On January 3, even before we finished eating leftovers from New Year celebration our "friends" at Fox News began drumming up an new government SCARE -- Portion control -- how the government plans to dictate what's on your dinner table in 2014. Here is the list
1. FDA May Ban or Restrict a Growing Number of Food Ingredients. "oils containing trans fats, an ingredient found in foods like coffee creamers and muffins" and "also likely to propose unprecedented new restrictions on food ingredients like sodium"
2. Raw Milk Bans Drawing Fire. "Yet the risks of drinking raw milk are similar to those posed by eating a medium-rare hamburger, spinach, cantaloupe or other foods that rightly warrant nothing more than a government warning sticker."
3. New York City’s Soda Ban Not Dead Yet. "Nevertheless, Bloomberg’s successor Bill DeBlasio has vowed to forge ahead with the soda ban. After two stinging losses, the city has filed a last gasp court appeal that should be decided in 2014."
4. Farm Subsidies Will Prop Up Big Farms, Cost Taxpayers Billions.
5. FDA’s Menu Labeling Rules Could Be a Colossal Mess. "Even as study after study shows that menu labeling is actually counterproductive, the FDA will have to answer these questions in 2014."
6. Some Cities Still Kicking Food Trucks to the Curb. "How will food trucks fare in 2014? They still face existential threats from regulators in cities nationwide—including Alexandria, Va., Birmingham, Ala., Lexington, Ky. and San Diego, Calif."
7. Soda Taxes Still Being Pushed in San Francisco. "San Francisco has proposed a 2014 ballot measure to make its residents “healthier” by adding nearly $1.50 in taxes to the cost of a six-pack of soda."
8. Rise of Voluntary GMO Labeling. "...mandatory GMO labeling—is that Americans prefer a different approach. As we’ve seen with companies like Whole Foods and Chipotle, some restaurants and grocers are responding to demands from their own consumers that they label or move away from GMO foods on their own."
9. FDA’s Proposed Food Safety Rules Could Hurt Farmers, Raise Food Costs. "Advocates for small farmers were up in arms in 2013 over proposed FDA food safety rules that could bury them in pointless, costly red tape. Even the FDA admitted the rules, which would cost nearly $1 billion each year, would only make food up to 5.7% safer."
10. Government to Consider Restrictions on Food Marketing to Kids (Again). "Companies that advertise foods that parents buy for kids are often vilified by a segment of the public health community."
And who is the author of this "infomercial" once again sponsored or produced by FoxNews? - Baylen J. Linnekin is the executive director of
Keep Food Legal.
Meet Mr. Linnekin and his vision of America
Mr. Linnekin's organization is the one that was "up in arms in 2013 over proposed FDA food safety rules" (
see the point 9) and trumpeted it on the
web site Reason.com and which editor, Nick Gillespie, Ph.D., sits
on the board of Keep Food Legal.
Disclosure: Do not confuse Reason.com with
Logical Reason, because Reason.com also wants you to believe that
66 Percent of Americans Say People Should Be Allowed to Play Violent Video Games and it is
a scientific fact and is accurate because
the same poll found
At a recent event, President Barack Obama said the health care law is here to stay and vowed, "We aren't going back.” But 55 percent of Americans say they’d prefer to go back to the health care system that was in place before the Affordable Care Act, while 34 percent prefer the current health care system.
So what is this organization
Keep Food Legal? According to its
own mission statement its is like Food Libertarian Union:
We Love Food
Do you love food? If you’re like us, you do.
.........
We Hate Food Bans
If you’re like us, you’ve probably also noticed that there are too many restrictions on our right to procure the foods we love, and that these restrictions are growing.
.............
Our Mission
Does all this regulation make your stomach growl, leave your palate dull, and make your blood boil? Us too. That’s why we founded Keep Food Legal (KFL).
KFL is the first nationwide membership organization devoted to food freedom.
And Mr. Baylen J. Linnekin, President of KFL, most likely think about himself, as Nelson Mandela of Food Apartheid and
proclaims it every time he can get
“If you want to buy a Happy Meal with a horsemeat burger, a can of Four Loko, trans fat fried foie gras, and a side of shark fin soup, I applaud your right to make those choices,” says Baylen Linnekin as we sit on his porch in North Bethesda.
The 39-year-old executive director of the nonprofit Keep Food Legal has a decidedly libertarian perspective on food politics.
If there any science behind it? Not really. If there any logic? Hardly, because if Mr. Linnekin wanted consumers make a choice why would he oppose consumers making an
educated choice, such as for example, know from the food label whether it contains GMO ingredients (
see point 8) or how much calories are in the product you want to buy (
see point 5). While issue whether GMO food is safe to it deserves a separate discussion and actually FDA and USDA approved a lot of genetically modified agricultural products. However, it is worthwhile to mention that
point 8 statement that FDA on its own proposing
"mandatory GMO labeling" and
"that Americans prefer a different approach" directly contradicts to the USA Today article
What you need to know about GMOs published on the same day as Mr. Linnekin's infomercial with FoxNews. In the latter article this matter is explained much better
How can I tell if my food contains GMOs?
Currently, food manufacturers are not required to label whether their products contain GMOs. The FDA only requires that labels are "truthful and not misleading." FDA is considering two citizen petitions it has received asking the agency to require GMO labeling.
GMOs, however, are prohibited in organic products. "This means an organic farmer can't plant GMO seeds, an organic cow can't eat GMO alfalfa or corn, and an organic soup producer can't use any GMO ingredients," according to the USDA. Additionally, organizations, like the Non-GMO Project, list products verified to be GMO-free. You can also download the Non-GMO Shopping Guide app.
So apparently it is not that difficult and expensive after all, since it is a simple issue "Yes" or "No".
Similarly, Mr. Linnekin was not forthcoming in the
point 5 writing
but what about pizza delivery chains like Domino’s which has 34 million different ways to order a pizza?
meaning that
FDA’s Menu Labeling Rules Could Be a Colossal Mess if applied to Domino's pizza. In fact, in his another article
How a Federal Menu-Labeling Law Will Harm American Pizza, written almost a year ago, Mr. Linnekin wrote:
For one, most have been providing nutrition information for years. The Papa John’s website displays nutrition information under each menu item, for example, while Domino’s website features a tool it calls a Cal-o-Meter. For pizza, the point of purchase is most often online or over the phone.
Which means that the problem is already solved -- meaning that the pizza outlets already have the information! What is only required now - to make it handy, i.e. print it as a receipt with the order or display to a cashier who takes the order and can tell this info to the customers. It should not be that difficult to automate in the store and should not cost more than couple of pennies per customer, who almost certainly would not mind to pay them.
Regarding
point 2 Mr. Linnekin's argument is
Yet the risks of drinking raw milk are similar to those posed by eating a medium-rare hamburger, spinach, cantaloupe or other foods that rightly warrant nothing more than a government warning sticker.
Once again Mr. Linnekin refers readers to his own article written couple of years ago, filled with a lot of rhetoric and not much evidence.
However, according to the
Center for Disease Control (CDC) currently with the restriction on raw milk consumption
Each year, foodborne diseases cause illness in 1 in 6 Americans (or about 48 million people), resulting in about 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths.
While exact costs of treating food poisoning is hard to calculate there should be no doubts that it is in many millions of dollars and that is not counting deaths. Does Mr. Linnekin have any estimates how much allowing raw milk consumption would cost in healthcare expanses or in human lives? Does he even care about? Obviously not. He, probably believes only in the "survival of the fittest" literally - meaning if a person did not have health insurance or the poisoning was to severe and a person died from food poisoning that is the God's will and nothing could have been done to prevent this untimely death.
Yet, let's return to the consumption of raw milk. According to the
CDC statistics
Among dairy product-associated outbreaks reported to CDC between 1998 and 2011 in which the investigators reported whether the product was pasteurized or raw, 79% were due to raw milk or cheese. From 1998 through 2011, 148 outbreaks due to consumption of raw milk or raw milk products were reported to CDC. These resulted in 2,384 illnesses, 284 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths. Most of these illnesses were caused by Escherichia coli, Campylobacter, Salmonella, or Listeria. It is important to note that a substantial proportion of the raw milk-associated disease burden falls on children; among the 104 outbreaks from 1998-2011 with information on the patients’ ages available, 82% involved at least one person younger than 20 years old.
Also, keep in mind that
21 states allow sale of raw milk, which is more than 50% of the US population because these states include most populous states such as California, Texas and New York. And by the way, the story that Mr. Linnekin made a centerpiece of his article is not exactly correct, because Amish farmer could legally sell his raw milk in Pennsylvania, but Maryland where he was selling it does not allow sale of raw milk.
So what is left of Mr. Linnekin's points? Really nothing, because, it is well known fact that growth of diabetes and population weight in US correlates with sale of soda. And that
New York City’s Soda Ban (point 3) and
Soda Taxes Pushed in San Francisco do not ban soda sale outright and
not even limit consumption, but create some incentives for more rational consumption of soda. We all still remember how big tobacco companies were glamorizing (they still try, but less successfully) smoking of tobacco and were able to find advocates, similar to Mr. Linnekin, even among physicians who were "informing" public that smoking does not present danger to health. It took serious government intervention to expose the lies of these companies to change public opinion that will undoubtedly increase life expectancy and reduce cost of the healthcare in US in not so distant future (the change cannot be instant because many of former smokers already damaged their health). The same goes about
point 10 that
Government Possible Restrictions on Food Marketing to Kids (Again) . It is looks too familiar of the big tobacco resistance to reduction of advertizing targeting young people while they were perfectly aware of dangers of smoking and that it is the best to get people hooked on cigarets and other tobacco products while they are young and too often careless and more concerned with coolness than health. It should not be too difficult for you see through other points Mr. Linneken makes. Even when he correctly writes about
Farm Subsidies Will Prop Up Big Farms, Cost Taxpayers Billions (point 4) he somehow does not bother to mention small farmers, who actually should be receiving these subsidies without which they cannot survive for long.
Mr. Linneken does not disclose his generous donors or any corporate donors or sponsors for that matter. However, his choice of media outlets, like FoxNews or forums like American Enterprise Institute hardly leaves room for guessing. In fact, many people at different times suggested that Keep Food Legal has been bought by Monsanto. While this assumption should not surprise anyone most likely Keep Food Legal has several corporate masters, which it loyally serves.
Why not to come clean who's interests Keep Food Legal represents? Because so far food is legal in this country, but what is illegal - it is to conduct false advertizing and manipulate public opinion for personal gain. As a lawyer, Mr. Linnekin should be aware of that.