March 15 2014
The US federal dietary guidelines have been updated every 5 years since 1990. In 2015, the committee plans to meet to change the current federal food guidelines. The new members of the committee are climatologists who are looking for “stabilization” of the planet’s climate. The new members are proponents of a new government doctrine aimed at creating a universal food policy and social change.
The federal dietary guidelines don’t tell the whole truth. Since the 90s, the federal government has tried to advise Americans on how and what to eat. While these recommendations were promoted with good intentions, they became a loophole for vested interests, especially in the biotechnology, chemical and dairy industries.
The guidelines provide basic knowledge, some of which is misleading. This includes recommendations for grains, which are usually offered as GMOs with artificial ingredients. Pasteurized cow’s milk is devoid of enzymes and replete with growth hormones.
There is not a single mention in the recommendations of foods that promote health, such as eleutherococcus or ginseng root, which normalize the functioning of the endocrine system. There is not a single mention of anticancer, anti-inflammatory foods such as turmeric and ginger. However, these government directives are the main reference point for American culture and guide assistance programs such as supplemental food (food rations), school meals, agricultural marketing and research programs, US military food allowances, and guidelines for nutrition in foster care.
The committee will voice the link between nutrition and climate change and call on the government to “change” policy. In 2015, for the first time, a group of advocates for the vegetarian lifestyle and its importance to the health of Americans may appear on the committee. But the new guidelines won’t promote vegetarianism as a healthy choice. The guidelines will appeal more to climate change and the need to stabilize it.
On top of that, the new guidelines probably don’t mention the presence of dangerous levels of pesticides, antibiotics and genetically modified ingredients in the food supply sector. Keith Clancy, a food system consultant and senior fellow at the Institute for Sustainable Agriculture at the University of Minnesota, advocates that Americans should go vegan to slow climate change.
“After 30 years of waiting, the fact that the committee is working on sustainable development issues gives me a lot of pleasure,” says new member of the committee, Dr. Miriam Nelson. She believes that reducing meat consumption will reduce the carbon footprint of Americans.
The committee’s comments indicate that the new guidelines will advocate climate change stabilization rather than provide real education on the specific components of health and the need for proper digestion. The current guidance does not include mention of the need for vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and essential fatty acids, as well as the importance of probiotics and enzymes in the functioning of the digestive system.
The new committee is not focused on education. In fact, the vice chair of the committee, Alice Lichtenstein, is mainly focusing on changing people’s eating habits through government policy. She is a fan of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on sweetened sodas, touting the plan as “social change” that will help transform people’s behaviour. This plan ultimately caused public outrage.
Does the government know what is best for your health? Does government policy take into account what is best for each individual? Apparently, the power of taxation is not able to force people to change their behavior. Can laws and government policies really force people to become vegetarians, or is the government more concerned with global temperature changes? How can the government force people to eat foods that are not really healthy? How does the government use public policy to spread knowledge about anti-cancer products and herbs?
Information about superfoods like spirulina isn’t even included in federal nutrition guidelines. Spirulina is one of the richest sources of vegetable protein and micronutrients on the planet. There is also a lack of information about the potential of hemp as a source of energy, food, medicine and building materials. Are government policies guided by what is best for your health? Or is the new taxation policy dictated by anything but this?