Let Freedom Pop

Left-wingers may like freedom in theory but aren’t really fans of it in practice, because freedom means that people can make decisions they don’t like. And when freedom gets in the way of statist goals, they attack the definition of freedom. In a recent editorial in the Daily Beast, liberal commentator Michael Tomasky takes on what he terms as “the freedom to be fat,” decries massive tubs of movie popcorn, and says that many Americans don’t know “the difference between ‘freedom’ and mere selfishness or stupidity.”

(Photo: justpoppin.com)

“As part of the health-care law,” writes Tomasky, “new rules would require restaurants and other food-serving establishments to post nutritional information. Movie theaters were on the original list sent out by the FDA. But, the (New York) Times reports, after some White House intercessions, cinemas were dropped from the list.”

Tomasky points out that the largest servings of movie-theater popcorn contain a whole day’s worth of fat. But it’s estimated that the average American adult only  goes to the movies about four times per year, so even if you get the jumbo popcorn every time that’s not going to make you fat. And those jumbo popcorn buckets are often shared by two or more people. Evidence also shows that nutritional info posted in restaurants or other food-serving establishments have or little or no effect on what customers order.

But this is about more than popcorn. Tomasky goes on to the larger matter of personal freedom vs. government mandates: “… I don’t want to pass laws mandating the eating of broccoli. But I do want us to understand how wrong and simple-minded our definition of freedom is today. Any time the government appears to be suggesting some program aimed at getting people to do something that is obviously good for themselves—buying health insurance, not eating (huge buckets of popcorn)—a certain number of idiots jump up and cry ‘Ha! Nanny state! Taking away my freedom!’ This, according to that Times article, is what the Obama administration feared Fox and Glenn Beck would do if it issued too many new FDA rulings.”

Here, the author displays the irresistible liberal urge to dismiss those with opposing viewpoints as idiots, ignoramuses, bigots, etc. His argument is not that the idiots are wrong because the government is not trying to take away your freedom, it’s that the (well, we) idiots have the wrong definition of freedom. (Also, how often has Obama based policy around what Fox News would say? It’s clear his administration can’t stand that network.)

Tomasky argues that we need to redefine freedom in order to pave the way for the government intervention he wants. “Eating anything you want isn’t a definition of freedom,” Tomasky writes. “It’s just indulgence.”  I’d call it the freedom to be indulgent and to accept the consequences that go with it. I’m sure Tomasky would consider the choice not to indulge to be a legitimate freedom, so why is it a fake form of freedom to choose the opposite?

When the author questions “the freedom to be fat,” he’s really talking about the freedom to eat what you want. (“The freedom to be fat” is a skewed phrase because one can eat a certain amount of fatty foods without becoming fat.) If you’re only free to make the “right,” government-approved decision, you’re not really free. Fortunately, we get to choose which freedoms matter to us as free individuals. So pass that buttery popcorn and cherish your freedoms while I head back to the concession stand for the best cinema snack, Junior Mints.

Pink Slime: Get the Facts

• Real name: Lean finely textured beef
• About 95% lean (lower in fat than many other beef products)
• Approved by the FDA for nearly 40 years
• Often added to ground beef to increase the amount of protein
• Made using machines that extract more beef than otherwise possible, therefore producing more beef with less cows
• Contains a tiny amount of ammonia

So why all the hoopla? Why are restaurants and school cafeterias dropping pink slime left and right?

One reason is simply that finely textured beef looks kind of gross in its raw form and when coupled with the nickname ‘pink slime’ is especially unappetizing. Many people remember learning about Upton Sinclair’s meat-packing expose The Jungle (many claims of which were false even by Sinclair’s later admission) in high school and we harbor a fear that disgusting ingredients are hidden in our meat. I also have a pet theory that those of us who eat meat are at some deep level a little disgusted and even a tiny bit guilty that we consume animal flesh, and this type of thing brings out those buried feelings.

There may also be a political agenda at work here (surprise). Jeff Stier, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, writes that “the real (and ridiculous) agenda here is to make us all go organic.” And even if it can’t make that big of an impact on our eating habits, it can still be used by grandstanding politicians as another false threat they can pretend to protect us from.

(Hat tips to ConsumerFreedom.com & Townhall.com)

Political Aftertaste

Have you heard of the Park Slope Food Co-op in Brooklyn? It’s become the ultimate example of the trendy, PC grocery store. It’s more than one of those stores where most every product is labeled as environmentally safe or free range — it’s a place where the members recently held a vote on whether to boycott Israeli food products. In short, it makes Whole Foods sound like Walmart; in fact, some Park Slope residents have been up in arms because a Whole Foods is moving into town. Some parents in Park Slope have even made it known that they’d like to ban ice cream trucks from the local park.
 

Even The Daily Show thinks this co-op is over the top.

Most of us can laugh from a distance at the self-serious PSFC shoppers and their need to politicize every bite they eat. But unfortunately I think their mentality of food-buying-as-activism is creeping ever closer to the cultural mainstream.

Starbucks has gone all-in to support of same-sex marriage. In response, the National Organization for Marriage has started a “Dump Starbucks” campaign. Starbucks is following in the path of Ben & Jerry’s, which has used its ice cream containers to promote a number of lefty causes, including gay marriage. Meanwhile, Chick-Fil-A has unintentionally become embroiled in the SSM debate, as I’ve mentioned.

I don’t drink coffee, but if I did, I wouldn’t want to feel like I was taking sides in a heated cultural debate by ordering a Starbucks latte. And while I’m sympathetic to the general religious outlook of Chick-Fil-A, I eat there because I like the food, not because I’m trying to make a point or support a certain cause. I don't agree with Greece's economic philosophy, but I'm not going to stop eating Greek yogurt (a lot of which is made in the States, I know). I'm not amused by Miracle Whip's apparently serious use of socialist iconography but it's the taste that really keeps me from spreading it on my sandwich. It’s about the product, not the politics. Have we been brainwashed into thinking that we must only patronize businesses we fully agree with?

I give Time.com blogger Josh Ozersky credit for saying that although he doesn’t agree with Chick-Fil-A’s pro-traditional-marriage stance, he won’t let that stop him from eating there. “[B]usinesses should be judged on what they do — to their customers, their employees, their suppliers and their chickens — and not on what they do with their profits. That’s part of living in a free society too,” he writes, perhaps not realizing that leftist protesters don’t actually want a free society.

Of course, we’re not only judged by our choice of chicken restaurants; we have to get constant grief for eating beef.  The self-righteousness of the vegetarian movement may not be new but we’re increasingly being fed the idea that meat-eaters are enemies of the environment.

These thought trends are leading some people to judge others more by the content of their diet than their character. And the politicization of food can lead eventually to its regulation.  

What’s saddest is that people used to talk about “breaking bread” as way to get to know others. Food can be a great way to experience another culture. Food should be the one remaining thing that people can unite around but instead it’s becoming yet another way to divide us.

(Updated 4/10/12)

Don't Toy With Mickey D's ... Or With Mommy

In the food-wars arena, the deceptively childish-looking Happy Meal is a gladiator that no challenger has been able to take down. The Happy Meal Warrior recently outsmarted the bureaucrats in San Francisco and had a lawsuit against it tossed out by a California judge. The so-called Center for Science in the Public Interest was suing McDonald's for using toys to sell fast food to kids, a business practice that many nanny-staters would love to outlaw.

Last year, McDonald's tried to appease its critics by reducing the servings of fries in Happy Meals and adding apple slices, but this concession won't stop the food police's attacks or affect the obesity "epidemic."

CSPI responded to the dismissal of their lawsuit with a statement that included this hypocritical charge: "Using toys, of all things, to lure young children to fast-food meals is not responsible corporate behavior. It's a predatory practice that undermines parents, causes rifts in families, and harms kids' health."

Please. By seeking to limit choices and set themselves up as the ultimate authority on what kids are allowed eat, lobbying groups like the CSPI and government power-trippers undermine parents as part of their M.O. 'Undermining parents' is on the food cops' daily to-do list. In an excellent op-ed titled “Compliant Americans,” conservative columnist Walter Williams writes, “Seeing San Franciscan compliance (to the thwarted Happy Meal ban) may have been the source of inspiration for the North Carolina schoolteacher who took the 5-year-old girl's lunch.” Williams points out that in that infamous lunch-confiscation incident, “whether her lunch was nutritious or not is not the issue. The issue is governmental usurpation of parental authority.”


Outside groups have no business interfering with parents who want to reward their children from time to time with a kid's meal and a small, inexpensive toy. And if they're concerned about causing "rifts in families," CSPI should aim their criticism at government agencies that remove children from their own homes. Of course, when kids  are taken from their homes they won't be able to get Happy Meals, so maybe they're okay with that "predatory practice."

Fear of Fat Flying

This satirical ad from the Physicians’ Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a PETA-like anti-meat pressure group, is the latest example of how the food police’s efforts to raise awareness about obesity are digressing into outright mockery and persecution of overweight people under the guise of public health. 

I guess we’re supposed to believe that if everyone became a vegan, the world would be populated solely by thin, beautiful people. Does the PCRM think they’re fooling anyone into thinking that’s what the average vegan looks like, or that overweight people will want to convert to veganism after seeing this? Does it occur to them that they can praise the benefits of veganism without disparaging non-vegans? (Oh, right, that would decrease the shock value they need to get attention.)

I’d rather sit next to a fast-food eater on my next flight. I won’t have to listen and nod as they prattle on and on about soy and quinoa and how their chosen diet makes them so superior to carnivores.

I’ll give the ad a few points for cleverly imitating an airline commercial, and there’s a joke about the vegan character’s pretentiousness about the very end, but those qualities don’t compensate for the ad’s discriminatory message. Considering that this ad follows PCRM’s fat-shaming “Your Thighs On Cheese” billboard campaign, I think I have no choice but to report them to President Obama for being bullies.

Garden/State

A few posts ago, we wrote about Occupy Our Food Supply, a protest against the corporate food system, which tried to encourage people to get off the grid, food-wise. The irony is that under the progressive, hyper-regulatory Obama Administration, it’s getting harder and harder to grow your own food.

(cutandfill.blogspot.com)

The news has been filled with stories of local and federal agencies coming after farmers and gardeners in the last few years. The FDA has been cracking down on raw milk sellers: they recently raided an Amish dairy farm which has since shut down, and last summer joined forces with the LAPD to raid a raw foods store in Southern California.

It's not just businesses; local officials have also gone after private citizens. In Nevada, a Farm to Fork dinner was raided by the Southern Nevada Health District, who declared the food unfit for consumption and had the farm owners destroy the food with bleach.

In Michigan and Oakland, CA, officials have threatened citizens for growing food on their own property. The gardener in Michigan, Julie Bass, was actually threatened with jail time for growing tomatoes and cucumbers in her front yard (the charges were eventually dropped).

Aspiring urban farmers in various cities have had to push through layers of regulation like a root trying to break through concrete.

And these are only a few examples.

 

If you have a hunger for homegrown food and you lean left politically, you should stop and think about who you’re voting for. When the government centralizes everything, it eventually withers all of our freedoms, including the freedom to develop valid alternatives to Big Food. The Obamas may have planted a garden at the White House, but it can’t feed everyone.

(Hat tips to commenter Radel and Food Freedom)