Food police

My one long-time reader will no doubt note my opposition to government interference in just about all things. . .in light of that, I'd direct ones attention to this article from Wednesday's New York Times. The article tackles the question of food nutrition guidelines issued by states, such as California, and the various results resulting from these bans.

The old-fashioned school bake sale, once as American as apple pie, is fast becoming obsolete in California, a result of strict new state nutrition standards for public schools that regulate the types of food that can be sold to students. The guidelines were passed by lawmakers in 2005 and took effect in July 2007. They require that snacks sold during the school day contain no more than 35 percent sugar by weight and derive no more than 35 percent of their calories from fat and no more than 10 percent of their calories from saturated fat.

My larger problem with these guidelines is that they often address the wrong aspect of eating- it's not the nutrient, it's the portion. What that means is that, instead of having a bake sale, where teams can sell cupcakes, cookies and other tasty items, all made at home, kids are left with "healthy" alternatives, such as Snackwells and other sweets that satisfy these ridiculous rules, but don't address the underlying problem. If you eat a ton of Snackwells, you're still gonna get fat.

I understand the desire of policy makers to want to have "healthy" alternatives to sugary foods, the problem is that either the alternatives are actually worse for you, or they simply do away with it altogether. That is comprised in this wacky statement- “I don’t think all celebrations need to be around food,” said Ann Cooper, the director of nutrition services for the Berkeley school district. “We need to get past the mentality of food used for punishment or praise.”

Without getting all anthropological here, food is often a large part of celebrations- we are about the celebrate one of the biggest food-based celebrations of the year with Thanksgiving. The second point also needs to be addressed. For years now, parents, teachers and administrators have been operating in a state of fear- that is, they are afraid to show failure. That's why you have sporting events where scores aren't kept, there are no losers and everyone gets a prize. That's also why you have rules that say teachers can't use red ink to correct student papers because of the stigma supposedly attached to red ink in schools. This is all ridiculous.

Furthermore, for anyone who has read Rousseau's "Emile," food is the center of one of Rousseau's classic examples of motivating a student- in order to get his student to exercise, Rousseau instead makes the whole event about the food instead of the exercise. Emile has to run to get the cake- to Emile, it's all about the cake, to Rousseau, it's about the exercise.

In any event, this study comes to a conclusion that bans on sugary drinks shows little effect on consumption. The study followed students in high schools in Maine. The conclusion reached by the study is "Researchers found that over one school year, students in both groups of schools cut down on their average daily intake of sugary drinks -- but there was no evidence that the school soda bans led to greater reductions." In other words, over the 9 month school year, students across the board reduced their consumption of sugary drinks, regardless of whether those drinks were available in their school. The study does posit one possible reason as to why the study came to its result: "According to Blum, keeping such drinks out of teenagers' reach during school hours may not be enough. School appears to be just one source of sugar-sweetened beverages for youth," she said, "and it may be that an educational component...is needed to have an effect on consumption from sources other than school."

It is obvious that the researcher is referring to the home. And that is a dangerous step. This study draws a line between tv advertising and childhood obesity. It advocates for a ban on food-related commercials- nevermind a blatant constitutional free speech problem. How a commercial causes a child to get obese is beyond me- the child is not responsible for feeding themselves, rather, it's parents that take the child there. In other words, both studies rightly implicate the role of parents in providing for their children, yet both stop short of the logical conclusion from both of their studies- that only through government involvement can children be rightly protected from the supposed failings of their parents to feed them "correctly."

The problem with that is, of course, that the government knows what it's doing, which is questionable. Consumers are inundated with information, per government direction, about food quality and what nutrients are best, and the government simply muddles all of that through a variety of ways, including through farm subsidies (wanna know why corn syrup is in everything we eat, thank corn subsidies, a long-running program that debuted during the New Deal). We have lost our connection to our food, and well-meaning programs, like bans based on nutrients, only pushes us further away from that connection. Instead of using some common-sense approach to food, such as realizing the benefits of home-made food, using food as a celebration or even encouraging moderation, we are instead propagating beliefs that nutrients matter, and not the food itself. That as long as something has been genetically engineered to be fat-free, sugar-free, trans-fat free, low-fat, low-carb or whatever, we are to be secure in the knowledge that it's "healthy," at least as defined by the government.

This is a 1998 article from Newsweek that is about Olestra, a fat-free alternative that is used in the production of potato chips. It was declared safe by the FDA, yet the article notes:

As it moves through the gut, it attracts fat-soluble nutrients and carries them out of the body. Those nutrients include vitamins A, D, E and K and some carotenoids, which are substances found in fruits and vegetables that help protect against heart disease and many cancers. Olestra chips are fortified with the four vitamins to make up for the depletion--but the lost carotenoids are not replaced. ....

Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health estimates that if consumption of olestra snacks becomes widespread, Americans may experience up to 50,000 more cases of cancer and heart disease every year. P&G calls the estimates ""ridiculous'' and says that olestra affects carotenoids only when olestra is eaten with fruits and vegetables.

So, olestra was approved a safe, and is being used as a fat-free way to produce potato chips, yet it extracts various vitamins from the body (but the product has been engineered to replace those lost vitamins), but the maker says that will only happen if they eat it with fruit and vegetables. Incredible! Oh, and another side effect is that some people can't digest olestra properly causing diarrhea (that would be me- the same thing happens if I have too much soy, depending on how it's refined). But, it's fat free, and that's all that really matters.

The Newsweek article continues with this illuminating paragraph:

Despite its drawbacks, olestra will surely appeal to the millions of Americans who are dieting, or wish they were. But nothing in the history of American eating habits backs up the assumption that reduced-calorie foods guarantee weight loss. Artificial sweeteners have long been a household staple, while consumption of sugar soars. Similarly, we're eating more reduced-fat foods than ever these days, yet our total consumption of fat has barely changed since 1991. Meanwhile, more than half of all American adults are overweight or obese. Many factors contribute to the national girth, including an all-food-all-the-time lifestyle and an aversion to exercise, but what's indisputable is that SnackWells are not making us skinny.

Finally, the article concludes with a startlingly prescient statement- "Products like olestra chips feed a different hunger than the one for food. Will they do any harm if you eat just a handful now and then? Nope. And neither will regular chips."

There it is, advice from 1998 that seemingly is still falling on deaf ears, even though Michael Pollan, for one, is doing a lot to change that- it's not about the nutrients, it's about the portion. I will say that while I do believe that banning artificial trans-fat is a worthwhile cause, both because of the dangers inherent in artificial trans-fat and because who really wants to eat something that was created in a lab and can engineer in and out whatever you like (this is why I don't use margarine), the larger issue isn't the trans-fat themselves, but how much one eats. If combating obesity truly is the goal of all these programs, then encouraging the government to go nutrient-by-nutrient, what Pollan calls nutritionism, is the wrong way. We should be educating children about whole foods, about our role in the food chain, a better respect for our food, and making our food. Banning certain nutrients because some government pol says it's bad is short-sighted, and, as the NY Times article explains, takes us away from our role in making food. Banning cupcakes from schools for childrens' birthdays is a useless exercise that does nothing but unnecessarily punish the child for being a child- let them have their home-made cupcake. Let there be food-based fund-raisers. Let there be multi-cultural food fairs to raise money. Quite simply- let there be food.

A Response

In the comments to my last post, my friend at Pave The Whales took me to task for insinuating that Democrats are mindless idiots. My post was simply to point out that despite all the rhetoric that Dear Leader read from on high during the campaign was just that- rhetoric. Yet, the public ate it up like manna from heaven, believing in Obama, to the point of this woman claiming that Obama will pay her rent and put gas in her car.

My criticism of Obama's rhetoric is that either he's simply feeding lines to the public to get them to vote for him and has no intention of following through on it; or he does mean what he says, and how could the public knowingly vote for someone who is positioned to repeat the same failed policies from the 30s. Instead, it appears that all the american public digested was hope and change, hope and change, hope and change. I argued that hope is not a strategy and his change is something we cannot afford. Based on these initial picks, plus the belief that Secretary of Defense Gates is likely to stay through this first several months, the only change that's apparent is that Obama is looking to rewind the clocks to 1992. I will retain the hope that Obama does not attempt to recreate a New New Deal and the disaster that accompanied those policies (As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said- "A good catchword can obscure analysis for fifty years."); instead, he will realize that increasing taxes in a panic or recession is bad policy.

Do I think the public made the wrong choice- that's pretty apparent by my defense of John McCain. I also do think that the public fell in love with a voice and an image- I mean, this country gave Paris Hilton 3 years of The Simple Life, plus another show where she is looking for a new best friend. We have short attention spans and are wowed by shiny objects. So, my posts aren't necessarily directed at Democrats, per se; there are plenty of policy arguments where both sides have reasonable positions. My posts, rather, are directed at the folly of Obama supporters who believed in his rhetoric; Obama is nothing more than a politician, an extremely calculating politician who knew what to say to get elected, and appears to realize that he can't govern from his prior positions. Further, my posts should be a relief to Obama supporters. While I may characterize the supporters one way, I am beginning to come around to the belief, shared by both Instapundit and Knowledge Problem, that is best summed up by The Who line- Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Instead, my biggest concern continues to lay with Congressional Democrats, and I will make my concerns and opposition known.

Anyway, I will make no apologies for the tenor of my posts- the right has every bit the ability and right to take on the left and make pointed remarks. This ability is not the sole domain of Huffington Post or DailyKos or TPM.

I can't help it.

From today's L.A. Times comes this quote:

"There's so much Obama hero worship, we're having to walk this line where we can't directly criticize him," he said. "But we are expressing concern."

And what is this person so concerned about?

Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.

The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.

You mean, gasp, Obama might not actually pull troops out of Iraq at the rate he promised during the campaign? You mean that Obama might not have actually meant what he said during the campaign? Noooo.......You mean, that. . .Obama might just be . . . a politician? NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

In other news comes word that, "President-elect Barack Obama promised the voters change but has started his Cabinet selection process by naming several Washington insiders to top posts." I do find it amusing that Eric Holder (U.S. Attorney for D.C. under President Clinton), Rahm Emanuel (Senior Advisor to President Clinton), and Hillary Clinton are three early names to come out in an Obama Cabinet. It's like the missing third Clinton term Democrats have been waiting for. I will say that if we do get a third Clinton term, I hope its the foreign policy/economic version (the era of big government is over and all that) and not the social policy side- although, I guess the pick of Tom Daschle as HHS tempers my hope about that. According to the above article, Daschle's criticism of Clinton's attempt at health care reform in his first term is that it went into too much detail. Yes, that's exactly what we don't need- details.

Change you can believe in.

Also, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the elevation of Rep. Henry Waxman to the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, dethroning John Dingell, who had been the top Democrat on that Committee for 28 years. Basically, this is all about energy and the environment and how Congressional Democrats have thrown themselves down in front of the altar of Environment. With Waxman and Rep. Ed Markey in positions of leadership on climate change, and Sen. Boxer chairing the Senate Environment Committee, the next two years will be sure to feature prostrate Democrats chanting the mantra "Green, Green, Green" at the expense of the american public. Obama has already promised the raised electricity bills, by shutting down coal plants and requiring increases in expensive renewable projects- all at government say-so, without looking into whether or not it makes economic sense to do so. A co-worker of mine has a rote statement- Why quibble with -insert issue- when you can save the planet. For example, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. issued a report that noted “We are concerned that, when viewed from a continent-wide perspective, current climate initiatives do not adequately address key reliability objectives, particularly the need for a strong and robust transmission system.” In other words, since renewable energy, like wind and solar, are intermittent, they cannot be relied upon to provide a reliable energy service; and if the U.S. starts requiring a certain percentage of power to come from these unreliable sources, we're likely to see failures across the energy grid. Basically, we are exchanging cheap, reliable, baseload power for expensive, unreliable, intermittent power. . .what a victory for American ratepayers.

I can only imagine the mischief that is to result over the next 2 years with energy and environmental issues being handled by High Priests of Environment.

Bush's last stand

Obama met with President Bush a few days ago to talk about bailing out the auto industry. According to the article,

Bush has drawn his line at the automakers' doors, having already been forced to shelve the free-market principles of his Republican Party to bail out the financial industry over the past two months. But Republicans say he would acquiesce in aid to automakers in return for Congress's ratification of the Colombia pact and pending trade agreements with Panama and South Korea.

I hope that Bush gets away with this. . .If there really is one group that should not receive government assistance, other than the airlines, it's the auto industry. As much as the Democrats think they can call Bush's bluff and that he won't let GM fail, how much are the Democrats willing to let GM fail instead of passing the Colombia, Panama and South Korea free trade agreements. Democrats are simply serving the desire of two of their largest constituents: labor and environmentalists. Instead of serving the, you know, American public, they are already letting special interests dictate policy.

It would be far better for the American auto industry to cut jobs, cut production and stand up to the unions and negotiate wage cuts. Instead, they're plowing through cash, keeping their middle management, not working with the unions, not cutting production, but they are asking for more money to keep operating. And that includes increasing spending on the Volt, despite its own precarious economic position.

Let GM fail. Detroit has been unable or unwilling to move ahead in designing the cars or building more fuel efficient cars, in the face of increased demand for fuel efficient cars. GM is asking for $50 billion in federal aid.

How much longer will the American people be forced to bail out another industry, another company, that failed to do their job. Haven't we all learned enough? First, we had the housing industry, propped up on mortgages that shouldn't have been issued to people that had no business owning a home; then we moved on to the banks that bought up these mortgages, on promises of continued and future increases in property values; then we have AIG, I can't even explain what caused us to bail out AIG, which has now increased from an initial $85 billion to $150 billion. Lehman was allowed to fail, and the government facilitated a number of other takeovers. Now the automakers want a piece of the bank bailout pie. Let them fail.

President Bush should hold out. He should not cave into the demands of Congressional Democrats, union leaders or the auto industry. The auto industry fought long and hard against various fuel efficiency measures, had a protector in Rep. John Dingell, not to mention the various Democrats who are beholden to unions, which also opposed the fuel efficiency measures, and are now left holding the bag because they built cars that the american public doesn't want, and can't buy. I don't begrudge them for trying to fight the fuel efficiency measures, I begrudge them because they failed to heed the market demand for such cars. They wanted to play by their rules, and when their rules turned on them, they come begging for a handout so they can do what they should have done 3 years ago. At some point, the government is going to have to say no more- we will not be saving businesses that failed to change with the market; you made your decisions, and we will not help you.

As Thomas Friedman noted today, not all auto companies are having a hard time- Honda recently opened a new production facility in Canada. Yet, it's the American auto industry that's having a hard time. The auto industry wants money to keep it afloat, it wants money to help it move to more fuel efficient cars, it wants money to help pay its terrible union contracts, and it wants money to keep paying the salaries of all its middle management.

Congressional Democrats and Pres-elect Obama are simply shilling for the unions, under the guise of unemployment and "too big to fail" arguments. President Bush should hold out. The auto industry, and GM in particular, should be subject to the laws of supply and demand and the cruel hand of the market, just like everyone else.

To the No on 8 crowd

I have some advice for you- stop running to the courts.

Now, I don't say that to mean give up and stop trying; far from it. Rather, I would advise y'all to get out and educate and put up a positive ballot measure that would grant marriages. On election night, I was watching the local news and they interviewed one of the Yes on 8 campaign directors and he noted that not once have pro-gay marriage supporters gone out and sought approval from voters for that position. Instead, they've reacted to anti-gay marriage propositions and hauled them to court, and allowed the court to decide when the legislature and the people should decide. The legislature already set-up domestic partnership laws, laws that the people of this state appeared to support. Prop 8 passed by 400,000 votes- I can imagine that a substantial part of that margin was made up of people who don't care one way or another, but simply were upset that the court forced this upon the public. The citizens of this state have now voted twice against gay marriage. . .Get before the public a pro-gay marriage amendment, and stop relying on the courts to force this down peoples' throats. The court was wrong on this decision- the court cannot usurp the vote of the people (or the legislature) and make new exceptions where none are evident. Only the people can and should make these decisions- and the pro-gay marriage advocates need to get them, and stop relying on the courts.

On the other hand...I am not at all surprised by these findings- "While Obama publicly backed the "No on Prop. 8" effort, African American voters had no trouble voting overwhelmingly for the man who will be the nation's first black president and then voting 70 percent in favor of Prop. 8, exit polls showed."

This same situation played itself out in Florida: "Barack Obama's candidacy likely played a role in the gay-marriage ban passing in Florida. Black voters turned out in droves and, according to exit polls, supported the amendment by the greatest margin -- 71 percent to 29 percent -- when compared to whites and Hispanics."

None of this should be at all surprising to Democrats and gay marriage advocates and foes. How so? In 2004, the voters of Ohio passed an amendment to the state constitution declaring that marriage shall be only between a man and woman. The vote total was 62% in favor and 38% opposed; yet, Bush won Ohio by 2%, or 120,000 votes. It should also be noted that Bush got a higher percentage of the black vote in Ohio, 16%, up from 9% in 2000, than he got nationwide, 10%. So, not only did Bush get a sizable percentage of the black vote in Ohio, enough to possibly have pushed him over the top, the black vote also accounted for the large support in Ohio for declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman. In other words, even though only winning the state by 2%, a proposition denying same-sex marriages passed by 24%. It seems obvious that that discrepancy was made up by black voters.

As I began this posting above- those in favor of same-sex marriages need to come out and make a positive ballot proposition, and stop running to the courts to stop "the people." Give the people something positive to respond to on this matter, and they will come around. The courts should not be used to effect social change; that responsibility is up to the people. I know that some people look back longingly to the excesses of the Warren Court, but those days are long gone. Move on.

Who didn't see this coming?

Stocks have worst day after election day ever, surpassing the dreadful day after FDR's first win.

The stock market posted its biggest plunge following a presidential election as reports on jobs and service industries stoked concern the economy will worsen even as President-elect Barack Obama tries to stimulate growth.

As this place has noted previously, FDR's economic policies made the country worse, and any attempts by Obama and the Congress do emulate those same policies must be opposed, especially any growth in aggressive unionization (card check). If Wall Street supposedly had already internalized an Obama victory, this shows a rather shocking doubt about the state of the economy and Obama's plan- another stimulus package with government mucking around in the economy is the last thing we need.

As if a 5+% loss in one day wasn't expected, Iraq says they are confident Obama won't pull out troops too quickly, with a current strategy shooting for 2011. I can only help but wonder if this is one of the many, many things Obama must have been referring to in his election night speech about how some things may take some time, and may not be done by the end of his first term. Of course, this had made some news before the election in an article in the NY Post, of course, Obama supporters attacked the author. Not surprisingly, the media continued to peddle the Obama narrative on Iraq, and not one day later, Iraq comes out and says 2011. Obviously, I can only wonder what else has the press covered up until the election.

Finally, various Asian countries voice their concerns over Obama's potential trade policies, especially towards the East. "He appears to be a protectionist," said Chea Mony, president of the Free Trade Union of Workers in Cambodia, which has an export-driven textile industry." Further, "[i]n an Oct. 24 letter to the U.S. National Council of Textile Organizations, Obama pledged "strong enforcement" of trade remedy laws, which can include added tariffs on imports that are deemed to hurt American businesses. Obama said he would include labor and environmental standards in free trade agreements — a measure that many in Asia view as a possible pretext to shield U.S. companies from foreign competition."

Obama has a huge task ahead of him. . .based on his history, I have great concerns about where he will govern, coupled with little belief that he'll be able to stand up to Congress.

Anyway. . .I may write something more about California and the City proposition; but, two quick things. 1) I opposed the passage of Prop 2, but it passed with flying colors- I simply have no explanation for it, especially in light of the failure of Prop 8. Apparently people hold a higher opinion of chickens, pigs and baby cows than of their fellow citizens- I'd be willing to entertain any other opinions. 2) Mayor Newsom and the San Francisco Chronicle have nearly zero effect on voting in this city, at least when it comes to Board candidates- any board for that matter, be Board of Supervisors, Board of Education or City College Board. I suppose it's amusing to think that in San Francisco, Newsom is considered an unacceptable moderate in some circles, yet once you leave the Bay Area, he's a raging bleeding heart. I'm not looking forward to the next Mayoral campaign.

Finally, today starts the battle for 2010. I'm quickly going to note that the three-way race for the Democratic nominee for Governor- S.F. Mayor Newsom, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and California Attorney General Jerry Brown could be in for some company in the form of Senator Dianne Feinstein. With Arnold's term expiring in 2010, there continues to be rumors of what he will do next- I posit that if Feinstein decides to run for Governor, Sen. Boxer, who's term expires at the end of 2010 will decide to not run, and let the Mayors battle it out for the nomination, and Arnold will run for her seat on the Republican side. I will say that I'm very enthusiastic about the potential nominees for the Republican nominee for governor- currently, former Rep. Tom Campbell (who was my Rep. growing up in San Jose and almost went to work for in D.C.) has announced, and I expect Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former Ebay executive Meg Whitman to all run. We shall see.

Congratulations

The sheeple have spoken and they have chosen wrongly. The piper will come for his payment, and it will not be good for the this country. Universal health care=bad idea; tax increases=bad idea; protectionist policies=bad idea; union card check=bad idea; fairness doctrine=bad idea. Once again, I am simply dumbfounded how anyone in their right mind on these issues could possibly vote for Obama and his empty rhetoric. Empty campaign promises, poorly explained policies and a simple ignorance of practical economics is not a view of America that I want to see; the people of this country have made a terrible choice, a choice that they will regret come this next year after Pelosi and Harry Reid, two of the worst Congressional leaders in some time, push extremely liberal positions upon the people of this country. Barack Obama will be a weak and ineffective leader and will be unable to stop Congress; he is Jimmy Carter re-incarnated.

Yes I'm bitter; I'm bitter that people of this country are willing to elect a person of such inexperience and someone who is extremely unqualified to lead us. I'm bitter that this country has such a short memory that 20+ years of unqualified success in free trade and free markets will let that be shot by a charlatan.

So, congratulations USA. . .you have made a decision to go backwards.