Plenty for the Food Police to Hate This Summer

Summer is probably not the food police's favorite time of year; particularly not this summer.

Fried pickle chips (heavytable.com)

Across the country, folks will be heading to state and county fairs where they'll chow down on chocolate-covered bacon and jalapenos, Krispy Kreme burgers, deep-fried Twinkies and bubblegum, and who knows what else. Out-of-school kids will be begging their moms for treats from the ice-cream man. Parched teens and grown-ups will be chugging Big Gulps and Slurpees to beat the heat, in complete defiance of the recent "Soda Summit" in D.C.

BK's bacon sundae is bad and nationwide.

Over in the fast-food world, the Doritos taco has been the most successful product launch ever for Taco Bell, and Subway is testing Doritos nachos in select markets. Burger King has just taken its bacon sundae nationwide, not long after Jack In The Box paved the way with a bacon-flavored milkshake. Burger King and Carl's Jr./Hardees are both planning to serve pulled pork sandwiches this summer. Popeye's is bringing back its fried-chicken equivalent of the "bloomin' onion" and Taco Bell is coming out with a Mountain Dew/orange juice breakfast drink. And of course there will be high-calorie movie-tie-in items like the Amazing Grilled Cheese Bacon Burger (as in "The Amazing Spider-Man").

It also looks like the world of vending machines is about to get more interesting … fresh pizza, anyone?

And to make everything worse for the nanny statists, in the next few weeks the Supreme Court is expected to strike down part, if not all, of Obamacare, a.k.a. The Broccoli Mandate.

So, assuming you're not reading this blog as an opposition researcher for the food police, have a fun and tasty summer!


(July 2 update: Well, so much for the broccoli mandate being struck down. It's been upheld by the Supreme Court as a tax.)

NYC Nannies Now Reaching for Your Popcorn

(Photo: well.blogs.nytimes.com)

New York Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to ban sugary drinks larger than 16 oz. was widely opposed and mocked, but the city's public-health overlords aren't making any concessions; in fact, according to a report from MyFoxNY, they're now turning their eye-of-Sauron towards movie theater concession stands:

"The New York City Board of Health showed support for limiting sizes of sugary drinks at a Tuesday meeting in Queens. They agreed to start the process to formalize the large-drink ban by agreeing to start a six-week public comment period.

"At the meeting, some of the members of board said they should be considering other limits on high-calorie foods. 

"One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcorn should be considered. 

'The popcorn isn't a whole lot better than the soda,' Vladeck said. 

"Another board member thinks milk drinks should fall under the size limits. 

"'There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories,' said board member Dr. Joel Forman." 

What can we say: we tried to warn you in April that they would be coming after popcorn. 

And come to think it, NYC Board of Health, all of that sitting around isn't very good for moviegoers in your city, so why not require them to jog in place during the show?

(Hat tip: theblaze.com)

Hypocrisy, Hyperbole Speak Loudest at Soda Summit

My fellow soda fans, if you felt a disturbance in the Force late last week, that was the first-ever National Soda Summit, where some of the country's leading food cops/soda haters gathered in D.C. to discuss ways to keep you and I from consuming fizzy drinks as we so choose. Or at least to strongly dissuade us from doing so.

We have a lot of nerve clinging to our Mountain Dews and Big Gulps. Don't we know that soda is more harmful to poor people, minorities, and defenseless infants who are exposed to Pepsi ads practically from the moment they emerge from the womb? As CSPI's executive director said at the Summit, sugary drinks are responsible for "a plague." How can we hear that and not feel pangs of societal guilt as we twist the caps off our Mr. Pibb bottles?

By all accounts, the Summiteers heaped praise upon New York's Mayor Bloomberg, aka the 'Wizard of 16 Oz.,'  who made big news recently with his proposed ban of large sodas, despite his public appearances at National Donut Day and competitive-hot-dog-eating events. Apparently, Bloomberg himself was not there, but New York City health commissioner Thomas Farley was; you may recall that the NYC health department produced this hyperbolic propaganda campaign which included an image of a man who was Photoshopped to look like a diabetic amputee.

Another big-city mayor was at the Summit to speak: Philadelphia Mayor Michael A. Nutter. He told how his two attempts to tax soda were inspired by the anti-tobacco movement, and he decried the obesity problem in African American neighborhoods of his city, as if we should believe that soda companies are trying to poison that population as part of a racist scheme. One of his justifications for taxing soda is that it has no nutritional value, which is a non-sequitur and an affront to personal choice.

However, what Mayor Nutter did a few days before the summit received more attention than anything he said there. Reportedly, Nutter officiated at the ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new Shake Shack restaurant. (Interestingly, Michelle Obama has been known to order from Shake Shack. That is, when she's not busy telling Disney, the military, and restaurant chains to stop serving and advertising 'junk food'.)

Actually, life's sweeter when the government
doesn't tell you what to drink.

The beverage industry was shut out from the summit, but a repentant ex-Coke marketing executive named Todd Putman was given the podium to denounce his former industry. Putman revealed the deeply guarded industry secret that—egads!—Coke wanted to sell more soda to people. (Insert horror-movie strings here.) Coke saw itself as competing not only against other sodas but against all types of beverages, which is what all smart and forward-thinking businesses do in their respective fields. Putman spins this business outlook into a sinister plot to make sure everyone drank nothing but Coke. Of course, Coke products include waters and diet sodas, and all the marketing in the world can't force anyone to drink a certain beverage. Just sayin'.

It's easy to see why those with opposing viewpoints were barred from the Soda Summit. When you take away the assumptions that sugary drinks in and of themselves are poison, that soda drinkers across the board should be penalized because certain individuals and groups drink more soda than is healthy, that government is more responsible for your and your family's health than you are, that a few private industries should take the blame for the increase in obesity, and that nanny-state politicians are "concerned," brave, and progressive rather than grandstanding, condescending, control-hungry, and eager to divert attention from more difficult and pressing issues, the case for taxing or banning soda quickly goes flat.

(Hat tips to consumerfreedom.com, COPrevent.org, and marcgunther.com)

'An Obese Straw Man'

We are avid readers of James Taranto's Best of the Web column at WSJ.com. In one of his latest columns, Taranto critiques Mark Bittman's all-too-predictable defense of the NYC Big Gulp ban:

"Mark Bittman, a silly and pretentious chap who writes about food for the New York Times, weighs in with a blog post in defense of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's widely mocked proposed ban on large sodas: 'If that's nannying, I'm all for it. Here's the question: Who do you want taking care of your kids while you're not looking--governments interested in improving public health, or corporations interested in improving the bottom line at the expense of same?

'There is a maddeningly false choice being put forth by the staunchest critics of this plan: either the government tells us what we can and cannot eat and drink, or we exercise our unbridled freedom in making those decisions for ourselves.'

"Notice how in the paragraph immediately preceding his complaint about 'a maddeningly false choice,' he puts forth exactly such a false choice." We also notice how Bittman assumes Big Business has the worst motives while Big Government has the best motives. Arguments like this reveal the fascist undertones of phrases like "public health."

Liver It Up While You Can

New York’s proposed ban on large sugary drinks has taken up a lot of attention lately, but an even bigger food ban is set to take effect in less than a month.(Bigger in terms of area, at least.) On July 1^st California will become the first state, and one of the few places in the world, where the sale of foie gras is banned.  

“California's decision to ban foie gras, which is made from the liver of a specially fattened duck or goose, was taken in 2004 and signed into law by then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but an eight-year period of grace was allowed,” says UK’s Telegraph. “Since then a debate has raged between gourmands and some chefs on one side, with animal welfare activists on the other.”  

In a last-minute binge, many California restaurants are selling different versions of the dish and some chefs are holding secret dining events to give diners one last legal taste. Also, according to the Telegraph, “there have been protests, warnings of future black market bootlegging, and even death threats against non-compliant chefs.” 

Chef/author/cable TV host Anthony Bourdain is friends with some of the chefs who’ve received death threats. While Bourdain is not any type of conservative (among other things, he’s publicly expressed a desire to deep-fry former Vice President Dick Cheney’s head), he’s a critic of governmental food-nannying and he’s spoken out against the anti-foie gras extremists. “Sadly, it's my own party who cause the biggest problems for chefs,” Bourdain tweeted on May 11. Case in point: California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton joined the chorus of intimidation by using violent-sounding rhetoric against chefs who’ve had the audacity to criticize the ban, which is especially inappropriate in light of the physical threats some chefs have faced.

It is shocking and ultimately sad to see a state ban a dish which is a staple of fine cooking and has been prepared and enjoyed since ancient Egyptian times. The agenda of the relative few who strongly oppose the force-feeding of ducks is about to be shoved down the throats of many chefs and food lovers. That’s why we want to keep the state off our plates and menus.

Bloomberg’s Ban Begets Big Backlash

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed ban of sugary drinks over 16 oz. has quickly set off a national—and fairly bipartisan—backlash. About half of New Yorkers say the ban would be a case of government going too far according to a poll released today, while a Rasmussen poll shows 65% of American adults oppose it.

(alibaba.com)

Even some mainstream journalists have bashed the ban. In an interview, Matt Lauer criticized Bloomberg for pushing for a soda ban while publicly supporting National Donut Day. John Stewart and Stephen Colbert mocked it on their news-parody shows. Liberal econ-blogger Matthew Yglesias thinks a soda tax would be wise but a ban on big drinks wouldn’t.

So does anyone think the proposed ban is a good idea? The CSPI, of course. And Alec Baldwin. Okay, and Bill Clinton too.

All this controversy has popped up right before the first-ever National Soda Summit takes place later this week. The Soda Summiteers are after our Big Gulps but given the strong pushback to Bloomberg’s soda agenda, it looks like they're the ones who should be 'gulp'-ing.

P.S. Here’s one fun way to fight the power: http://comeandtakeitnannystaters.tumblr.com/