The Government Has a Plan to Drastically Change How You Eat! (Guest Post)

By 66 Comments 3,029 views


I know what’s been weighing on your mind – you’re probably wishing that there was a team of bureaucrats ready to tell you how drastically altering your diet will not only save you but the entire planet as well. Well this is your lucky day! A committee has released recommendations that will be passed along to the USDA and HHS. Elizabeth Harrington for The Free Beacon reports:

The federal committee responsible for nutrition guidelines is calling for the adoption of “plant-based” diets, taxes on dessert, trained obesity “interventionists” at worksites, and electronic monitoring of how long Americans sit in front of the television.

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) released its far-reaching 571-page report of recommendations to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Thursday, which detailed its plans to “transform the food system.”

This is not a new story, and the public comment window closed a few days ago. If you want to see a great collection of comments that read like a left wing atheist’s prayer to their god of Big Government:

O wise and just Dietary Guidelines Dietary Commission, please bestow the power of your wisdom unto those agencies that might humble non-believers. Smite those who use antibiotics, hormones, chemical fertilizers and toxic pesticides! Strike down those who deny that the climate end is nigh! We humbly beg of you to force the right choices unto those too unenlightened to do so themselves.

I could easily copy and paste the entire article, but here is one of the juicier sections of this proposal to invade our lives courtesy of left wing extremists:

As expected, the committee recommended that Americans move toward “plant-based” diets, after months of discussions in meetings regarding environmentalism and food policy.
DGAC said its recommendations to eat less meat are intended to “maximize environmental sustainability” out of concerns for climate change.
“The major findings regarding sustainable diets were that a diet higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in calories and animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with less environmental impact than is the current U.S. diet,” DGAC said.

DGAC recommended Mediterranean-style and vegetarian diets as the best options. Vegan, lacto-ovo vegetarian, pesco-vegetarian, and Mediterranean diets are the most environmentally friendly, with the least greenhouse gas emissions, it said.

“All of these dietary patterns are aligned with lower environmental impacts and provide options that can be adopted by the U.S. population,” the report said. “Current evidence shows that the average U.S. diet has a larger environmental impact in terms of increased greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and energy use, compared to the above dietary patterns. This is because the current U.S. population intake of animal-based foods is higher and plant-based foods are lower, than proposed in these three dietary patterns.”

Read the whole thing. It is comforting to see at least some honesty in the recommendations, in that they are partially motivated by radical left wing social engineering in the name of their religion of Climate Change. I pointed out something similar to this a few months ago in a proposed plan by The Department of Transportation. But by now we should all be ready to follow left wing extremists in their faith in unelected bureaucrats making decisions over our lives. Just because:

They were wrong about salt

They were wrong about cholesterol

They were wrong about low-fat products

They were wrong about carbs

They were wrong about red meat

is no reason to start questioning the faith. Based on how wrong the government has been in the past with their recommendations, I am going to make a bold prediction for 20 years from now when the government admits that it was wrong in pushing people toward a vegan diet. Their admission will probably read something like this: “We have found that the meatless, vegan life style to have produced unpredictable consequences in those who have followed these guidelines. If you took our advice you are far more likely to be miserable, self-righteous, judgmental, along with having an unfounded faith in Big Government. And you probably smell funny.”

Cross posted from Brother Bob’s Blog

Follow Brother Bob on Twitter and Facebook

Blogging by the credo of "Making the world a more offensive place, one blog post at a time", Brother Bob started writing posts around the beginning of the Obama presidency over at Brother Bob's Blog. A born-again Existentialist and self-professed libertarian with conservative tendencies, he has ironically chosen to live in the Washington, DC area - deep behind enemy lines. He has always loved history, and spent eight years volunteering as a tour guide on weekends, giving over 200 tours to roughly 2,500 mostly foreign guests. His tours were highlighted by stories generally not found in the history books or most other tours, such as the importance of the Battle if Antietam, the origins or Arlington Cemetery, and dispelling the myths of FDR's New Deal. Although his favorite subject to blog about is Economics, as seen in his Economics for Politicians series, his posts try to address angles that other conservative writers and the mainstream media (naturally!) miss. "There's no point in putting up a post on a subject that someone smarter than me has already written". He believes in the "Happy Warrior" approach, and tries to inject humor in his posts, sometimes successfully. Two such examples are his posts comparing the modern left to the horrible Star Wars prequels, and analyzing the laments of a DC woman in search of a feminist boyfriend. Brother Bob lives with his very patient wife known as Sister Babe, and their fantastic son. Little Bob. Little Bob is also the reason that being a tour guide came to an end, as spending Saturdays raising a son takes priority over giving lectures to foreign visitors on the folly of Keynesian economics. BB is also grateful for the opportunity to take his place among the outstanding writers at Flopping Aces, appreciates every person who takes the time to read his posts, and especially those who join him in the conversation in the comments.

66 Responses to “The Government Has a Plan to Drastically Change How You Eat! (Guest Post)”

  1. 51

    rich wheeler

    @Redteam: Learn to spell old timer. Maybe all that meat you’re eating is affecting your cognitive abilities.
    Any idiot knows plants are not sentient beings like humans and cows.They have no central nervous system.and cannot feel pain.Where did you study botany?
    I am against abortion and the senseless killing of all animals, including human animals.

  2. 54


    @rich wheeler: learn to spell, Rich, I’m probably the best speller you’ve ever run across in your lifetime, or ever will. Sometimes my fingers don’t always agree on the keyboard and I don’t always proofread. But speller, you don’t know a better one.

    Where did you study botany?

    in high school and college. They taught me, also, that many people also believe what they believe because it suits their purpose. Since you have a belief that it is cruel to kill animals and because you have to eat something, then something must be plants and therefore it must be okay to eat plants because they don’t have a central nervous system. So since we’ve established that. Then you must believe that if your brain is telling you that it is feeling pain, then there must be pain being inflicted. Do you know that people without a leg have been known to feel pain in their ‘missing foot’? Is that ‘real’ pain or just imagination? Now we’ve established that pain is what you feel to suit your purpose. Not necessarily ‘real pain’. You have to question the judgment of someone that thinks a woman can decide to kill her own baby, but it’s not ok for me to decide to kill a hog. Some value system.

  3. 55


    @rich wheeler: What: you’ve assumed ownership of two animals? Does that make you a slave owner? Did you ask those animals if they want to be owned or did you do it without their permission? That’s slavery, Rich, pure and simple. If you’re gonna put animals in the ‘same class’ as humans, then you can’t ‘own’ them. Geez these libs only want things ‘their way’. Let me sum this up. Can’t own humans, slavery.
    Can kill babies if you wish. Not murder.
    Can’t kill animals. They have rights.
    Can own animals, not slavery.

    Free those animals, Rich you DO NOT have a right to ‘own’ them.

    Can anyone wonder why I call them DIMocrats?

  4. 56

    rich wheeler

    @Redteam: You continue to claim what a great speller you are. Then you continue to misspell words. What does that say about you RT?
    I don’t own those dogs any more than you own your children. They are free to go should they chose.
    I oppose abortion and counsel adoption– which should be made easier
    I don’t dictate to women how they should act , nor do I have the right to control their bodies–do you feel otherwise?
    I oppose the slaughter of living animals and am opposed to speciesism.
    If you wanna put plants in the same category with animals, including human animals, so be it. To each his own..

    You say “pain is what you feel to suit your purpose.” Really?

  5. 57


    @rich wheeler: Let me repeat this Rich, apparently you missed it again. I didn’t misspell the word, the computer did. Machines have a mind of their own. Sometimes I catch the typing error and correct it, sometimes I don’t. I do not usually use the spelling check because it doesn’t always catch errors. an example, it doesn’t know the the difference in ‘their’ or ‘there’.

    I don’t own those dogs any more than you own your children. They are free to go should they chose.

    Convenient, so if a hog slaughterer says his hogs are free to go if they choose, you’d be okay with that?

    I oppose abortion and counsel adoption– which should be made easier

    why do you use the word ‘abortion’ instead of ‘murder’? Does it make it easier to ‘justify’? So while you ‘counsel abortion’ you do not propose to limit a woman’s right to murder, but in the case of animals, you prefer to take away the right to murder? you don’t see the issue? That means you are a liberal, socialist.

  6. 58


    @rich wheeler:

    They are free to go should they chose.

    is every word in that sentence spelled correctly?

    You say “pain is what you feel to suit your purpose.” Really?

    Do you need further interpretation?

  7. 59

    rich wheeler

    @Redteam: If a hog slaughterer says his hogs are free to go I’d cheer him on.
    You don’t misspell words –your computer does–hilarious.
    I use the word abortion to describe —wait—abortion.

    Are you saying if someone stabs you in the stomach with a 10 inch knife or slits your throat you can choose to not feel pain? Are you sane?

  8. 60


    @rich wheeler:

    You don’t misspell words –your computer does–hilarious.

    Rich, if I were going to criticize your spelling, I would make sure I didn’t have any spelling errors in that message.

    They are free to go should they chose.

    as in that.

    I use the word abortion to describe —wait—abortion.

    Are you implying that abortion is not murder? So if a hog slaughterer only aborted his hogs, then you could eat them without a problem?

    Are you saying if someone stabs you in the stomach with a 10 inch knife or slits your throat you can choose to not feel pain? Are you sane?

    Are you saying that a person that feels pain in a foot that has been amputated is sane? Is he really feeling pain in that foot? Are you saying that a baby that is murdered doesn’t feel pain?

    So you don’t own your dogs? You only give them a place to live? KISS

  9. 61

    rich wheeler

    @Redteam: Abortion is not murder unless one considers the fetus to be a person.According to Roe v.Wade the word person does not include the unborn, and a fetus does not have equal status with the mother until the point of viability or when the fetus can exist outside of the mother’s womb. I agree with this.

  10. 63

    rich wheeler

    @Redteam: Let’s be clear. It’s OK to own animals be it dogs ,cats,cows or chickens. Treat them well and allow them to live out their natural lives.
    Be assured I’m not advocating for legal rights–simply the right to live freely as the sentient beings they are.

    Don’t birth them for a short term miserable existence,then slaughter.them.
    RT I believe you said you saw Farm To Fridge. I simply ask all to take 4 minutes to watch it. Then do as you will.
    Nancy and I have shown this video to thousands, mostly young on an individual basis. It gets their attention for sure.
    Also recommend Forks Over Knives and Cowspiracy which spells out how factory farming affects the environment.

    RT I RESPECT THE PASSION YOU AND OTHERS SHOW ON THE ABORTION ISSUE. I’m in agreement with Roe v Wade on this. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
    Keep fighting for what you believe to be right.

    Bill Should I care what Obama eats? I’d ask him to watch Farm To Fridge. I don’t consider eating a dog any better or worse than eating a pig or a cow.

    Thanks Semper Fi .

  11. 65


    @rich wheeler: Yes I did watch Farm to Fridge. I do not believe in mistreating any animal. No animal should have to suffer during any short life they may have. That said, I don’t see anything wrong with people eating meat.
    I don’t have any objection to a woman deciding to have an abortion before the fetus is viable. After that point, the Dimocrats have no problem with it up to and including a short time after birth. Your president voted for a law in Illinois to allow a baby to be thrown into the trash bin if it is born alive during an attempted abortion, with no effort being made to keep it alive. That is murder, plain and simple. Yet these same Dims don’t want us to kill an animal for food.

    So you agree that it’s okay for someone to own an animal without considering it slavery. How strange.

    Let me know how I did on my spelling on this comment.

    Did you go back and correct your misspelling?

  12. 66


    @rich wheeler:

    Abortion is not murder unless one considers the fetus to be a person.

    What else does a fetus have the ability to become? A butterfly? A daisy? A calf?

    Would you have a problem with millions of “abortions” being performed on dogs, killing the puppies in the process?

    According to Roe v.Wade the word person does not include the unborn, and a fetus does not have equal status with the mother until the point of viability or when the fetus can exist outside of the mother’s womb. I agree with this.

    Blackmun was wrong, and White and Renquist were correct in their interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Even so, the very law that you claim to uphold, said that abortion would be legal only in the first trimester, and never beyond “viability” set at 28 weeks, or less. Science has now shown that babies feel pain in the womb much earlier than that. And even a new born is not truly “viable” as it needs assistance in staying alive by being fed, diapered, given proper care. Without that care, it will die as it cannot fed itself. So exactly when does a child become “viable” using the bench mark that it can survive “on it’s own?”

    No other species will deliberately kill their own prior to birth. A wild dog will fight to the death to protect her unborn, and new born, pups. Yet, on a daily basis, due to a radical left wing judge, we, as a society, slaughter thousands of prospective human beings. If we did that to dogs, or cats, or cattle, the Mercy For Animals crowd would be protesting in the streets. No so for future Mozarts, Einsteins or other prospective geniuses who would contribute greatly to our society. The left uses the excuse that these prospective human beings will live in poverty, and be a drain on their useless, irresponsible mothers as well as society in general. The problem is not their future birth, but with the progressive view point that have taught that personal responsibility is not a priority.

    If I found a stray dog that was about to have puppies, I would not take her to a vet to have an abortion. Instead, I would take her to the vet to make sure she was in good health, and when the puppies were born, I would find them good homes with responsible adults who would love and care for them. How sad that we, as a society, are not more fixated on doing that for human beings that, once conceived, can never be anything other than a human being.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *