Weekly Opinion Editorial
FOOD POLICE!
by Steve Fair
“Should
you be eating that?” people ask. While
trying to be helpful, they come across as bossy, overbearing, and intrusive. The
food police are everywhere- external and internal. The internal judgmental voices in your head
that condemn you for eating a piece of cake and those eternal self-righteous, pharisaic
do-gooders who try to protect yourself from yourself. The internal police you control- the external
not so much. In America, what you eat is
under bi-partisan attack.
Ten Republican
led state legislatures are currently considering barring SNAP (Food Stamp)
recipients from using their benefits to buy candy, soda and other items that
are high in sugar and fat. Similar federal
legislation was considered in Feb. 2024 that would have done the same thing. “American tax dollars should not be used
to pay for junk food and endanger the health of the most vulnerable Americans.
The fastest way to Make America Healthy Again is to encourage balanced diets
and stop subsidizing unhealthy food choices," U.S. Senator Mike Lee,
(R-Utah) says.
The Oklahoma
state legislature has gotten into the act.
Senate bill # 4, (SB4), authored by Sen. Kristen Thompson, (R-Edmond),
would ban 21 specific food ingredients in Oklahoma. SB4 passed the Republican controlled Agriculture
and Wildlife Committee by a 10-1 vote and now goes to the full Senate for
consideration. Only one lone Republican
opposed it in committee. SB4 has the
exact same language as dystopian laws in California and Vermont. Three observations:
First, the
government has no right to tell citizens what to put in their body. The irony is that many of the same people who
pitched a fit about mandatory COVID vaccines support telling people how to
eat. What inconsistency and hypocrisy! Liberty
and freedom preaching zealots telling you what to eat expose their socialist
side.
Second, the
food police put undue burden on the food industry. Ingredients bans, required declarations,
warnings and other state mandates currently cost the industry (and ultimately
the consumer) billions. Some food processors
elect to withdraw or not do business in states where the volume doesn’t warrant
the increased packaging costs. Consumers
in those states have less choices and less freedom.
When the feds last year were mandating what
could be purchased with food stamps, the National Grocers Association (NGA)
issued the following statement: “No consumer purchases have ever been
subjected to this Orwellian level of snooping by the Federal government, and it
would set a terrifying precedent of intruding on the most private areas of our
lives.”
The temptation
to restrict what recipients of SNAP can buy presents an ethical/moral dilemma
for conservative Republicans: Do they
really believe in individual liberty or do they attach strings to a gift? Sadly, many abandon their principles and side
with special interests.
Third, SB4
is unnecessary and intrusive. The
disappointing thing is Republicans authored it and passed it- not northeast
liberals. Oklahoma has become California. It’s not likely any of the legislators who
voted for SB4 campaigned on banning food ingredients. Unnecessary cookie cutter legislation crafted
by special interests is introduced by clueless lawmakers who campaign on
seeking wise counsel from constituents, but never do.
Evelyn Tribole, the author of six books on cooking and health, says, "Unless you killed the chef, there is no morality or guilt in what you eat.”
Just say No to the Food Police in Oklahoma!
Steve, are you that upset about what people eat? This whole post reads like it's meant to help the food industry go forward with as little regulation as achievable at the expense of the American consumer's health.
ReplyDeleteWill more restrictions on SNAP benefits lead to healthier children? In this case, the answer is yet to be seen. In other words, I don't know--a phrase that is not spoken often enough amongst politicians.
What harm would SB4 cause to our children that the poisonous foods available to us would not already wreak? Also, it's laughable that you think California and Vermont are dystopian without going into detail about the specific legislation in those states. By the way--and I shouldn't need to remind you of this--states have the right to decide any matters not already enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Code, or any matters that fall under the federal agencies' jurisdictions, as allowed by courts of law.
This means that state laws in California, Vermont, or any of the other states that have a higher education level than Oklahoma, be independent and free of matters of jurisdiction to the other states in the union.
Yet, you say that "the government has no right to tell citizens what to put into their body." Surely you jest. I can't lawfully consume LSD or mescaline no matter where in the U.S. I reside. You can whine about COVID vaccines all you want, but that has nothing to do with the American diet. If you want real liberty, legalize all drugs. Period.
To your second point, oh no, the Fortune 500 billion-dollar companies may have to make small changes to their labeling that would cost them money. Boo hoo. Those poor C-suite people must be trembling at the thought of having to push out all of their ingredients on their product labels. Meanwhile, I'm struggling to pay the rent and have literally no power in this fight.
To the second and third paragraphs of point #2, I must admit at this point that you break with the Republicans in the state Congress. However, I fully detest you and your blog. You are an embarrassment to the United States, the state of Oklahoma, your local community, and the Republican Party as a whole. I cannot stand by your reasoning that this bill is somehow bad when it has been proposed to protect the citizens of the state you live in from harmful food ingredients that make profits for corporations that we will never benefit from.