2012: The Year Food Freedom Became A Topic
    By Hank Campbell | January 1st 2013 01:16 PM | 13 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    Progressive social authoritarian Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been engaged in what progressive social authoritarians love to engage in - controlling choice and thinking and freedom to shape it into their personal world view.

    The rationalizations that social authoritarians engage in to force their world view on others is how Bloomberg could say society needed to 'keep perspective' with a straight face when yet another mentally ill person committed murder in December by pushing someone in front of a subway train, though when a mentally ill person shot up a school in Connecticut, he said guns should be banned. 

    This is the same Mayor Bloomberg who banned food donations to the homeless "because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content." You can feed pigeons, but not actual starving homeless people in NYC - only The State may help people, other people may not.

    But it was his efforts to tell people how much soda they could drink that likely did the most good for the future of food freedom - most of the people of New York City are okay with it, they like being told what to do in their homes and how to think, but food freedom in 2012 galvanized a lot of people who care about food but otherwise wouldn't be allies.   The Teamsters are nowhere without big government but they got together with popcorn and theater groups and even Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, to protest the super-nanny government in NYC.

    And not just in New York. Farmers and grocery stores don't have much in common with DuPont, for example, but when a huckster lawyer paid by outside corporations tried to get warning labels put on food in California - unless they paid for an organic sticker - a whole bunch of groups came together and showed the public that it was so poorly written it would not protect anyone and just lead to a lot of lawsuits. Californians who ordinarily love to vote for anything that feels left-wing, like sticking it to science, struck it down. Now food corporations that want their customers to know their food has no GMOs simply use the marketing advantage of a 'Contains No GMOs' sticker instead, a much more positive solution for everyone.

    And there is no more good news in The Sunshine State. While California's government union employees have basically declared war on its citizens, the politicians actually did something worthy in the cause of food freedom; a 'cottage food' law that allows people working from their homes to be exempt from the second-most oppressive, soul-crushing, business-killing laws in the nation. It's not a free-for-all, raw milk people, you will still get sued if you poison someone - so don't go milking your cat and selling it on the Internet.

    Yet raw milk will benefit in 2013 too. While it is incredibly dangerous, it's hard to be in favor of food freedom and advocate banning the stuff. So I don't advocate banning it, I simply contend no one under the age of 18 should be allowed to buy it, nor should parents be allowed to give it to their kids, like alcohol or cigarettes.  Mayor Bloomberg wants to tell people they can't smoke in their own homes so I am surprised he is not showing 'leadership' when it comes to the same restrictions on something actually harmful to children, which raw milk certainly and verifiably is. A recent lawsuit means states are likely to ease up on restrictions for raw milk and maybe the greater scrutiny due to a larger market will cause these dairies to be a lot safer than they currently are. It's for the kids, right? 

    Children aren't waiting for social authoritarian adults to tackle their issues.  When the USDA got heavy-handed about starving them in school lunches to promote First Lady Michelle Obama's pseudoscience food beliefs, they openly revolted and it worked and now they don't have to go hungry for her legacy.  Actual liberals, not the social authoritarian progressives who create these laws, remembered why we have school lunches at all - for a lot of low-income kids, this may be the best meal they get all day, that is why we subsidize them and give them away for free.  And so small-government conservatives, libertarians and pro-government liberals who actually care about kids joined together with a bunch of angry kids to eliminate the government's latest feel-good fallacy and the USDA's new rule was 'modified' - which means gutted but in a way that saves face. See? Food issues galvanized otherwise strange bedfellows.

    Here are the practical students of Kansas telling her and the USDA what they think:

    Baylen Linnekin at Reason has 10 food freedom victories he wants to note. You won't agree with them all but it doesn't matter - Bloomberg probably wouldn't agree with any of them.  It's still a good read and food freedom is still a good idea.


    It must be known that the progressive movement is fascist. There's very little difference between a modern American "Liberal Progressive" and Hitler's National Socialists. Right down to scapegoating a small minority for the nation's problems (1% or should we say "jews"). The leader of the Occupy Wall Street movement coyly affirmed when a reporter asked if he wants "march the 1% into the streets and shoot them". In America the progressive movement started with "progressive fascism" in the 20's. The addition of "progressive" to fascism was meant to assure America that they would "ease slowly" into fascism as our dear leaders figured it out. After WWII they knew that they had to distance themselves from the word fascism... hence all of the historical revisionism that tries to equate fascism with modern conservatism. American conservatism is the exact opposite of fascism. Please spread the word.... fascism is truly on the march again.

    I think we need to remain intellectually honest and not make liberals and progressives synonymous. 85% of science academia is left wing and 99% of Science 2.0 is, but that does not make them fascists or progressives. Progressives actually do not last very long on Science 2.0 because liberals here tend to make fun of them when they start making science fact about social justice issues. You are right about the foundation and genesis of the progressives movement - and it has not changed much today - but they have a counterpoint in social conservatives who want to use laws to tell people how to live (both sides call it 'values') and that is why I think we need to recognize who the social authoritarians are and cut them off.

    In Science Left Behind I made sure to note the problem in science is not liberals - without 'liberal' thought, there can be no science, the only 'conservative' mindset is in peers who will challenge the work - but progressives, and they are quite distinct.  The right wing seems to accept nuance in its beliefs (libertarian, fiscal conservative, social conservative, etc.) while people on the left do use liberal and progressive interchangeably, to their detriment. I am not sure why, but we all know there is little a NYC union cop has in common with a SF protester so both calling themselves progressive or liberal is silly.
    "There's very little difference between a modern American "Liberal Progressive" and Hitler's National Socialists."

    Completely absurd and deeply bigoted and ignorant. Fascism in Germany during WWII was a phenomenon of the right. The Nazis were socialist in name only and were strongly capitalist. German corporations did very well under the fascist regime.

    "The leader of the Occupy Wall Street movement " -- There was and continues to be no leader of the occupy movement. Something for which it is strongly criticized by liberals.

    "fascism is truly on the march again" -- Yes it is. It's called the Tea Party.

    I just found another site to add to my severely restricted bookmarks.

    Anyone who can get away with calling Bloomberg a Progressive Social Authoritarian is golden in my book.

    Political screed pretending to be science writing.

    Let's examine that:  Can you prove banning soda sizes will lower obesity?  Can you prove feeding homeless people a cheeseburger is worse than letting them starve?  Do you support warning labels on non-organic food? Do you think starving children in subsidized school lunch programs will make them thin? Do you deny that raw milk dairies were quarantined multiple times in the past year and that the CDC cites it specifically as being a huge carrier of foodborne diseases? 

    Do you think people should have freedom or not?  

    Bloomberg and other social authoritarians want to use their power and their 'theory of the week' to experiment on society. If you agree, I know how you vote.
    Your list of questions are irrelevant to my criticism. Your article is not objective science journalism. It's political kant dressed up as unbiased reporting. Even if I agreed with all your questions of fact you list here (I agree with some, raw milk is obviously dangerous, disagree with others) I would still believe the article as biased. It is the presence of political judgments that biases the article. Everything is passed through a right wing libertarian filter. That's what I object to.

    Note: I found the site following a link through Real Clear Science. I now have strong doubts about it's (Real Clear network) utility and may go back to more authoritative sources. In general I have don't think the Global Research model for science reporting is of any value.

    So what filters do you not object to? It isn't like there is a source in existence that has no filter or bias - science media is incredibly biased, even more than political media, and we're the only science site of any size not owned by a billion dollar corporation or the government, both of which have their own biases.  But you are right, those others are certainly not libertarian or right wing bias.  But my personal bias is freedom of choice.  If freedom is right wing to you, so be it.
    Oh... I made a mistake when giving my e-mail. My e-mail is at the Asarian-host domain not asaria-host. That's the corrected address. Left off the n, sorry about that.

    On to politics:

    "Do you think people should have freedom or not?"

    No, people should not be free to steal, kill or harm other people. Is that what you mean? Society has the right to impose limits to behavior. It derives that right from the people it represents. Just where to draw the line, well, that's politics. As a general rule I am in favor of ethical systems that promote "Human flourishing". A term in vogue these days. And that the way we decide what is in the interest of "human flourishing" is through the scientific method.

    High fructose sugary drinks really are bad for you and really do promote diabetes II. Disincentives should be used to promote healthy behavior because industry certainly uses incentives to promote over consumption. High fat diets really are bad for you and no, those children were not starving. They just think they are, they always do. At least mine did and like children everywhere they also thought I was being JUST LIKE HITLER when I made them obey my rules. That is how children behave. Most children outgrow their narcissism.

    Political editorializing doesn't belong in science reporting.

    I'm not a reporter but your desire to tell people what should be in the content of their blog nicely represents the social authoritarian mindset I am ridiculing. Maybe people should have to register their blogs with you?
    High fructose sugary drinks really are bad for you and really do promote diabetes II.
    100% of carbohydrates do that. If you were using the neutral filter of science rather than your world view to pick positions à la carte, you would know that.

    Anyway, I am completely happy to let you ban soda or whatever else from your house - that is what freedom is. You instead feel the need to make ridiculous caricatures, like that if I want to buy a 32 oz. soda I must be in favor of mass murder, which is exactly the kind of juvenile thinking that makes you like Mayor Bloomberg.
    Disincentives should be used to promote healthy behavior because industry certainly uses incentives to promote over-consumption.
    The best "disincentive" is education through a variety of means, but it's not a good idea to fight propaganda with more propaganda and by passing laws. Aside from freedom issues, the approach is costly and ineffective. 

    What people forget when they get on a banning-bandwagon is that they decided to adopt a certain lifestyle choice without there being a law against it. The premise is that other people are not "smart enough" to do likewise. But if that's the case those people will continue to obtain the product through the black market or simply switch to something else that's harmful---example from soft drinks to processed fruit juice.

    The general public needs centralized protection from things they have no control over---pathogens and carcinogens above certain concentrations in water and food and hardened and white collar criminals. 
    "German corporations did very well under the fascist regime."

    I'm baffled as to how this proves that Nazism was a capitalist ideology.