Feds Tell Court They Can Decide What You Eat

[KD5NRH]

WorldNetDaily, so if anyone has a more mainstream link, please post.

Doesn't include that exact quote, but is Time mainstream enough?
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1598525,00.html

FWIW, I'm somewhat lactose intolerant, but can still handle raw dairy just fine.  Milk comes from the cow with all those fancy enzymes you can buy for lactose intolerance, but they break down from the heat of pasteurization.  When I worked in cheese production, I used to get raw cream and milk straight off the truck fairly often.  There were a few of us who could judge the butterfat and overall solids within 0.3% by taste and texture.  It got really entertaining when we would stand around the lab arguing with the test equipment. 

[AZRedhawk44]

Y'all are forgetting the basic premise of our Constitution, though:

The Bill of Rights and COTUS were not enumerations of our rights.  They were enumerations of SURRENDERED rights, held by the people, and given to the Government as Powers to enforce the will of the People.

The 10th amendment is key to understanding that.

I have a right to make a tuna sandwich on rye with the ingredients in my fridge.  Even though it doesn't say that anywhere in the US or AZ Constitutions.  I have a right to wear a hat made from pancakes.  I have a right to blame Fistful.

I DON'T have a right to make Fistful pay for whatever (that would be a function of a civil law suit, which primarily deals with breach of contract and has little to do with Constitutional or US Code issues).  I do have a right to SEEK to make Fistful pay for whatever.  I don't have a right to the tuna and rye at the Grocery store.  I do have a right to purchase that tuna and rye at the fair market price offered to all other public customers of that store.  I don't have a right to force Aunt Jemima to MAKE my pancake-hat.  I may bid competitively for her time against other parties interested in her pastry-tailoring, however.

But all of those elements deal with... (wait for it)...

Interpersonal relationships outside of Government.

There are no RIGHTS in interpersonal relationships outside of Government.  There is only Contract.

[tyme]

Can someone really tell me I don't have the right to eat a Twinkie, even if it's not in the constitution? If they ban commercial sale, would I be a criminal if I procured the ingredients myself and made them at home in my Twinkie lab?

I think the cat is out of the bag here.

Federal subsidies for corn and soy (and wheat?) are, in large part, pork for the animal farming industry.  Cut those subsidies and maybe we can talk about whether it is or isn't right for the federal government to use force, directly or indirectly, to change food production and consumption patterns.

The federal government already bans lots of bad stuff from foods.  Poisons, certain dangerous organics, radioactive materials, etc... would it make any difference if some heavy metals, or benzene, tasted good at levels that did not produce acute symptoms, or would they still be banned?

I don't think even the most radical raw food diet advocates would propose making it illegal for people to eat whatever they make themselves.  The issue is primarily what should or shouldn't be allowed to be sold as prepackaged foods (grocery) or served foods (restaurants), because at that point it's a commercial enterprise, targeted at a different customer (people who aren't going to make their own meals).  What tastes best is often absolutely horrible for us, because our taste buds are not evolved to and the people making the food are typically not eating it.  They have no incentive to make things healthier beyond the minimum they can get away with to avoid public outrage as more media attention shines on food ingredients.  The majority of consumers do not care what's on the ingredient label beyond what the media tells them is horribad.

I very much doubt you can make twinkies from scratch from ingredients found in grocery stores.  You can, however, bake somewhat similar things from ingredients you can find, which would also most likely cause fewer health problems.

"The core ingredients in Twinkies have been the same for decades: flour, sugar and water. Deconstructing the Twinkie is like trying to deconstruct the universe. Some people look at the sky and think it's beautiful; others try to count the stars. We think the millions of people who have made Twinkies one of the most popular snacks in American history would agree that Twinkies just taste great."   --quote from the manufacturer of twinkies, in 2007.

 Of course, if things that JUST TASTE GREAT end up causing problems, there are pills and surgical procedures for that.

[makattak]

I think the cat is out of the bag here.

Federal subsidies for corn and soy (and wheat?) are, in large part, pork for the animal farming industry.  Cut those subsidies and maybe we can talk about whether it is or isn't right for the federal government to use force, directly or indirectly, to change food production and consumption patterns.

The federal government already bans lots of bad stuff from foods.  Poisons, certain dangerous organics, radioactive materials, etc... would it make any difference if some heavy metals, or benzene, tasted good at levels that did not produce acute symptoms, or would they still be banned?

I don't think even the most radical raw food diet advocates would propose making it illegal for people to eat whatever they make themselves.  The issue is primarily what should or shouldn't be allowed to be sold as prepackaged foods (grocery) or served foods (restaurants), because at that point it's a commercial enterprise, targeted at a different customer (people who aren't going to make their own meals).  What tastes best is often absolutely horrible for us, because our taste buds are not evolved to and the people making the food are typically not eating it.  They have no incentive to make things healthier beyond the minimum they can get away with to avoid public outrage as more media attention shines on food ingredients.  The majority of consumers do not care what's on the ingredient label beyond what the media tells them is horribad.
I very much doubt you can make twinkies from scratch from ingredients found in grocery stores.  You can, however, bake somewhat similar things from ingredients you can find, which would also most likely cause fewer health problems.

"The core ingredients in Twinkies have been the same for decades: flour, sugar and water. Deconstructing the Twinkie is like trying to deconstruct the universe. Some people look at the sky and think it's beautiful; others try to count the stars. We think the millions of people who have made Twinkies one of the most popular snacks in American history would agree that Twinkies just taste great."   --quote from the manufacturer of twinkies, in 2007.

  Of course, if things that JUST TASTE GREAT end up causing problems, there are pills and surgical procedures for that.

Wow, that's a great lot of nonsense.

If I'm not mistaken, there's entire sections in grocery stores and even specialized grocery stores that offer premade health food. And "organic" food. And "healthy choices" selections. People DO have a choice on what food to eat.

Your problem is some people choose not to eat those. And since you don't like their decision, you want to simply remove the choice of anything you deem to be "unhealthy".

[MechAg94]

I guess this means you can possess Rick Krispies cereal and you can possess marsh mallows.  But, if you possess both at the same time, that is constructive possession of rice crispy treats. 

[MicroBalrog]

The majority of consumers do not care what's on the ingredient label beyond what the media tells them is horribad.

I have a God-given, natural, and, if I were a US citizen, I would also have a Constitutional right not to care. I could go on forever about whether or not people care about their diets, but frankly, I don't care.

Because I already live in a society where people who believe this sort of stuff are in charge. I live in a society where bloody airguns are illegal, poker is illegal (playing! Poker! In your own apartment with your buddies! Is illegal!), where motor racing is still illegal, where importing food into the country is illegal unless it is approved by rabbis, where milk (MILK!!!) is the most expensive, per gallon, in the entire world because of regulations. Because I know that once we let people ban stuff because it raises 'healthcare costs', or is not right for you, people will ban anything.

Remember that old quote about the guy who tortures you because he feels it's his moral duty, and how that guy will never stop? That was a lie. The worst monster is the monster who has been persuaded his moral duty and his self-interest coincide. If you cut people loose with the idea that they can ban you from doing stuff both for your own good and to simultaneously cut their own bills, they will never stop. They'll never have shame, or mercy, or reason, they'll just come up with more stuff to ban forever. They'll tax twinkies, and then they'll ban them, too, and they'll ban smoking, and anything they can get away with.

On this argument, there's nothing morally wrong with a 73% tax on all new cars (after all, less cars = less car accidents, right?), and a ban on possession of gold bullion, and…

What you're basically arguing is that they can ban any activity that's bad for your health.

You're arguing that the idiocy I experience every single day, where about half of the things I want to do for my pleasure is banned, and the other half is taxed into extinction, is moral and good and well-deserved. And you think this should actually be inflicted on your fellow Americans too? Seriously?

Well, no. I don't deserve to live in a universe without damned Twinkies.

If I want to stuff flour and sugar up my gullet until I pass out, well that's my right.

It's not about whether healthcare costs go up or down.

It's about my children, and my children's children, not living in a universe like this.

If I want to make sure my son's world has homeschooling, and guns, and cars, and poker, and basic individual freedom in it, then it also has to have Twinkies.

God bless Twinkies, and may God continue to Bless America.

[roo_ster]

I like to quote Orwell, Jefferson (Thomas, not George), Locke, Hyek, and many others renowned for their writings on liberty.

This time, however, I will quote someone less notable who has, nonetheless captured the essence:

"We exercise our freedom to its fullest when we are at our stupidest."
----Penn Jillette

"We need to protect other people's stupid to save freedom for all of us."
----Penn Jillette

[longeyes]

I know what the Fed want me to eat--and it's all too "organic."

[tyme]

I have a God-given, natural, and, if I were a US citizen, I would also have a Constitutional right not to care. I could go on forever about whether or not people care about their diets, but frankly, I don't care.

Your problem is some people choose not to eat those. And since you don't like their decision, you want to simply remove the choice of anything you deem to be "unhealthy".

Okay.  Eliminate all food subsidies, and eliminate the FDA.  Then we can start at zero and figure out exactly whether we need or want to amend the constitution to regulate food and drugs.  That is absolutely never going to happen.

Where does that leave us?  We have a half-cooked agency tasked with protecting consumable food and drugs, and an entrenched food industry that will do just about anything they can to make profits, even if it means producing the most unhealthy food imaginable.

Why aren't government subsidies going toward fresh produce, instead of corn and soy feed that predominantly end up in the supermarket in the form of poor-grade meats and chemically mangled vegetable oil?  Is this a good use of our taxdollars?  Who is really reducing consumer choice here?  If consumers see cheap meats and dairy and good-tasting foods with hydrogenated vegetable oils for cheap, why should they choose more expensive other options?

(There are other areas where fixing subsidies may not help fix diets; for instance, adding fruit to foods will never be cheaper than adding raw sugar, but at least fixing subsidies would be a start.  And even if taxes were later artificially added onto certain foods or ingredients based on rough scientific data, I fail to see how that's categorically worse than handing out subsidies to whichever industry has the best lobbyists, with zero regard to health implications.)

If I'm not mistaken, there's entire sections in grocery stores and even specialized grocery stores that offer premade health food. And "organic" food. And "healthy choices" selections. People DO have a choice on what food to eat.

They have the choice, but they don't choose the obvious choice.  As best I can tell, nutrition labels and ingredients lists don't even register with the average person.  They sometimes won't even attempt a healthier choice if they've had someone explain it to them.  I saw this recently and most dramatically with someone I know.  Diagnosed with high cholesterol.  I asked what this person ate.  Milk, meat (red), more meat (chicken), more dairy, more dairy, more meat (shrimp).  Paraphrasing: "Don't you think cutting way back on that stuff would be a good idea?"  "Nope! Doctor said lipitor.  There's no way changing my diet could reduce cholesterol enough."  "Well, you could try cutting back for a month and then have your cholesterol checked again to see what effect it has."  "Nope.  The doctor said lipitor, and I know it will work because it's a drug designed to lower cholesterol."  :banghead:

[roo_ster]

Where does that leave us?  We have a half-cooked agency tasked with protecting consumable food and drugs, and an entrenched food industry that will do just about anything they can to make profits, even if it means producing the most unhealthy food imaginable food most people want to eat.

FTFY

[makattak]

Okay.  Eliminate all food subsidies, and eliminate the FDA.  Then we can start at zero and figure out exactly whether we need or want to amend the constitution to regulate food and drugs. 

Sounds good to me.

[MicroBalrog]

Okay.  Eliminate all food subsidies, and eliminate the FDA.  Then we can start at zero and figure out exactly whether we need or want to amend the constitution to regulate food and drugs.  That is absolutely never going to happen.

So your argument is, since we can't do it the constitutional way, we should just forget about the Constitution?

[Jocassee]

I don't deserve to live in a universe without damned Twinkies....God bless Twinkies, and may God continue to Bless America.

Preach it, brother Micro! Preach it!

[RaspberrySurprise]

If only we were so lucky that they were dumping raw sugar into things instead of HFCS.