Get PJ Media on your Apple

Dr. Helen

The Psychology of the Food Police

April 3rd, 2013 - 4:37 am

I am reading a new book by professor Jayson Lusk titled The Food Police: A Well-Fed Manifesto About the Politics of Your Plate. The author is tired of the food socialists coming after trans-fats, Happy Meals, Twinkies, and soda. The book seeks to debunk “the myths propagated by the holier-than-thou foodie elite who think they know exactly what we should grow, cook, and eat.”

From the Press release:

Organic food is not necessarily healthier or tastier (and is certainly more expensive).
- Genetically modified foods haven’t sickened a single person but they have made farmers more profitable and they do hold the promise of feeding impoverished Africans.
- Farm policies aren’t making us fat.
- Voguish locavorism is not greener or better for the economy.
- Fat taxes won’t slim our waists and “fixing” school lunch programs won’t make our kids any smarter.
- Why the food police hypocritically believe an iPad is a technological marvel but food technology is an industrial evil
So before Big Brother and Animal Farm merge into a socialist nightmare, read The Food Police and let us as Americans celebrate what is good about our food system and take back our forks and foie gras before it’s too late!

The author discusses how upset people get when their food views are challenged, and it led me to remember a woman I knew when I worked in NYC many years ago. She only ate a macrobiotic diet and reveled in “clean eating.” The problem was that she felt she had no control over her life, and eating certain things was the only way she could cope with the uncertainty and angst that she felt on a daily basis. She didn’t seem to push her views on others, though she looked askance a few times when I ate some type of bakery product.

We are now a nation being controlled by a number of people like this woman — those who are full of angst and fear but rather than look to themselves to solve their crises have created one for other people whom they must control in order to feel in control themselves. It is a dangerous dynamic and one that feeds into power for the political class at the expense of the individual. Those of us who believe in freedom must fight for Happy Meals, Twinkies, and, yes, even the occasional trans-fats, for the food police are more dangerous than these.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
No, what the author is saying is that people like the woman he described are the ones who try to control everyone's diet. Are you that way? Not in your eating habits but in your feelings of unhappiness and need to feel in control of something. If you are, maybe you are that woman and need to take control by controlling others (and there are plenty of ways to manifest this beyond food; gun control come to mind as another; pushing your pet social agenda is a third). If you simply like to adhere to a certain diet and feel no need to try to force others to stick to the same rules by force, then, congrats! The author wasn't talking about you; stop being so sensitive.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The rituals of the "food police" are just their peculiar faith's example of religious concerns with "purity".

(I keep trying to find inorganic food at the grocery store, but everything there has carbon in it!)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
False claim? Cite your source.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (75)
All Comments   (75)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I believe it's just a matter of time before some control freak liberal finds a problem with the ipad. Like they have with cell phones. Me, I don't have a cell phone, and am not sure what an ipad is. Hell, Kevin Trudeau, a questionable TV infomercial health guru, thinks rock music causes cancer. First, from the elector-magnetic energy required to play rock music. And second, because it's too darn fast. Too many beats per minute! So, even if rock musicians went all acoustic, no Ramones covers! Me, I could use a cheeseburger and Pepsi.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"GMO foods haven't sickened a single person".
I have seen no evidence of that. But it is a proven fact that GMO foods have killed a llot of lab rats, because it rots their guts. Professor Pusztai [q.v.] in Scotland has proven that many GMO foods are dangerous. In reprisal he was fired and sunsequently persecuted by Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Market solutions are best ONLY when there is a competitive market AND consumers have full access to all relevant information AND are educated enough to understand same. The US & world food markets are dominated by huge monopolies.
For a long time I, too, believed that GMO was harmless. But it turns out that GMO developers have been concealing thgeir lab results for many years. And now the truth is slowly seeping out.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You can have my Twinkies when you can pry them from my cold dead hands.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Before the anti-tobacco crowd jumps all over me let me make a disclaimer - I have not smoked in over 18 years and detest the smell.

That said, I knew when the second-hand smoke Nazis got their way we were on a road of no return to nanny-state busybodies sticking their big fat noses into every aspect of life.

Why can't people just get up and leave if they don't like the atmosphere or variety of food in a restaurant or grocery store, and then just MYOGDB!!!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
OldSchool, congrats on 18 years. I'm coming up on 8 years without a cigarette.
Like you, I knew the second-hand smoke campaign was just the beginning. The thing I saw in the 2nd hand smoke jihad was the use of suspicious and unconfirmed data to give legitimacy to the crusade, coupled with the demonization of anyone who disputed the claims. Unfortunately many educated people went along because, "so what if the data is dodgy, we know smoking is bad for you", not realizing how badly this attitude would pervert the scientific method.
As feared, the howling success of this campaign has served as a blueprint for current unscientific alarmist causes as Global Warming, GM foods, and BPA in plastics.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"The author is tired of the food socialists coming after....."

I think most people agree but... The food socialists trying to regulate food of these types for the particular cause(s) is a states matter and rather easy for the 'people' to control over the state. I'm pretty certain that the Supreme court would rule that food 'safety' can be regulated but foodstuffs and their preparations on the basis of regulating peoples 'health' would never prevail constitutionally. You simply cannot legislatively regulate, constitutionally, human biology.

I can eat literally anything and in large portions and remain 'very' healthy and still my HS weight at a couple months away from 79. My wife can't. Six of our children obviously have a majority of my gene pool while the other two children obviously have their mothers gene pool.

On the other hand! Taxation of goods that have been declared as unsafe to the general health of people is seemingly constitutional if it/they qualify under the commerce clause of the constitution -- cigarettes is one example of the socalled 'sin' tax. If nothing you use in your product(s) or preparation comes from across states lines and what you manufacture is NOT sold outside the state then the federal government is out of the game! There were times when this was in large part thre case in America before commerce consolidation and centralization -- national chains and national corporations
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Eat right. Exercise. Die anyway.

I eat whatever I like. Fortunately that mostly includes a balanced diet, but sometimes I just want to snack on chips for dinner. So what?

I do want to comment on this: "...and eating certain things was the only way she could cope with the uncertainty and angst that she felt on a daily basis."
I've noticed many women use food as a cathartic and then follow up with enemas. It's like a physical ablution, a cleansing. These women also seem to have deep-seated emotional/spiritual issues. No coincidence I think.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Of course inherent in the thinking of all practitioners of food nannyism is the absolute conviction of that unquestioned moral and intellectual superiority usual in leftists; which they see as a grant of an inalienable right to dictate to those they know to be lesser creatures - so many of whom just happen to be in red America. How lucky we are to have the food nannies to tell us how to live, although I am having a little trouble figuring out how our ancestors ever survived 10,000 generations before the nannies came on the scene to save us from ourselves.

The sheer presumption and arrogance of these people makes my blood boil. But I'm sure they'd tell me that's unhealthy and that I should merely steam so as not to damage delicate nutrients.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Given the comments here, it sounds like most people have already turned into bleating sheep ready to put poison snoopers to everything they put in their mouths. Food won't hurt you. Just don't eat so much of it and exercise regularly. There's no reason to hook yourself up to a diagnostics monitor. Get some guts.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Those of us who believe in freedom must fight for Happy Meals, Twinkies, and, yes, even the occasional trans-fats, for the food police are more dangerous than these."

Fighting against laws and other government control of these items is not the same as fighting for these items. I will fight government controls, but I will not recommend or purchase any of these items.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This is ridiculous. Author is using anecdotal evidence of one woman she met one time to paint everyone who tries to control their diet as having a psychological disorder. Shoddy journalism.

It's upsetting to me that the Conservative movement always, reflexively, has to take the extreme opposite position of the left, regardless of the merit of the position. The First Lady tries to start a healthy eating initiative? "GRAHHH MOOCHELLE GET UR GUBBERMINT HANDS OFF MY KIDS COOKIES!!" Is this really the best answer the movement can come up with? The fact is that we have an epidemic of obese and diabetic kids in this country. Is this the government's problem to solve? Of course not, but it still is a problem, and giving three cheers to the Happy Meal is unproductive, irresponsible, and childish. Author should be ashamed.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"It's upsetting to me that the Conservative movement always, reflexively, has to take the extreme opposite position of the left, regardless of the merit of the position."

Bingo!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There is a larger point being made here - whether or not you want the gov't mandating helmets for everyone over 50 cuz it's good for them. The anecdotes the gov't in fact believes in such things is a mountain.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
No, what the author is saying is that people like the woman he described are the ones who try to control everyone's diet. Are you that way? Not in your eating habits but in your feelings of unhappiness and need to feel in control of something. If you are, maybe you are that woman and need to take control by controlling others (and there are plenty of ways to manifest this beyond food; gun control come to mind as another; pushing your pet social agenda is a third). If you simply like to adhere to a certain diet and feel no need to try to force others to stick to the same rules by force, then, congrats! The author wasn't talking about you; stop being so sensitive.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Of course, Happy Meals should indeed be cheered. Your old crone scold attitude is what is "unproductive, irresponsible, and childish". You, Noah Z, should be ashamed.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"It's upsetting to me that the Conservative movement always, reflexively, has to take the extreme opposite position of the left, regardless of the merit of the position."

Thank you. This is the same point I made earlier.

Of course, as per usual, the part about your being against government involvement as a solution to the problem will be ignored. WillyPM has already labeled you a "tyrant."

Apparently, even acknowledging that there's a problem is enough for certain folks to brandish you an evildoer hell-bent on controlling other people's lives. There's no middle ground allowed.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
No, what we have is an epidemic of shallow-minded tyrants like yourself. They wish to engage in their own set of risky behaviors (e.g., driving, swimming, gay sex, etc.), while actively seeking to prohibit others from engaging in behaviors that are of no value to the tyrant. Shoddy thinking.

The "left" can't seem to decide whether a woman has the right to do as she pleases with her own body, or whether she should be restricted from eating something as innocuous as a Happy Meal. The "left" used to support freedom. When it appears to you that we are reflexively against everything you propose, take careful note next time: what we oppose is your ideas about limiting our freedom. Tell that to Michelle's fat ass next time you meet it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You need to be specific about "actively seeking to prohibit others from engaging in behaviors",because I'm struggling to figure out what the heck you are talking about. Who is actively preventing you from buying a Happy Meal? Or is one of those meaningless "slippery slope" arguments?

Also, why are conservative sexual deviants like yourself always obsessed with the First Lady's rear end. Pretty disgusting.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Struggle to read about Happy Meals in SF and you won't struggle so much.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Fortunately, NYC and SF have not historically had much the the nation follower their insanity. That said, this is America and those cities do have the right to regulate anything the 'people' don't constitutionally stand against in majority numbers. Heck, if I'm not mistaken, in NYC, if you want to add another floor to a building you have to buy the air space it will take. So, you want to build in NYC you have to buy the land and the air space. Says so much for all them thar walls covered by fancy framed Ivy League sheepskins in NYC!

Let SF and NYC rot to the ground and I'd be really happy!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
People in charge of San Fran tried to ban them altogether not so long ago. They would be the people actively trying to keep people from buying a Happy Meal. These are the same sad sacks who want to ban pet sales, including fish, too.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Huh? Somebody sounds a little angry. How am I a sexual deviant again? Is it my support of gay marriage? Polygamy? Please, do tell. I am not obsessed with Michelle's rear end, except to note that it is full of the very fat that offends her. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Perhaps you never heard the news, but trans fats are banned in New York City. I feel I have the right to eat trans fats whenever and wherever I want. That's what we're talking about when we applaud the Happy Meal.

Now, liberal boy, explain to me how a woman can do as she pleases with her own body, except for eating trans fats.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All