Liberal Masterminds Demand National Food Policy

14 Nov, 2014 by Dave Blount

Print this article Font size -16+

The progressive ruling class has taken an alarming interest in what we eat. How will they impose a diet suitable for their planned utopia? By something still more alarming — a national food policy. The liberal establishment mouthpiece WaPo provides a soapbox for some pointy-headed experts:

How we produce and consume food has a bigger impact on Americans’ well-being than any other human activity. The food industry is the largest sector of our economy; food touches everything from our health to the environment, climate change, economic inequality and the federal budget. Yet we have no food policy — no plan or agreed-upon principles — for managing American agriculture or the food system as a whole.

That must change.

If you like what ObamaCare is doing for health insurance, you will love what a federal program to control what we eat does for food, as it takes into account “the environment, climate change, economic inequality” et cetera ad nauseam.

A federal stranglehold on how food is produced, distributed, and consumed will allegedly guarantee the following:

● All Americans have access to healthful food;
● Farm policies are designed to support our public health and environmental objectives;
● Our food supply is free of toxic bacteria, chemicals and drugs;
● Production and marketing of our food are done transparently;
● The food industry pays a fair wage to those it employs;
● Food marketing sets children up for healthful lives by instilling in them a habit of eating real food;
● Animals are treated with compassion and attention to their well-being;
● The food system’s carbon footprint is reduced, and the amount of carbon sequestered on farmland is increased;
● The food system is sufficiently resilient to withstand the effects of climate change.

That is, centralized control of food will be used to implement progressive policy.

This has been tried before, and it worked wonderfully, according to Walter Duranty of the New York Times. Joseph Stalin used it suppress resistance to collectivization in the Ukraine. This was called the Holodomor.

Only those with a vested interest in the status quo would argue against creating public policies with these goals.

If you like going to the supermarket and seeing the shelves covered in food that you want to eat at a price you can afford, you have a vested interest in the status quo. If you want to stand in line for a bowl of gluten-free government gruel, don’t bother putting up any resistance to endlessly encroaching liberalism.

Fortunately, Congress is unlikely to pass a law involving the Stalinization of agriculture…

But there is something the president can do now, on his own, to break that deadlock, much as he has done with climate change. In the next State of the Union address, he should announce an executive order establishing a national policy for food, health and well-being.

For more on what they mean by “as he has done with climate change,” talk to any out-of-work coalminer whose job was deliberately destroyed by Obama’s EPA in the name of the conspicuously nonexistent global warming crisis (see here, here, here, here, and here).

The national food policy could be developed and implemented by a new White House council, which would coordinate among, say, the Department of Health and Human Services and the USDA to align agricultural policies with public health objectives, and the EPA and the USDA to make sure food production doesn’t undermine environmental goals.

One environmental goal would be to prevent us from eating meat, which according to liberal dogma makes it be too hot out (see here, here, and here).

There is a temptation to take liberals lightly, because they are so obviously delusional and tend to be weenies. Laughing at them does no harm. But you also need to fear them. You have nothing that they will not take away from you once they have the leverage.