Feds: America Should Adopt ‘Plant-Based’ Diet
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee calls for taxing dessert, ‘electronic tracking’ of time spent watching TV
The federal committee responsible for nutrition guidelines is calling for the adoption of “plant-based” diets, taxes on dessert, trained obesity “interventionists” at worksites, and electronic monitoring of how long Americans sit in front of the television.
The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) released its far-reaching 571-page report of recommendations to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Thursday, which detailed its plans to “transform the food system.”
The report is open for public comment for 45 days, and will be used as the basis by the government agencies to develop the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The guidelines are used as the basis for government food assistance programs, nutrition education efforts, and for making “decisions about national health objectives.”
DGAC proposed a variety of solutions to address obesity, and its promotion of what it calls the “culture of health.”
“The persistent high levels of overweight and obesity require urgent population- and individual-level strategies across multiple settings, including health care, communities, schools, worksites, and families,” they said.
In response, DGAC called for diet and weight management interventions by “trained interventionists” in healthcare settings, community locations, and worksites.
“Government at local, state, and national levels, the health care system, schools, worksites, community organizations, businesses, and the food industry all have critical roles in developing creative and effective solutions,” they said.
DGAC also called for policy interventions to “reduce unhealthy options,” limit access to high calorie foods in public buildings, “limit the exposure” of advertisements for junk food, a soda tax, and taxing high sugar and salt items and dessert.
“Align nutritional and agricultural policies with Dietary Guidelines recommendations and make broad policy changes to transform the food system so as to promote population health, including the use of economic and taxing policies to encourage the production and consumption of healthy foods and to reduce unhealthy foods,” its report read.
“For example, earmark tax revenues from sugar-sweetened beverages, snack foods and desserts high in calories, added sugars, or sodium, and other less healthy foods for nutrition education initiatives and obesity prevention programs.”
The amount of sedentary time Americans spend in front of computers and TV sets is also a concern to the federal panel.
They recommended “coaching or counseling sessions,” “peer-based social support,” and “electronic tracking and monitoring of the use of screen-based technologies” as a way to limit screen time.
The screen-time recommendations came from The Community Guide, a group affiliated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reviewed studies that used an “electronic monitoring device to limit screen time” of teenagers.
DGAC said its recommendations to eat less meat are intended to “maximize environmental sustainability” out of concerns for climate change.
“The major findings regarding sustainable diets were that a diet higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in calories and animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with less environmental impact than is the current U.S. diet,” DGAC said.
DGAC recommended Mediterranean-style and vegetarian diets as the best options. Vegan, lacto-ovo vegetarian, pesco-vegetarian, and Mediterranean diets are the most environmentally friendly, with the least greenhouse gas emissions, it said.
“All of these dietary patterns are aligned with lower environmental impacts and provide options that can be adopted by the U.S. population,” the report said. “Current evidence shows that the average U.S. diet has a larger environmental impact in terms of increased greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and energy use, compared to the above dietary patterns. This is because the current U.S. population intake of animal-based foods is higher and plant-based foods are lower, than proposed in these three dietary patterns.”
The report added, “no food groups need to be eliminated completely to improve sustainability outcomes over the current status.”
The committee also said that “altering individual and population dietary choices and patterns” would be necessary to meet its sustainability goals, as well as policy changes.
“New well-coordinated policies that include, but are not limited to, agriculture, economics, transportation, energy, water use, and dietary guidance need to be developed,” DGAC said. “Behaviors of all participants in the food system are central to creating and supporting sustainable diets.”
The report did drop its recommendation to limit cholesterol intake to no more than 300 milligrams per day, after warning of its dangers for nearly 40 years. The panel also signed off on three to five cups of coffee a day, saying moderate caffeine consumption can reduce the risks of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
DGAC concluded that in order to achieve its goal of a population-wide “culture of health,” personal health must become a “human right.”
“In such a culture, preventing diet- and physical activity-related diseases and health problems would be much more highly valued, the resources and services needed to achieve and maintain health would become a realized human right across all population strata, the needs and preferences of the individual would be seriously considered, and individuals and their families/households would be actively engaged in promoting their personal health and managing their preventive health services and activities,” they said.
Let me start off by telling a story:
About over 20-25 years ago I was in grade school my parents were watching a segment on 60 Minutes about the Michigan Militia. I remember both of them mocking the group as a bunch of over-reactive anti-government nutjobs. Because the groups was set up to fight a 2nd American Revolution against the "jack-booted" thugs of a tyrannical government.
Now fast forward to 2015, to a certain extent, I do believe there is some truth there. For the record I'm not one of the tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists, actually due to my distrusting personality I trust them about as much as the government.
Anyway. What pisses me off about the article, is the very reason why events such as American, French and Russian Revolutions occurred. As a side note the French and Russian Revolutions were such cluster fucks they did more harm than good. I do believe they government starting to be a bit heavy handed in the lives of its citizens. Its basically becoming a variation of "Divine Right of Kings"
For those unfamiliar it goes like this:
The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries or during the reign of Henry VIII of England) the Catholic Church. According to this doctrine, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God," attached to the titles of a reigning monarch.
I thought I saw the worse of it when Nancy Pelosi, the dumb schmuck that she is, walked to the Capitol Building with the Democrats in lock-step to vote on the ACA (aka Obamacare)
But what right does some bureaucrat have to tell what a private citizen can eat, how long they can watch TV. The problem with the nanny state is there's no freedom, it's mother-fucking-may-I, the idea of tracking how much TV one watches, this is not paranoia but a possibility I could be playing Dark Souls and suddenly I could a message through my TV and my PS3 is cut off because I'm playing a violent video game, it is tantamount to having a bureaucrat taking my games and give me a copy of Dora the Explorer for the PS3.
What gets me about these morons, I was watching this on Fox News, is that it goes beyond the purview of their duties, most of this is just the usual tripe spouted out by those bloody environmental wackjobs who are just pushing a agenda of social engineering because they don't have anything better to do with their time.
Obesity is a problem, I get it. But there are some underlying factors that people need to consider:
1. Genetics. There are people who predisposed to either gain massive amounts of weights or can't keep any weight on and have to constantly eat.
2. Personal responsibility. if you eat 90% of your meals out of McDonalds that you have a problem, you deal with it.
3. The foods we eat. I started watching what I eat and cutting out stuff like HFCS out my diet, but guess what: THAT WAS A PERSONAL I CHOICE, I CHOSE TO.
What I have been seeing is this erosion of our personal liberties because many in our government seem to have this fondness for an alleged saying of King Louis the XIV: L'Etat, c'est moi. I am the State.