of the East Asian dish. Instead of a crispy baguette with grilled pork, pate, pickled vegetables and fresh herbs, the sandwich used ciabatta bread, pulled pork and coleslaw.

“It was ridiculous,” Nguyen said. “How could they just throw out something completely different and label it as another country’s traditional food?”

Nguyen added that Bon Appétit, the food service management company contracted by Oberlin College, has a history of blurring the line between culinary diversity and cultural appropriation by modifying the recipes without respect for certain Asian countries’ cuisines. This uninformed representation of cultural dishes has been noted by a multitude of students, many of who have expressed concern over the gross manipulation of traditional recipes.

So she’s “cultural misappropriating” her own “cultural misappropriations”. 🙂

Food culture gets re-colonized by chefs seeking to make that “authentic” street food they tried more elegant. Often, these restaurants are inaccessible to the communities they’re appropriating from.

Quinoa, which is native to Bolivia is now too expensive for communities there. Last year, Whole Foods declared collard greens the “new kale.” Coconuts have now been packaged as high end, luxury water. Tofu, soy, and tempeh are now staples at organic, healthy food markets.

It’s all white, rich people’s fault that Quinoa is one of the few complete grains on the planet.

Essentially, the health food craze is racist and oppressive. 🙂  (but only to White People…and she’s not a “racist” for that either 🙂 )

This is food gentrification, where communities can no longer afford their own cuisines and sustain their traditions.

That’s how messed up in the head these people are.

So, if you wish to broaden your horizons and become open to other ethnicities through their unique food in the form of appreciation or celebration, you will be condemned as exploitative (if you’re part of that “white folk” group anyway). Presumably, the left would like “white folk” to eat only “white folk” food.

Whatever the F8ck that is…

Back to The Rebel:

We managed to stomach up the will-power to go through the ‘guide’ so you don’t have to. (I did though) Hat tip to Daily Wire.

It begins by saying, “Mainstream media has made a spectacle out of foods from seemingly exotic places. I’ve also observed a lot of White chefs create “Asian-inspired” dishes. When going out to eat, I notice many “Asian-fusion” themed restaurants where chefs combine all the countries and flavors in the vast and diverse continent of Asia and throw them together on both plate and menu.”

Sounds like the embodiment of tossed salad multiculturalism. Does the left have a problem with that all of a sudden?

The writer, Rachel Kuo, continues a few paragraphs down, “It’s frustrating when my culture gets consumed and appropriated as both trend and tourism.”

She rambles on, “When it comes to food, what’s appropriation and what’s not can be tricky to think about. Cultural appropriation is when members of a dominant culture adopt parts of another culture from people that they’ve also systematically oppressed. The dominant culture can try the food and love the food without ever having to experience oppression because of their consumption.”

So, you got all that? Trying tasty ethnic food is bad because you’ve never experienced oppression. I guess we should just let sushi and Mexican places go out of business.

Well, they are not only capitalist but “exploitative”!! Evil!! 🙂

VIDEO: “Modern Educayshun” perfectly mocks Social Justice Warriors

“But, food is appropriated when people from the dominant culture – in the case of the US, white folks – start to fetishize or commercialize it, and when they hoard access to that particular food. When a dominant culture reduces another community to it’s cuisine, subsumes histories and stories into menu items – when people think culture can seemingly be understood with a bite of food, that’s where it gets problematic.”

I watch a lot of Food Porn then, because I love The Food Network. The Playboy Channel for food “exploitation”. 🙂

Since when do only white people eat ethnic food? Can black people not like Asian food?

She then proceeds on with the ‘guide’ providing a step-by-step process of how not to be a racist when wanting to eat.

Step four titled “loving the food, not the people” states, “America has corporatized “Middle Eastern food” like hummus and falafel, and some people might live by halal food carts, but not understand or address the ongoing Islamophobia in the US.”

Is there no hope for intelligence from these people? Probably not. Me being and old white guy means I’m already evil so my opinion is worthlessn to these nutters.

Needless to say, this guide is a good way to lose your appetite if you’re trying to lose weight. (The Rebel).

Now I can truly say without reservation, The Left makes me sick and wants me to lose my lunch… 🙂

This is racist: (and if you don’t make it 100% “authentic” that too is racist! 🙂

Enjoy 🙂

Save Yourself!

Last fall, voters in the Bay Area cities of San Francisco and Oakland followed Seattle’s lead and approved costly new minimum-wage mandates ($15 an hour and $12.25 an hour, respectively) for most businesses in the city boundaries. Now the bills have begun arriving, and some businesses can’t pay them.

The consequences of minimum-wage increases, at the historical levels studied in the U.S., are well known to labor economists. A summary of the research published last year by the Institute for the Study of Labor, and authored by University of California-Irvine economist David Neumark, found that each 10% hike in the minimum wage on the state and federal level has caused a 1% to 2% drop in youth employment. Similarly, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found an increase in fast-food prices associated with the same wage change.

Given the scope and schedule of these new minimum-wage increases, the impact on prices and employment may be even steeper this time. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25, half of what San Francisco’s wage floor will be set at by 2018 after a series of increases that begin in May. Nationally, Congress phased in the last 40% increase to $7.25 over a three-year period; in Oakland, an almost-identical 36% increase happened overnight on March 1.

 
Photo: Getty Images

Businesses’ first line of defense against these labor-cost increases is an offsetting increase in prices. The magnitude is staggering: In Oakland, local restaurants are raising prices by as much as 20%, with the San Francisco Chronicle reporting that “some of the city’s top restaurateurs fear they will lose customers to higher prices.” Thanks to a quirk in California law that prohibits full-service restaurants from counting tips as income, other operators—who were forced to give their best-paid employees a raise—are rethinking their business model by eliminating tips as they raise prices.

Ironically, this change in compensation practices has reduced the take-home pay for some of the employees it was supposed to help: At the Oakland restaurant Homestead, the East Bay Express reported that servers are taking “a substantial pay cut,” earning a flat wage of $18 to $24 an hour and no tips instead of the $35 to $55 an hour they were accustomed to earning when tips were included.

Though higher prices are a risk that some businesses were able to take, others haven’t had the option. The San Francisco retailer Borderlands Books made national news in February when the owner announced that the city’s $15 minimum wage would put him out of business, in part because the prices of his products were already printed on the covers. (A unique customer fundraiser gave Borderlands a stay of execution until at least March of 2016.)

One block away from Borderlands, a fine-dining establishment called The Abbot’s Cellar—twice selected as one of the city’s top-100 restaurants—wasn’t so lucky. The forthcoming $15 minimum wage, combined with a series of factors like the city’s soaring rents, put the business over the edge and compelled its owners to close. One of the partners told me the restaurant had no ability to absorb the added cost, and neither a miraculous increase in sales volume nor higher prices were viable options.

These aren’t isolated anecdotes. In the city’s popular SoMa neighborhood, a vegetarian diner called The Source closed in January, again citing the higher minimum wage as a factor. Back across the Bay in Oakland, the Chronicle reported that some of the city’s businesses have been similarly affected. According to a board member of the Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, 10 restaurants or grocery stores opted to permanently close this year alone as a partial consequence of the wage hike. Even the Salvation Army’s child-care facility is “scrambling to find ways to keep the doors open” in response to labor cost increases, according to the organization’s county coordinator.

Faced with convincing evidence of the policy’s failures, you’d think advocates would be chastened or apologetic. You’d be wrong: Ken Jacobs, who runs the University of California-Berkeley’s labor-backed Center for Labor Research and Education, chalked up possible consequences of new mandates to labor-market “churn.” Research that Mr. Jacobs co-authored predicted that the Bay Area hikes would be mostly cost-free. At a forum earlier this month where dozens of Oakland business owners fretted about their viability, representatives of Lift Up Oakland—the labor union-backed coalition that advocated for the wage hike—were not in attendance.

It’s probably too late to save other Oakland and San Francisco businesses. But it’s not too late for cities like New York and Los Angeles to heed the evidence before following their footsteps. (Michael Saltsman)

But “sticking it” to “rich” corporations is what Liberals like to use for their class warfare Divide & conquer. Doesn’t matter what the consequences are, they never do.

It makes their minions feel “righteous” and “angry”.

It gets them to vote for Democrats.

In the end the sheep slip their own throat, but they do it happily and will gladly gut themselves afterwards.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

The Left’s Compassion Problem

It is fascinating to see brilliant people belatedly discover the obvious — and to see an even larger number of brilliant people never discover the obvious.

A recent story in a San Francisco newspaper says that some restaurants and grocery stores in Oakland’s Chinatown have closed after the city’s minimum wage was raised. Other small businesses there are not sure they are going to survive, since many depend on a thin profit margin and a high volume of sales.

At an angry meeting between local small business owners and city officials, the local organization that had campaigned for the higher minimum wage was absent. They were probably some place congratulating themselves on having passed a humane “living wage” law. The group most affected was also absent — inexperienced and unskilled young people, who need a job to get some experience, even more than they need the money.

It is not a breakthrough on the frontiers of knowledge that minimum wage laws reduce employment opportunities for the young and the unskilled of any age. It has been happening around the world, for generation after generation, and in the most diverse countries.

It is not just the young who are affected when minimum wage rates are set according to the fashionable notions of third parties, with little or no regard for whether everyone is productive enough to be worth paying the minimum wage they set. (thomas Sowell)

Seattle’s $15 minimum wage law goes into effect on April 1, 2015. As that date approaches, restaurants across the city are making the financial decision to close shop. The Washington Policy Center writes that “closings have occurred across the city, from Grub in the upscale Queen Anne Hill neighborhood, to Little Uncle in gritty Pioneer Square, to the Boat Street Cafe on Western Avenue near the waterfront.”

Of course, restaurants close for a variety of reasons. But, according to Seattle Magazine, the “impending minimum wage hike to $15 per hour” is playing a “major factor.” That’s not surprising, considering “about 36% of restaurant earnings go to paying labor costs.” ..,

“Washington Restaurant Association’s Anthony Anton puts it this way: “It’s not a political problem; it’s a math problem.”

In reference to that last quote, it’s certainly a math problem for the restaurant owners, but that doesn’t eliminate the fact that it’s a political problem for the social justice warriors who shoved this initiative through. Of course, the problems in question are all too real for the workers who are now “benefiting” from having their wages bumped up by more than 50% in some cases, and it involves some calculating as well. Our friend Bruce McQuain asks the question which puts this whole math issue in focus. What’s $15 times zero again?

Are there alternatives to closing? Sure. But they’re the same ones we’ve talked about for years:

Restaurant owners, expecting to operate on thinner margins, have tried to adapt in several ways including “higher menu prices, cheaper, lower-quality ingredients, reduced opening times, and cutting work hours and firing workers,” according to The Seattle Times and Seattle Eater magazine. As the Washington Policy Center points out, when these strategies are not enough, businesses close, “workers lose their jobs and the neighborhood loses a prized amenity.”

Welcome to the land of $17 dollar cheeseburgers. And, as you can figure out fairly quickly, everything else will be more expensive too … which, of course, erodes the purchasing power of that $15 wage. More importantly, if you work for one of those establishments that is closing, your wage is $15 times zero hours, isn’t it?

Bigger companies who can absorb the financial hit from implementing new technology have already been preparing for these changes. McDonald’s has been experimenting with point of sale automation for taking orders and Applebee’s rolled out smart tablets at tables in multiple locations last year. The latter solution is the most interesting to me because it seems like the easiest for younger consumers to adapt to. Most of the people going out to eat in such places are already familiar with laptops, tablets and smart phones anyway. Having one waiting at the table which takes the place of not only the menu, but the waitress as well, isn’t going to come as much of a shock to the system.

I ran into one of these setups at the Philadelphia airport this winter and they work surprisingly well. If you plan to pay by credit or debit card (which is the only option in some cases) you barely interact with a human at all. You browse the drinks and food on the touch screen, place your order, swipe your card, and a short while later somebody strolls up with your food and beverage, says hello and drops them off. It’s a terribly impersonal service as compared to a bartender or waitress who stops to chat with you, but it gets the job done.

Of course, that last phrase is the big issue here, isn’t it? It gets the job done. That job used to be done by a person. Now it’s essentially a robot. So those workers are no longer on the payroll, but hopefully they’ll catch on someplace else. Unfortunately, as Seattle is finding out, employers who run single outlets and don’t have the backing and buffer range of a major chain often won’t be able to make the shift in technological infrastructure required to cut back on staffing while staying open. Those folks will shut down, and it’s apparently already beginning in Washington state. (hot air)

Back to Mr Sowell:

Low-income minorities are often hardest hit by the unemployment that follows in the wake of minimum wage laws. The last year when the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate was 1930, the last year before there was a federal minimum wage law.

The following year, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was passed, requiring minimum wages in the construction industry. This was in response to complaints that construction companies with non-union black construction workers were able to underbid construction companies with unionized white workers (whose unions would not admit blacks).

Looking back over my own life, I realize now how lucky I was when I left home in 1948, at the age of 17, to become self-supporting. The unemployment rate for 16- and 17-year-old blacks at that time was under 10 percent. Inflation had made the minimum wage law, passed ten years earlier, irrelevant.

But it was only a matter of time before liberal compassion led to repeated increases in the minimum wage, to keep up with inflation. The annual unemployment rate for black teenagers has never been less than 20 percent in the past 50 years, and has ranged as high as over 50 percent.

You can check these numbers in a table of official government statistics on page 42 of Professor Walter Williams’ book “Race and Economics.”

Incidentally, the black-white gap in unemployment rates for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds was virtually non-existent back in 1948. But the black teenage unemployment rate has been more than double that for white teenagers for every year since 1971.

This is just one of many policies that allow liberals to go around feeling good about themselves, while leaving havoc in their wake.

But they “feel” so good about themselves and you’re so “greedy” if you disagree.

sowell- liberal care

For Good

With his agenda in a mess. Lets Regulate instead. Where he doesn’t need Congress.

The EPA: Climate Change Controls.

FDA: Control of what you eat.

This is where he’ll get his satisfaction. His succor for now.

“He may be able to do more through climate change [rules] because the EPA has the authority,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told The Hill on Thursday.

The most far-reaching piece of Obama’s climate plan is carbon emission standards for the nation’s fleet of existing power plants, by far the largest single source of industrial carbon emissions. The EPA is also writing standards for new plants.

So he can make your energy costs skyrocket. Yeah, that will take care of the Middle Class.

For good. 🙂

Chain restaurants and their customers will soon feel the pinch of an expensive ObamaCare requirement that has been flying under the radar until now.  ObamaCare mandates that “restaurants and similar retail food establishments” print nutritional information on their menus.

The restaurant industry is extremely competitive. If consumers demand menu labeling, restaurants will meet that demand. In fact, many restaurants already do provide nutritional labeling.

But private solutions aren’t enough for menu labeling proponents. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is implementing the menu labeling requirement, tries to justify its rule by claiming that the public (poor fools) are misinformed and simply don’t request “sufficient” information.

In other words, since many people patronizing restaurants are not purchasing the most nutritious meals on offer (as determined by the government), this must be a market failure. One that government must fix. Hence, information mandates must be imposed and expanded until the desired actions are achieved. For the nation’s nutrition czars, if information mandates don’t work, then there must be bans, such as the New York City soda ban.

The entire approach rests on a faulty assumption: that customers fail to select the most nutritious meals available only because they lack information about nutritional content.

In the real world, nutritional information is the last thing most people want to think about when ordering at a restaurant. Going out for a meal is usually an escape, and often an indulgence. Few go to a fancy steakhouse and just order a side salad.

Those who are nutrition-conscious may choose a less healthy option at the restaurant, recognizing that their meal will be offset by other dietary and exercise choices they make during the day. Also, meal decisions at restaurants are usually not an all-or-nothing proposition. Nutrition may be one factor in selecting a meal.

Menu labeling mandates put the cart before the horse. The research on menu labeling is, at best, unclear when it comes to caloric intake. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, “The mixed results of these and other small-scale menu labeling studies suggest it is still too early to tell how restaurant calorie labeling will affect caloric intake.”

The ObamaCare menu labeling provision is modeled after a New York City law. New York University and Yale researchers found that individuals ordered more calories after the New York law went into effect. As is often the case when information mandates don’t work, true-believers attempt to blame the failure on insufficient information.

These findings were echoed by another set of researchers studying the NYC law. They recently reported in the American Journal of Public Health:

Providing calorie recommendation benchmarks-such as calories per day or calories per meal-did not reduce calories purchased, nor did it appear to help participants to better use the calorie information posted on menus. In fact, we found some evidence that recommendations may even have promoted purchase of higher-calorie items.

If you thought such findings would give pause to the mandaters, think again. Indeed, their proposed rule — which could be finalized this fall or even earlier — embraces a very expansive reading of the law. The relevant ObamaCare provision calls for a labeling requirement to fall on a “restaurant or other similar retail food establishment.” According to the FDA, their rule will apply to grocery stores and convenience stores as well. In practice, the regulatory power-mongers at the FDA have decided simply to ignore the inconveniently limiting word “similar.”

As the FDA sees it, a grocery store which devotes 99.9 percent of its floor space to packaged goods and 0.1 percent to a deli counter is pretty much indistinguishable from a restaurant. Hey, it’s selling food that’s prepared and processed on site, isn’t it?

Also according to the FDA, the first year compliance costs for all regulated parties could be as high as $537 million, with recurring annual costs of up to $64 million. There’s reason to believe the agency may be lowballing here. But the Food Marketing Institute, which represents supermarkets, asserts that first-year compliance costs for supermarkets alone would be over $1 billion.

But what about the benefits arising from the rule? The FDA didn’t try to answer that question. “Food choice and consumption decisions are complex,” the agency explained, “and FDA is unaware of any comprehensive data allowing accurate predictions of the effect of the proposed requirements on consumer choice and establishment menus.”

What we’re left with, then, is a rule that imposes huge, recurring costs without promising any quantifiable benefits.

This costly new menu-labeling mandate should be repealed, and until such time, no money should be appropriated to the FDA for its implementation, including through the complete defunding of ObamaCare. Americans are more than capable of demanding nutritional information, if they so choose. They don’t need the food police to arrogantly dictate what information they need to make decisions at restaurants. (American Thinker)

But, boy does it make Liberals feel good, and Powerful. 🙂

 

139810 600 Talking Point cartoons


139880 600 Obamacare Disclaimers cartoons

139748 600 Cheap date cartoons

Put Down that Burger, Fatso!

FOOD POLICE UPDATE

The federal government has a growing interest in the eating habits of Americans for the same reason it has an interest in tobacco consumption, said Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The reason is money, because three-quarters of medical-spending is driven by chronic diseases, such as obesity and tobacco-related diseases, she said.

Sebelius’ comments came at the tail-end of Tuesday’s White House press conference where officials showcased nine new photos that must be carried on cigarette packs. Officials used a survey of 18,000 people to find the images that would have the most distressing impact on groups of smokers, including young smokers and mothers of young kids.

“We want teenagers to understand smoking is gross, not cool,” said the HHS chief. If the public becomes desensitized to the distressing pictures, they’ll be replaced by new pictures, she said.

The regulations are justified, she said, because tobacco causes 443,000 premature deaths, and creates “$200 billion a year in health costs that we clearly could spend better elsewhere,” she said.

But the press questions shifted to food labels when a reporter pressed officials about new food-labeling standards being promoted by the government.

The standards are part of a much larger push by medical professionals to regulate the food sector. The medical professionals, led by the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have allied with professional advocacy groups, such as Center for Science in the Public Interest, and with leading Democratic politicians, to blame the food-sector for increasing obesity rates in the American population, and especially among African-Americans.

People like to eat the increasing amount of cheap food produced by the food industry, and the rate of obesity has climbed steadily. In turn, obesity has spiked government and private health-care costs, because fat people are more prone to expensive diseases such as heart-failure and diabetes.

Federal health-care bills have risen in step, partly because of obesity’s costs, but also because many medical-professionals and Democrats want the federal government to fund a growing portion of the nation’s health-care spending.

These political interests reinforce each other. Health-care professionals say their expertise can reduce the federal government’s health-care costs, and politicians say they need professional expertise to curb the growing cost of expanding federal health-care programs.

First Lady Michelle Obama, for example, has accelerated the process by simultaneously supporting the Obamacare expansion of government spending, while also establishing her ‘Let’s Move’ anti-obesity campaign. The professional campaign is aimed chiefly at African-Americans, and urges parents and children to exercise more and to eat carefully.

In April, the FDA published a new set of rules requiring restaurants to show the calories in each menu item, and the Federal Trade Commission released a set of guidelines for food that is marketed to children. These steps were mandated by the 2009 Obamacare health-sector law.

When asked if the government would extend tobacco-style regulations to food deemed fattening, Sebelius told the reporters that the federal guidelines are only voluntary.

In the same press conference, Margaret Hamburg, the FDA’s chief, added that “we need to work with industry to provide consumers … with the best possible information about nutrition and health so that we can all make good choices in terms of promoting and protecting health.”

“The food industry recognizes there are ways they can improve,” said Hamburg. “We certainly have a vested interest in that as a public health agency, and we want to work with them on that.”

“When the combined voice of the four most important regulatory agencies for [your industry] speak, it is hard for companies to ignore those guidelines, even if you feel they are unwarranted or unfounded,” said McBride. “Industry shares Ms. Obama’s goal of solving childhood obesity within a generation, and we will continue to work with government stakeholders towards that goal,” he said.

Sebelius deflected questions about whether food officials would mandate distressing pictures on food they consider unhealthy.  (For Now)

SECRETARY SEBELIUS: Well, again, I think tobacco is unique. It is a product that is the number one cause of preventable death. We know that there are strategies that can be very effective, because they’ve been in place. We also know that we’ve been stalled in this country. So I think this effort about tobacco regulation, efforts around tobacco cessation, has been decades-old and is something that is a unique situation.

Having said that, I do think that there are going to be ongoing discussions — as you look at the underlying health care costs, where we spend 75 cents of every health care dollar treating chronic disease — what are the areas, if you want to lower health costs and have a healthier country, that you can focus on? Certainly, tobacco and obesity become two of the major underlying causes. So the work around obesity and healthier, more nutritious eating, more exercise will continue to be I think an ongoing focus.

I think this is some space that is going to continue to have a robust conversation, because, again, it has a lot to do with underlying health costs and overall health of our nation. (Aka ObamaCare) 🙂

But as she stepped off the podium, Sebelius finally threw an answer back to the reporter who had asked if distressing images would be mandated for fattening foods. “Just lots of celery stalks and broccoli,” she said. (Townhall.com)

So put down that cookie Fatso!!

And that Microwave Dinner, EVIL!

The Food Police are Coming For you Tubby!

Mama Government does not approve.

The government knows better.

Tony the Tiger, some NASCAR drivers and cookie-selling Girl Scouts will be out of a job unless grocery manufacturers agree to reinvent a vast array of their products to satisfy the Obama administration’s food police.

Either retool the recipes to contain certain levels of sugar, sodium and fats, or no more advertising and marketing to tots and teenagers, say several federal regulatory agencies.

The same goes for restaurants.

It’s not just the usual suspected foods that are being targeted, such a thin mint cookies sold by scouts or M&Ms and Snickers, which sponsor cars in the Sprint Cup, but pretty much everything on a restaurant menu.

Although the intent of the guidelines is to combat childhood obesity, foods that are low in calories, fat, and some considered healthy foods, are also targets, including hot breakfast cereals such as oatmeal, pretzels, popcorn, nuts, yogurt, wheat bread, bagels, diet drinks, fruit juice, tea, bottled water, milk and sherbet.

Food industries are in an uproar over the proposal written by the Federal Trade Commission, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“The most disturbing aspect of this interagency working group is, after it imposes multibillions of dollars in restrictions on the food industry, there is no evidence of any impact on the scourge of childhood obesity,” said Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers.

The “Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to Guide Industry Self-Regulation Efforts” says it is voluntary, but industry officials say the intent is clear:  Do it, or else.

“When regulators strongly suggest a course of action, it’s treated as a rule, not a suggestion,” said Scott Faber, vice president of federal affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association.  “Industry tends to heed these suggestions from our regulators, and this administration has made it clear they are willing to regulate if we don’t implement their proposal.”

It’s not just the food industry that will be impacted.  Hundreds of television shows that depend on the advertising revenue, such as the Nickelodeon Channel, ESPN, and programs including “American Idol” will be affected, critics of the proposal say—at a cost of $5.8 trillion in marketing expenditures that support up to 20 million American jobs.

If the food is not reformulated, no more ads or promotions on TV, radio, in print, on websites, as well as other digital advertising such as e-mail and text messaging, packaging, and point-of-purchase displays and other in-store marketing tools; product placement in movies, videos, video games, contests, sweepstakes, character licensing and toy branding; sponsorship of events including sport teams and individual athletes; and, philanthropic activity tied to branding opportunities.

That includes softball teams that are sponsored by food companies and school reading programs sponsored by restaurants.

“The Interagency working group recommends that the food industry, through voluntary self-regulatory efforts, make significant improvements in the nutritional quality of foods marketed to children and adolescents ages 2 to 17 years,” the proposal says.

“By the year 2016, all food products within the categories most heavily marketed directly to children should meet two basic nutrition principles.  Such foods should be formulated to … make a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet and minimize the content of nutrients that could have a negative impact on health and weight.”

The foods most heavily marketed directly to children and adolescents fall into 10 categories: “breakfast cereals, snack foods, candy, dairy products, baked goods, carbonated beverages, fruit juice and non-carbonated beverages, prepared foods and meals, frozen and chilled desserts, and restaurant foods.”

Beth Johnson, a dietician for Food Directions in Maryland, said many of the foods targeted in this proposal are the same foods approved by the federal government for the WIC nutrition program for women, infants and children.

“This doesn’t make any sense whatsoever,” Johnson said.  “It’s not going to do anything to help with obesity.  These are decisions I want to make for my kids.  These should not be government decisions.” (Human Events)

But it will make a bunch of Liberals “feel good” that they have “done something” to save kids from evil capitalists trying to make them fat! 🙂

Rejoice!  The Government is here to save you and your Kids from YOU!

They’rrre Grrrreattt! 🙂

Cartoon

Cartoon

A Salt & Fattery

CartoonNutrition professor Marion Nestle’s (The irony of her last name must drive her insane) particular ivory tower is at New York University, where she dishes out anti-food-industry fanaticism. If it tastes good, she’ll find something wrong with it. If it’s also profitable to sell, she’ll go berserk. 

We live in a food culture full of labels. Much of what we eat carries a claim that it’s vitamin-fortified, high-fiber, low-fat, organic, trans-fat-free, heart-healthy, low-sodium, or free of added sugar. These are all marketing gimmicks to a certain extent (especially “organic”), but the government tends to permit them as a form of commercial speech, as long as they’re truthful.

Not Nestle. She thinks the First Amendment ought to be gutted, to make way for restricting food companies she doesn’t like from touting their products’ virtues. Apparently, cereal can no longer be considered part of a balanced breakfast.

In a recent letter in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association), she and co-author David Ludwig write:

The founding fathers clearly intended the First Amendment to guarantee the right of individuals to speak freely about religious and political matters, not the right of food companies to market junk foods to children and adults … We hope that legal scholars will examine current food marketing practices in the light of the First Amendment and establish a firm legal basis for bringing this issue back to court.

This isn’t really about stopping “junk food” marketing. Not even “for the children.”

For five years, Nestle sat on the Board of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). If that name doesn’t ring a bell, you may know it by its more common name: the “food police.”

CSPI’s grouchy leader has called for higher taxes on practically everything that tastes good, including butter, milk, cheese, chips, and meat; his group advocates government-mandated limits on salt and federal taxes on soft drinks. CSPI wants the FDA, the IRS, and the rest of our governmental alphabet soup to raid your pantry.

What’s Nestle’s take on CSPI? “I’m a big supporter of what they do. By and large, they’re the major game in town.” Speaking to the New York Times, she said: “I like it better when [CSPI’s leader] takes on the big corporations like McDonald’s.”

Wingnut attacks on corporations are a specialty for Nestle. She has spoken at events sponsored by the American Public Health Association’s Socialist Caucus. (Yes, there is such a thing.) She also presented at the 2003 Socialist Scholars Conference.

Marion the Contrarian (her inside-the-beltway nickname) has an anti-business, big-government streak a mile wide, but she does find some food-company speech perfectly to her liking. Nestle is a big fan of “No GMO” labels, insisting that “the public wants the right to choose.” She is similarly supportive of “organic” labels and others that give niche food marketers an edge against bigger competitors.

It’s a case of “free speech for me, but not for thee.” In Nestle’s world, food marketers deserve First Amendment protection until they start paying stockholder dividends. If you’re on the Fortune 500 list, her logic goes, you shouldn’t be allowed (without government permission) to tell consumers that the food they’re buying has added vitamin C or antioxidants, or that it’s made from whole grains.

Instead, Nestle wants government to dictate what consumers can be told about the food they eat. She favors a “traffic light” graphic on the front of every food package. Bad (translation: delicious) foods — even those with supplemental folic acid or omega-3s — would get the dreaded red light to ward people away. Presumably, kale and spinach would get green lights.

The idea that corporations don’t have Free Speech rights is ridiculous. A corporation is just an organization of individuals who own fractions of the same commercial venture. The law doesn’t distinguish between corporations — nor should it — depending on their size or their profitability. What’s fair for McDonald’s has to be fair for Organic Valley. And for the guy at your local farmers market.

Free speech is fair. And Marion Nestle, along with her dietary control-freak colleagues, should enjoy it too, whatever their batty theories.

“We are not lawyers,” Marion Nestle conceded in her published call for First Amendment restrictions. No kidding. It’s clear what Marion Nestle is, however: a dinosaur, hopefully the last of her kind, hopelessly wed to the idea that the profit motive hurts, rather than improves, America’s food system.(Daily Caller)

McVictim

Liberals loves to make everyone a victim of something, even they are victims of the same things they rail about.

So naturally they should have a name for it. Only a doctor in LA who is NOT a liberal has come up with it.

This week brought an unusually high dose of food fascism and nutrition nannying. But it also gave us the sort of rare op-ed that had us nodding our heads in emphatic agreement. Writing in the Los Angeles Times, physician and Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow David Gratzer takes on what he calls “McVictim syndrome”:

The McVictim syndrome spins a convenient — and unhealthy — narrative on America’s emerging preventable disease crisis. McVictimization teaches Americans to think that obesity is someone else’s fault — and therefore, someone else’s problem to solve.

The truth: In the vast majority of cases, obesity is a preventable condition. So those of us in the medical community must be candid with overweight patients about the risks they face and the rewards of better health choices. But it’s also time for American policymakers to show the same level of candor.

All things being equal, the simplest explanation is often the right one. And the simplest explanation for the dramatic rise in obesity rates — roughly doubling as a percentage of the total population in just a quarter-century — is the surge in our daily caloric intake. Excess food now, excess weight later. And Americans won’t make better choices if the McVictim syndrome provides a convenient excuse to carry on as before.

He’s right, and it drives us crazy. Every time a food cop claims consumers are helpless victims of their “food environment” (or anything else), it fuels this sort of victimization narrative. Hopefully more physicians in the public health community who think like Gratzer will start airing their thoughts—and personal responsibility will make a delicious return to our diets. (consumerfreedom.com)

LA City Council has taken another step toward saving South L.A. (formerly known as gang ridden “South Central” with an Orwellian makeover where the gangs are STILL there mind you) from itself by saying no to more fast food on behalf of its constituents. Citing the statistic that 70 percent of food currently sold in the community is “fast,” Councilmember Jan Perry defended the ban, stating:

This is not an attempt to control people as to what they can put into their mouths. This is an attempt to diversify their food options.

But to the disinterested observer it appears that controlling what people “put into their mouths” is precisely what the City Council is doing.

But it’s for your own good, after all, we Liberals are vastly superior to you mere “little people” who are too stupid not to be victims of the vast right-wing conspiracy against you.

When we talk to our community members and the people that we were elected to represent, the one thing that we hear over and over and over again is: ‘We need more grocery stores, we need more restaurants, we need more choices, we are tired of the choices that have been given to this community.’

In short, businesses—including restaurants—are welcome, even desired, by residents of the community.

As to supply and demand, the residents of South L.A. can complain all they want about the “choices that have been given to this community” and wish for alternatives to fast food. Unless the City Council can devise a method for forcing investors to open eateries with tablecloths and waiters, the locals will simply have to make do with the hand they have been dealt or cook at home.

In addition, the fact that more fast food franchisees are seeking to open restaurants in South L.A. despite the ostensible over-saturation of that market suggests that fast food is what many South Angelinos want. What business is it of the City Council to tell them they can’t have it? (Hot air.com)

Because they are Liberals the rules of logic, free enterprise, supply and demand, and general economics don’t apply to them when they are so MORALLY SUPERIOR and Intellectually Superior to you evil, greedy, capitalist bastards who just want to exploit everyone!

Meanwhile, we’ll exploit them for our own purposes. That’s Fair! 🙂

After all, the neighborhoods of the Crips and The Bloods is just crying out for the next 5-Star Organic Vegan Restaurant. (anything else would just be capitalist exploitation you understand).

Conversation coming soon to a prison cell near you:

“What are you in for?”

“Grand theft auto. You?”

“Butter.”

BALTIMORE — The Baltimore City Health Department issued its first environmental citation for repeat violations of the city’s trans fat ban.

The Health Department issued Healthy Choice, a food facility in the 400 block of Lexington Street, a $100 fine on Thursday.

“It was the second time they were found with a high trans fat level in their ingredients,” said Health Department agent Juan Gutierrez.

Officials said that during inspections in July and this month, the facility was found to be using a margarine product with trans fat levels in excess of what the law allows.

A source tells me the Health Department stormtroopers are referring to this particular type of crime as “a salt & fattery.”

Baltimore’s “Commissioner of Health” (you can’t make this stuff up), Dr. Oxiris Barbot (you certainly can’t make that up), is quoted as saying this (accent added by me for more appropriate Eastern Bloc effect): “Vile vee are pleased vis zee high rates of compliance veev seen since zee ban tuke effekt, vee vill continue to sankshun beeznesses zaht repeatedly fail to komply.”

Join me in standing up to these people and yelling at the top of our lungs, “From my cold, dead frying pan!” (Michelle Malkin).

null