Let the Panic Begin: Researchers Predict Half of U.S. Adults Obese by 2030

According to a research team at the Mailman School of Public Health in Columbia University, 32 percent of men and 35 percent of women in the U.S. are obese and about half of them will be obese by 2030 if current trends continue.

Expect to hear this prediction to be treated as gospel by Big Media and Big Government, who will cite it to justify their intrusions into citizens' lives.

Medical Journal Recommends Taxes, Regulations to Fight Fat

From The Daily Caller:

In a multi-part series published Thursday, the British medical journal The Lancet recommends national governments impose new regulations and taxes to stop an “obesity epidemic” that is sweeping the planet.

The respected peer-reviewed journal lays out how the world has seen “four decades” of a “rising obesity epidemic.” One paper from Columbia and Harvard University researchers concludes that if “historic trends continue” there will be “65 million more obese adults in the USA and 11 million more in the UK by 2030.” The authors also write that obesity “is increasing in all countries, but rates vary widely.”

Read more ...

Time's Up

Ah, New York, the city that never sleeps ... especially when it comes to regulating every aspect of the eating/dining/drinking experience. The latest big idea out of the Big Apple is the concept of setting time limits in restaurants. According to a nationwide Zagat survey of diners, 60% of foodies favor time limits on restaurant customers during peak hours.

More unnecessary restrictions, but the upside might be that it creates a market opportunity to sell dishes at a premium to diners who want to take their time--and can afford to.

Sad Sacks

To the food police, what the school serves is only part of the school-lunch crisis. The lunches packed by the idiot parents are the other. This column by Petula Dvorak gives us some frontline glimpses into this part of war over school lunch:

Not only are brown bags out (paper waste!) and peanut butter and jelly largely verboten (allergies!), but many schools also police the snacks and even the kinds of containers the food is in. The level of patrolling varies by school district.

I'll admit to getting at least one curt note shoved into my kid's lunchbox reminding me of the school's food policy, along with the bagged evidence of the contraband that was confiscated. In one case, it was a single Christmas-wrapped chocolate Kiss.

Bad mommy!

One public school in Chicago was so fed up last year with junk parents packed that it banned home lunches altogether, saving parents from inevitable failure and food police intervention.

Reminds me of the time I made the egregious mistake of packing a soda in my daughter's lunch. After school, she told me she got in trouble for having it. "Soda isn't allowed at school! What were you thinking?" she told me. And it was just a diet soda.

And Ms. Dvorak shouldn't feel too bad about the note she got; it could've been worse: one school district in Flagstaff, AZ actually sent letters to parents whose kids who determined to be too fat.

Soda Stamps

Well, here's a small victory in the War on Soda: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been trying to turn soda into the new cigarettes, but USDA has rejected his plan to block the use of food stamps to buy sugary drinks.

Bloomberg is also very concerned about your salt intake, as you might already know.

Another Reason Not To Go Vegan

"Bill Clinton boots burgers, says he's now vegan"

Slick Willie may have lost his taste for meat, but not his taste for evasive answers: When asked if that made him a vegan, Clinton said, "I suppose I am, if I don't eat dairy or meat or fish." (Sounds like he's leaving himself some wiggle room.)

This is the same guy who used to send the food police into high alert, what with his jogging to McDonald's and such. That was one of the few things I kind of liked about ol' Bubba.

Ignoring the Signs

According to the latest research, it looks like most fast-food customers are ignoring the calorie information on menus.

British Medical Journal researchers found that only about 15% of people who buy fast food in New York City read the calorie information required on menus. Some chains, like McDonald's, saw a decrease in the number of calories ordered, but Subway restaurants reported the opposite effect, with an average calorie consumption increase of 17.8%.

It's just common sense: if you're dying for a Double Whopper with Cheese or a footlong Steak & Cheese, is a calorie-count sign really going to stop you? I didn't think so. So can the government quit requiring them and move on to more important matters? Again, didn't think so.

These Burgers Are Ronald's

Now this is my kind of Facebook group ... The attempted hit job on Ronald McDonald is ridiculous and futile: everyone knows that even if you succeed in killing a Ronald, a Hamburglar will soon rise up to take his place.

BTW, I've got my own Facebook group, dedicated to a quixotic quest to get Arby's Horsey Sauce onto America's store shelves. Feel free to join us in this noble yet far-fatched cause. We are few but we are dedicated; I don't think even the Nov. 5th planned destruction of Facebook will be enough to stop us.

Update (Aug. 19): Ronald may be staying put for now, but the King from Burger King is reportedly toast. The burning question is whether BK will still give out the little crowns?  

Greekifornication

The Daphne's restaurant chain recently rebranded itself:

 

I think there's some great unintentional political commentary in the new name. Doesn't it capture the direction of my debt-ridden state all too well?

First Bully?

The name of this advocacy group makes it a little hard to take seriously, but I think their spokesperson has a good point:

(From CNS News, emphasis mine:) A group calling itself the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA) says that when First Lady Michelle Obama created her anti-obesity "Let's Move!" initiative, she unfairly singled out fat kids, turning them into targets.

Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Monday, NAAFA public relations director Peggy Howell said the First Lady "essentially gave permission to everyone to condemn the children with higher body weights."

Howell called Obama's Let's Move! campaign "well-intentioned, but somewhat misdirected."

I think this extends to fat adults, too. In a society with socialized medicine, your weight becomes everyone's business; your fatness or thinness starts to be seen as a kind of political statement instead of just a number on a scale. As a fat person, you go from being someone with personal health problems and some bad habits to being part of a larger social problem to be solved. Harassment of the obese is justified as a matter of social/political concern, whereas it was once just a form of bullying or rudeness.

And while I don't think that we should always walk on eggshells when it comes to body issues or self-esteem, this administration needs to consider whether its obsessive focus on this issue is sending an unintended message that it's okay to look down on the obese (especially since the President and First Lady are so worried about the national crisis of bullying).

(P.S. I don't want to write so much about Michelle Obama, obese kids, and school lunch programs ... but I guess I should've thought of that when I started this blog, huh?)

A Conundrum, Courtesy of Let'sMove.gov

From the First Lady's obesity-fighting website (emphasis mine):

More than 23 million Americans, including 6.5 million children, live in low-income urban and rural neighborhoods that are more than a mile away from a supermarket. These communities, where access to affordable, quality, and nutritious foods is limited, are known as "food deserts."

Hunger among our children is even more widespread. A recent U.S. Department of Agriculture report showed that in 2008, an estimated 49.1 million people, including 16.7 million children, lived in households that experienced food insecurity multiple times throughout the year. Too often, these same school age children are not eating the recommended level of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products.

So which is the greater problem: childhood hunger or obesity? If hunger is such a problem, why are there so many obese kids? Or has hunger been redefined to mean 'not eating the right kinds of foods' instead of 'actually going to bed hungry'?

So many questions to ponder ...

The Case of Rawesome Foods

So I haven't known quite what to make of the whole raw-food-store-raid thing in Venice Beach, CA. I can understand the concerns about possible viruses, illness, etc. But, on the other hand, what more dramatic example of the food police—make that Food SWAT—could there be?

Was a raid necessary? Can't warning labels and signs be required instead? There must be some less extreme options here.

We live under a government that always prefers to err on the side of overreach. Personal freedom/responsibility is an afterthought, at best.

Tastes Like Real Chicken

It's rare when a fast-food sandwich actually looks and tastes as good as it's advertised. Carl's Jr.'s Hand-Breaded Chicken Fillet Sandwich has passed that test twice for me.

Juicy, well seasoned, and simple. Even the lettuce was crisp and leafy. It's a significant improvement over their other crispy chicken sandwiches (though I sometimes miss the old Western Bacon Chicken.) Nice job, Carl's.

I intend to get around to trying Carl's turkey burgers one of these days.

Grabbing Burgers, Regulating Cereal

Far be it from me to criticize anyone’s burger indulgences, but how are we not supposed to notice the disconnect between the Obamas’ open love for burgers, fries, and shakes and the food policies they’re pursuing?

The other day, the President took some of his staff out for a burger lunch to celebrate the done debt deal ... and meanwhile his administration is going after cereals marketed to kids.

Does he not realize how hypocritical this looks or does he just not care? It's really hard to tell with him.

NYT's Mark Bittman: Let's Tax Unhealthy Foods

In a July 23^rd editorial, Mark Bittman, who used to write food/cooking columns for the New York Times and now writes about food for the Times’ opinion section, wrote that we should “tax things like soda, French fries, doughnuts and hyperprocessed snacks. The resulting income should be earmarked for a program that encourages a sound diet for Americans by making healthy food more affordable and widely available.”

Yep, just what America needs: more ‘revenue increases’ to fund inefficient, ineffective, redistributive government programs. Bittman seems a bit out of step with the mood of the public that he’s so worried about, doesn’t he? And he cares only about the abstract ‘public,’ not the choices of individuals: “This program would, of course, upset the processed food industry. Oh well. It would also bug those who might resent paying more for soda and chips and argue that their right to eat whatever they wanted was being breached. But public health is the role of the government, and our diet is right up there with any other public responsibility you can name, from water treatment to mass transit.”

Bittman makes some dubious-sounding assertions to set up his case. Consider this: “Yet the food industry appears incapable of marketing healthier foods.” What? KFC (home of the dreaded Double Down) has done an extensive campaign for its grilled chicken and Carl’s Jr. (home of the Six Dollar Burgers) is currently marketing turkey burgers. Has Bittman never seen a commercial for bottled water, salads, or fiber products? Further on, he writes that “chips and Coke are a common breakfast”—and he knows this how?

Of course, the big question we’re left with is why not tax every unhealthy behavior, not just things like cigarettes and food?

What is it with the Mark Bittmans and Jamie Olivers of the world, who put on their chef hats to cook all manner of lavish dishes in their high-profile culinary careers and then put on their activist hats to try to bend public food policy to their liking? Did Julia Child or Martha Stewart ever pull this kind of stuff? Say what you will about Rachael Ray, but I don’t see her harassing people for eating what they want.