Skip to comments.Food Nannies
Posted on 11/09/2011 12:39:11 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
According to a new report by the Institute for Medicine, the proposed symbol system should show calories in household servings on all products. The report goes on to recommend that [f]oods and beverages should be evaluated using a point system for saturated and trans fats and sodium, and added sugars. It concludes that healthier foods would have a higher number of points than less healthy products.
The report compares the healthy-symbol plan to the EPAs EnergyStar label, which dates to the early 1990s and is supposed to prod consumers to buy energy-efficient appliances and electronic devices. Although generally ignored by consumers, the federal government touts the EnergyStar program as a great success in its green agenda for the planet.
Mary Story, a member of the Institute for Medicine pushing the new label, recently explained the organizations proposal to The San Francisco Chronicle. She claimed such a move was necessary, because people are so busy and there are so many products to choose from. The magic of the proposed labeling mandate, in Ms. Storys view, is that, if there is a system that could very quickly, almost instantly, identify which foods are healthier in terms of reducing chronic disease risk for children and adults, it could really help.
The nutritional content of foods, of course, is already exhaustively and quite clearly detailed on packaging, as required by federal government regulations administered by the Food and Drug Administration. However, these detailed labels are woefully inadequate for the busy bodies at the Institute for Medicine, whose faith in consumers to make responsible choices is far lower than their faith in government bureaucrats to make those choices for them.
Regardless of what the proposed fat labels might look like the Pillsbury Doughboy or a smiling stick figure it is certain they will not stop the vast majority of consumers from buying and eating foods they want, including those that are less than healthful. And nannies like the Institute for Medicines Ms. Story will not rest until foods they deem unhealthy are actually prohibited.
Bob Barr represented Georgias Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He blogs at Daily Caller, where this first appeared.
Nanny State PING!
As with other areas of education:
It’s not that what’s presented needs refinement, nor that customers/consumers/students need more assistance, it’s that WHEN SOMEONE DOESN’T CARE, NOTHING WILL HELP THEM.
Everybody knows a bag of chips and a soda makes for an unhealthy meal. Putting detailed data, running PSAs, and adding a frowny face won’t discourage someone who decides to make that lunch nonetheless.
At some point people make their own decisions and enjoy/suffer the consequences.
if this program is ANYTHING like EnergyStar some James O’Keefe type will submit a jar of arsenic and it will come back with the low trans-fats and low calorie seal of approval.
Its called freedom!
Thanks for the ping!
If there weren’t nationalized health care, then fat people would not be so expensive. But, even withouot Obamacare, the system in place means everyone pays for unhealthy lifestyles.
I do not see how more transparency and clarity on labels causes harm. To say that it will not work without attempting it, is absurd.
The comparison to energy efficiency labels for appliances is relevant. They have, indeed, been proven to influence behaviour.
I suppose the new labeling would be useful to me, as they would designate foods to avoid when I want something that actually tastes good.
Anything that’s actually good for you will soon be deemed a drug and tightly regulated.