Several readers sent me links to articles about The Guy From CSPI suing McDonald’s for offering toys with Happy Meals.  My wife also left a copy of a newspaper article about the lawsuit on my desk this morning, perhaps hoping she’d see me do a spit-take with my coffee.  I was of course planning to write a post on the topic, but decided to create a video instead.

p.s. — Our internet was down for a good chunk of the day.  Turned out a connection outside the house was damaged by the snow and 15-degree nights we’ve had lately.  Sorry for the delay in responding to comments.

A friend of mine sent me a PDF of an academic paper that will soon be published in the American Economic Journal. The paper, titled Restaurants, Regulation and the Super-sizing of America asks the question:  Are restaurants to blame for the rise in obesity? The answer, not surprisingly, is No.  Or as the authors wrote in their conclusions:

Our findings indicate that the causal link between the consumption of restaurant foods and obesity is minimal at best.

Restaurants have become a convenient whipping-boy for government busybodies who are driven by the urge to do something! whenever they see a problem. San Francisco banned Happy Meals. Los Angeles banned the opening of new fast-food restaurants on the city’s south side. The health-care “reform” bill will require all restaurants with more than 20 outlets to put calorie counts on menus … never mind the fact that we got fatter after nutrition information was mandated on all packaged foods. Some government goofs in Mississippi even proposed barring people with a BMI of over 30 from eating in restaurants. (I sure wish they’d try that right around the time some big fellas from All-Star Wrestling come to town. The violence would be real for a change.)

The trouble with all of these attempts at leanness-through-legislation (besides the shredding of individual freedom in a supposedly free country) is that there’s no evidence they’ll actually work. If restaurants aren’t the problem, then we’re shooting at the wrong target. If restaurants are the problem, then someone should be able to prove that restaurants induce overeating long-term, as opposed to during a single meal.

To examine the effects of restaurants on over-eating and obesity, the authors of this study compared food-intake and BMI data among rural communities with either a relatively high or relatively low availability of restaurants. The BMI curve for both kinds of communities was virtually identical. Apparently having a bit of fun with math, the authors calculated that for each extra mile to the nearest restaurant, the average BMI decreased by a whopping 0.0013 points.

Well, there you have it. If the government do-gooders could simply require that all restaurants be located at least 3,846 miles from the nearest town, our average BMI would drop by five points and the obesity crisis would be solved … although those “Let’s go to White Castle and get some sliders!” inspirations at three in the morning would require a passport in some states.

Of course, you could argue that distance doesn’t have much to do with how often people eat in restaurants. (In which case, the old adage about “Location, location, location!” doesn’t hold water … or soda.) However, using a series of surveys, the authors calculated that people who live near restaurants do, in fact, eat out more often. In towns located within five miles of a restaurant, residents average 128 daily restaurant visits per 1000 people. In towns located between five and 10 miles from the nearest restaurant, the rate drops by half.

Having a restaurant located within the same town makes an even bigger difference: In towns with at least one fast-food restaurant, residents average 127 daily fast-food meals per 1000 people. In towns without a fast-food restaurant, residents average just 39 daily fast-food meals per 1000 people.

If restaurants are making people obese, then the populations who live near restaurants and therefore eat in restaurants more frequently should be fatter. But they’re not. As I pointed out when the Los Angeles city council banned new fast-food restaurants on the south side — a poor area with a high rate of obesity — it apparently didn’t occur to the do-gooders to check out other areas of the city. If they had, they would’ve found that there are more fast-food restaurants per square mile on the oh-so-stylish west side. Since the rate of obesity is also much lower there, nobody dared suggest all those burger and taco joints might be making people fat.

The do-gooders blame restaurants for obesity because of a simple observation: restaurant meals are usually bigger than the meals we eat at home. Duh … that’s one of the reasons I eat in restaurants. I’m not going to dress up, stand by the door tapping my foot while my wife finishes dressing and applying makeup, pay a baby-sitter $30, drive several miles, park, give the hostess my name, take a little buzzy-blinking-light thing from her, stand outside and wait for it to blink and buzz, then finally take a seat at a table … all for the sheer joy of eating a small piece of steamed fish and a salad with lemon juice. When I go out, I eat a big meal.

But then I do the same thing that most people do, according to the study’s authors: I eat less later. I don’t eat less later because I’m disciplined; I eat less because my body tells me it really doesn’t care for another big meal right now, thank you very much. Now, that may be partly because when I eat in a restaurant, I don’t stuff myself with sugar and starch. But I don’t stuff myself with sugar and starch at home, either. By the same token, people who go carb-crazy in restaurants probably go carb-crazy at home too.

The point is, our appetites are controlled by our metabolisms, not by McDonald’s. The authors found that within individual communities, people who eat frequently in restaurants do, in fact, consume more daily calories on average and are fatter on average. But they don’t have big appetites because they eat at restaurants more often; they eat at restaurants more often because they have big appetites.

When the authors looked at data on how many calories individuals consume day-to-day, they found almost no difference between the days that included a restaurant meal and the days that didn’t — just 35 extra calories on days that included a restaurant meal, whether we’re talking about fat people or thin people. In other words, yes, when there are restaurants nearby, the obese are more likely to eat in those restaurants and stuff themselves — but take away the restaurants, and they just stuff themselves at home:

When eating at home, obese individuals consume almost 30 percent of their calories in the form of “junk food” (ice cream, processed cheese, bacon, baked sweets, crackers, potato chips and fries, candies, soft drinks, and beer). Because obese individuals consume so many calories from nutritionally deficient sources at home, it may not be surprising that replacing restaurant consumption with home consumption does not improve health, as measured by BMI.

(Take the word “bacon” out of that paragraph, and it would be perfect.)

So as usual, the government do-gooders (not to mention Morgan Spurlock) have the cause and effect backwards. We didn’t develop perverted appetites because of super-sized restaurant meals. Our appetites were perverted first, and then super-sized meals came along to match them. Order the restaurants to serve lower-calorie meals — as some government goofs in the U.K. proposed — and the fat people will just go home afterwards and open the pint of Chunky Monkey.

Picking on the restaurants is a waste of time and effort. The do-gooders can pass every law their little fascist hearts desire, and it won’t solve the obesity problem. There’s just no evidence that restaurants are the cause — not that I’d expect the do-gooders to care one way or another.  As the study authors noted:

Many policymakers and public-health advocates design policies intended to reduce the impact of restaurants on obesity, even while they acknowledge that convincing evidence of such a link has proven to be elusive. For example, the Food and Drug Administration recently organized a forum in which participants proposed solutions to the challenge of obesity in the context of away-from-home foods, even while the organizers cautioned that “there does not exist a conclusive body of evidence establishing a causal link between the availability or consumption of away-from-home foods and obesity.”

Anyone want to bet me that the lack of a “conclusive body of evidence” will convince those public-health advocates to stop proposing stupid laws to save us from ourselves?

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C.S. Lewis.

Government solutions to obesity and other health issues continue to spring up everywhere. San Francisco followed through on its threat to outlaw Happy Meal toys, as I recounted in a previous post. Several states have ordered restaurants to post calorie counts on their menus. Mayor Bloomberg in New York wants to tell food manufacturers how much sodium their products can contain. And now the city council in Cincinnati is considering ordering restaurants to “go vegetarian!” on Mondays.

Cincinnati’s Food Task Force has proposed instituting “Meatless Mondays” in Cincinnati, and forcing restaurants to offer dishes that don’t contain meat.

“Everybody cares about their health, health of their children. It’s an invitation to try something new once a week,” said Meghan Burke, a member of the task force.

An invitation?! What a lovely euphemism.

Ms. Burke, when you pass a law, it’s not an invitation; it’s a government mandate. And like all government mandates, it will be enforced with the threat of violence — that’s what “enforced” means. If you don’t believe me, ignore a government mandate sometime. When the government levies a fine for noncompliance, call the department in charge and tell them to piss off. Eventually, uniformed people with guns will show up at your door. This is no more of an “invitation” than a tax bill from the IRS is an “invitation” to donate to the treasury. What kind of nut-case could possibly see it any other way?

Burke is also co-owner of the vegan restaurant Loving Hut.

Oh, thaaaaat kind of nut-case. Now I get it. So Ms. Burke is proposing a law that would just happen to benefit the business she owns. Man, it’s inspiring to watch government officials serve the public so selflessly.

She said healthier food is better for the environment. “If people cut out meat once a week, it’s the equivalent of taking thousands of cars off of the street,” Burke said.

The idea that eating meat contributes to excess greenhouse emissions is vegan poppycock, of course, as explained recently by a columnist for the Guardian. Lierre Keith also did a bang-up job in The Vegetarian Myth of showing how it’s mono-crop farming that’s destroying the planet, not raising livestock.

But I agree with Ms. Burke that forcing Cincinnati restaurants to go vegetarian on Mondays will probably remove thousands of cars from the street … because restaurant patrons will stay home and grill their own steaks and burgers. Or it could produce exactly the opposite outcome:

“Yes, I’d like the prime rib, and my wife will have the New York Strip.”

“I’m sorry, sir. We can only serve vegetarian meals on Mondays.”

“What?! Says who?”

“The city council.”

“I see. Well, how far is the nearest city that isn’t run by dimwits?”

“About 17 miles.”

“And they have restaurants there?”

“Yes.”

“Bye.”

Either way, the restaurants in Cincinnati are going to lose business if this law passes — except for Ms. Burke’s, of course. Some hard-working entrepreneurs will take a financial hit, which means some employees could lose their jobs — but hey, that’s okay, as long as the people in government believe they might, perhaps, just maybe persuade a few people to eat what they believe are more nutritious foods.

A few vegans who showed up on this blog to comment on previous posts accused me of being hostile towards vegetarians. Not true. If people choose not to eat meat, I don’t really care. But I definitely feel hostile towards people who try to impose their dietary preferences on others, and wouldn’t ya know it,  every time a law like this comes around, there are vegan nut-cases behind it. (Have you ever heard of meat-eaters trying to force restaurants to serving nothing but steaks, ribs and chops once per week?)

I’m thoroughly convinced wheat is one of the worst foods you can eat. I can cite evidence that wheat and other grains are a factor in obesity, heart disease, diabetes, schizophrenia and a host of auto-immune disorders. But just imagine the reaction in the vegan community if I convinced the Nashville city council to mandate Wheatless Wednesdays. I’m pretty sure the vegans would shake their little fists and stamp their little feet so hard, they’d split the heels on their Birkenstocks.

Of course, I’d also oppose Wheatless Wednesdays. Call me crazy, but I believe that in a (supposedly) free country, governments should not be allowed to prohibit adults from making voluntary exchanges unless there’s one heck of a compelling reason. And by compelling, I mean actual proof that we’re preventing actual harm that people can’t voluntarily avoid … not “it would be a good idea if people did this” or “we’re rather people didn’t do that” or “we think maybe this will work.”

If Cincinnati is going to mandate Meatless Mondays in restaurants, the city council should be required to produce solid, indisputable evidence that the law will lead to a healthier, leaner, happier citizenry — and even then, the law would merely be an outrage, as opposed to an outrage perpetrated by misinformed imbeciles. (Or as Curly Howard might would put it, intelligent imbeciles … nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.)

If San Francisco is going to ban Happy Meal toys — thus preventing supposedly free adults in a supposedly free country from making decisions for their kids — they should be required to justify that ban with solid, indisputable evidence that:

• Happy Meals toys cause kids to eat at McDonald’s more frequently than they would otherwise
• Eating frequently at McDonald’s causes kids who would otherwise remain lean to become obese
• Outlawing Happy Meals toys will discourage kids from eating at McDonald’s
• Kids who would otherwise become obese remain lean if they are discouraged from eating at McDonald’s

For the Happy-Meal ban to actually do any good, all four of those conditions would have to be true. But of course, the do-gooder dimwits running San Francisco can’t prove that all four conditions are true. They can’t prove that any one of them is true.

But for big-government dimwits, proof of an actual benefit isn’t a necessary condition before taking away basic freedoms. All that’s necessary is for them to believe they know what’s best for us. As Milton Friedman replied when he was asked why so many intellectuals favor big-government authoritarianism, “It’s not the smart people who are dangerous. It’s the people who think they’re smarter than everyone else.”

I suppose I should be grateful to the San Francisco city council for reminding me that leaving California was the smartest move I ever made. The state is run by do-gooder dimwits, apparently because a majority of voters share the same do-gooder dimwit ideas. If The Guy From CSPI lived in California, he could probably be elected to the U.S. senate.

As you know, I’m a huge fan of Dr. Malcolm Kendrick’s book The Great Cholesterol Con, partly because he shreds the Lipid Hypothesis, and partly because he’s a brilliant writer … clear, direct, logical and laugh-out-loud funny, all at the same time. It’s a rare treat to be educated and amused at the same time.

Dr. Kendrick recently sent me an email (including the C.S. Lewis quote at the top of this post) in which he explained the progression from good intentions to outright authoritarianism in government health policies. He’s threatened to expand on the topic in a book someday, and I hope he does. But in the meantime, with his permission, here’s part of what he wrote:

——————————————————————————-

We carry on forever. We give drugs to the terminally ill, the extremely old and severely demented. Once started we never, ever, stop, no matter what, until the patient is dead. Perhaps we should scatter statins on their ashes, just to make absolutely and completely certain that we aren’t missing a trick. After all, I would hate be thought of as ‘deadist’.

And what, exactly, does this prove – you may well ask.

It proves that the activity we call preventative medicine is no longer a rational activity, if it ever was. It is something else completely. Quite what it is, I am not entirely sure anymore. On one level it is an honest attempt to help people live longer and healthier lives. Hopefully, happier lives too.

But on other levels it has become hijacked by rather more sinister forces and desires. The desire that always seems to end up in the driving seat, unfortunately, is the deep-seated authoritarian desire to control other people. So what starts as concern and advice evolves, with wearisome inevitability, into laws and punishment.

Essentially, preventative medicine travels through the following stages:

Stage 1: Something is identified as being harmful to health e.g. smoking, drinking, boxing, eating crisps
Stage 2: Doctors raise awareness of this harmful thing
Stage 3: Education begins
Stage 4: Nothing much happens
Stage 5: Three parallel activities then occur
(i): Doctors begin to lobby the Government to take action
(ii): Advertising starts against the harmful thing
(iii): The harmful thing is chastised as being immoral/damaging to as wide a population as possible – especially children
Stage 6: A law is passed restricting the harmful thing
Stage 7: More laws are passed further restricting the harmful thing
Stage 8: The harmful thing is completely outlawed/banned

The full progression is not absolutely certain, and can sometimes move backwards. Drinking alcohol, for example has been made illegal at various times in several countries, with prohibition in the USA being the most famous example. However, the US moved back, by repealing prohibition, as did Finland, Sweden, and a few other countries. Which means that the process of preventative medicine can undergo some degree of reversal. Usually from stage 8, back to stage 7.

Having said this, things rarely reverse very far. Alcohol consumption is still very tightly regulated in most countries with law after law passed to control it, ban it and tax it. It seems very unlikely that drinking alcohol will move much further back than Stage 7 any time soon.

Other activities, despite repeated attempts, have not been completely banned yet. Smoking and boxing spring to mind. However, I can’t see this situation lasting much longer. They have both reached stage 7, and the pressure to move towards a complete ban is pretty unrelenting.

Of course, preventative medicine is not just about stopping people from doing things. The other side of the preventative coin is about things deemed to be good for you. For example, exercising, or eating five portions of fruit and vegetables, or drinking water that has had fluoride added to it.

As with banning, once something has been decreed to be a ‘good thing’ the process of ensuring that it becomes mandatory (or as close to mandatory as possible) begins. Essentially, this is the same process as banning, in reverse:

Stage 1: Something is identified as being good for health, e.g. water fluoridation, vaccination, eating fruit and vegetables
Stage 2: Doctors raise awareness of this good thing
Stage 3: Education begins
Stage 4: Nothing much happens
Stage 5: Three parallel activities then occur
(i): Doctors begin to lobby the Government to take action
(ii): Advertising starts in support of the beneficial thing
(iii): The beneficial thing is promoted as being beneficial to as wide a population as possible
Stage 6: A law is passed making the ‘good thing’ mandatory for some people
Stage 7: More laws are passed making the ‘good thing’ mandatory in a wider population
Stage 8: The activity is imposed/enforced on everyone

And so it goes.

———————————————————————————–

Looking forward to that book, Dr. Kendrick.

The end of freedom to make your own diet and health decisions won’t begin with snarling, jack-booted thugs showing up at your door. It will begin with smiling, sincere people in government telling you, “We’re only trying to help you.” And they’ve already started.

p.s. – speaking of thugs, you may want to read about the TSA airport screeners on my other blog.

Perhaps all the government do-gooders around the country should get together and figure out how to just outlaw McDonald’s completely.  Just get it over with, once and for all.

Because if there were no McDonald’s, ya see, there would be no obesity epidemic.  As everyone knows, all fat people in America were seduced by Happy Meals during childhood and now consume virtually all their meals at McDonald’s.  Take away those evil golden arches, and the fat people will finally base their diets on whole grains, lean meats, fruits and vegetables.  No more obesity.

At least that scenario seems to fit the belief system of city officials in San Francisco, who are considering yet another brilliant government solution to the obesity epidemic:

A proposed city ordinance would require the giant hamburger chain to either stop putting little toys for kids in those Happy Meal boxes, or otherwise make them healthier by adding fruit and vegetable portions and limiting calories.

Supervisor Eric Mar said in proposing the law that he was trying to protect the health of his constituents.

Well, gee whiz, if Supervisor Mar is trying to protect people, that should be all the justification he needs to strip a business of the right to freely sell products that other people freely choose to buy.  If you’re a government official, good intentions are all that count.  We can’t go around expecting governments to provide something like proof that their attempts at social engineering will actually produce benefits.

On second thought, scratch that.  I don’t care if they do provide proof.  I don’t care if Supervisor Mar can produce a hundred well-designed studies concluding that ordering McDonald’s to change its menu would lead to better public health.  That’s not the point.  I’m 99 % certain we could cure obesity in America by tossing all the fat people into prison camps and feeding them nothing but lean meats and green vegetables.  Despite the health benefits, I’d still be against the program.

McDonald’s vice president for nutrition and menu strategy, Karen Wells, said that “denying a toy to a child” would undermine the authority of parents to decide what their children should eat and would also be “difficult…to execute at our restaurants.”

“It’s different from what we’re doing today and different from what we’ve done for 25 years, successfully,” said Wells.

Responded Supervisor Sophie Maxwell in an exasperated voice, “Just because it’s different does not make it necessarily difficult. I mean, McDonald’s is an amazing institution. It’s been around for many years … because it’s able to change and to adapt to new circumstances and new things that people are eating so I think I have a lot more confidence in McDonald’s, I guess, than you do.”

Ohhh, snap!  Your confidence in McDonald’s ability to adapt to creeping fascism is truly inspiring, Comrade Maxwell.  But once again, you’re missing the point.  It’s not up to you to decide what’s good for my kids.  It’s also not up to you decide what would or would not be difficult for McDonald’s to implement.  Believe it or not, the people who run a business usually understand how it works better than civil servants do — even if the very idea causes you speak in an exasperated voice.

I realize being ignorant of how business works was probably a pre-requisite for your position, but perhaps you’re still capable of grasping this concept:  McDonald’s can’t sell anything that people don’t want.  That’s why the McLean burger was a colossal flop.  The McCarrots and the McBroccoli won’t fare any better.

The proposed Happy Meal deal is just the latest in a string of San Francisco ordinances aimed at regulating public health.

Which is why I will never visit the place again. I might accidentally provide these bozos with some tax revenue.

“Local politicians, especially liberal and progressive ones, tend to focus on individual lifestyle issues because they are consistent with liberal or progressive goals, yet do not require large scale government effort and resource mobilization,” said Jason McDaniel, a political science professor at San Francisco State University.

Allow me to put that in normal-person English:  “When we vote to replace the authority of parents with the authority of the state, we like to call that an ‘individual lifestyle issue’ because it sounds like we support the rights of individuals even as we’re taking them way.  And when we say a program ‘doesn’t require large-scale government resource mobilization,’ it means we basically just order McDonald’s to cover the cost of implementing our ideas.  And the beauty of it is, if the program doesn’t actually accomplish anything, the taxpayers don’t get upset because we wasted McDonald’s money, not theirs.  That’s considered very progressive.”

Cynthia Goody, McDonald’s nutrition director, said there was no evidence that childhood obesity would be reduced by requiring a fruit or vegetable with all meals as well as a cap on calories, sodium and fats.

In response, a supervisor asked what mix of foods would lower childhood obesity. Goody said she would need to conduct more research to provide an answer.

Now there’s an interesting exchange …

“Tell us exactly what mix of foods we can order McDonald’s to serve that will solve the nationwide problem of childhood obesity.”

“Uh … uh … can I get back to you on that?”

“Well, okay, if you must.  But in that case, I also want you to tell us what mix of foods we can order you to serve that will improve academic scores in the nation’s public schools.”

San Francisco has a long history of bold public health stances and the latest string of laws is nothing new, according to Alex Clemens, founder of Barbary Coast Consulting, a local political communications firm.

Here’s how you know a reporter likes a new, intrusive goverment program:  he or she will describe it as “bold” or “historic.”  If the reporter doesn’t like a new form of government intrustion, the adjective will be “unprecedented.”

“San Francisco has a reputation – and it’s well deserved – of being a very progressive city … With that comes naturally, hand in hand, a reliance on government to encourage thoughtful change – that’s just tradition,” said Clemens, whose firm helped fight the fee on liquor distributors and wholesalers.

A reliance on government to encourage thoughtful change … I have to say, that is the nicest euphemism I’ve ever heard for “A few of us have some totally unproven ideas we want you to implement at your own expense, which of course you will do, or we’ll send in the guys with guns to give you some serious encouragement.”

“In San Francisco you do have an authentic conversation between the progressives and the moderates about how much social engineering is enough and how much is too much.”

Well, that’s just fabulous … when governments step in and take away my freedom to buy a toy for my girls at McDonald’s, I feel a lot better if I know someone engaged in an authentic conversation first.  I believe there’s a clause in the Bill of Rights that reads something like, “Governments may abridge any of these rights as long as they have good intentions and first engage in an authentic conversation.”

I started writing this post in the afternoon.  In the early evening, we drove my wife to the airport. (Her high-school reunion is this weekend.)  The girls wanted to stop at McDonald’s for dinner on the way, so we did.  They both got Happy Meals — with a toy.  As usual, they didn’t finish the meals.  Sara took two bites of her sandwich, then removed the bun and scraped away the ketchup and onions.  She ate the meat and the cheese, less than half an order of fries, and that’s it.

Government busy-bodies can mess with Happy Meals all they want; it’s not going to change how my girls eat day-to-day.  Same goes for the fat kids.

A writer for the New York Times recently put forth an interesting proposal:  engineering carnivores out of existence so animals in the wild won’t be killed by other animals.

Wherever there is animal life, predators are stalking, chasing, capturing, killing, and devouring their prey. Agonized suffering and violent death are ubiquitous and continuous.

If I had been in a position to design and create a world, I would have tried to arrange for all conscious individuals to be able to survive without tormenting and killing other conscious individuals. I hope most other people would have done the same.

After quoting the famous verses from Isaiah describing a heavenly future where the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down the kid, and the calf and the young lion will declare themselves best friends forever on Facebook, the writer lays out his own possible future here on earth:

To be entitled to regard ourselves as civilized, we must, like Isaiah’s morally reformed lion, eat straw like the ox, or at least the moral equivalent of straw.

If we could arrange the gradual extinction of carnivorous species, replacing them with new herbivorous ones, ought we to do it? Suppose that we could arrange the gradual extinction of carnivorous species, replacing them with new herbivorous ones. Or suppose that we could intervene genetically, so that currently carnivorous species would gradually evolve into herbivorous ones, thereby fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy. If we could bring about the end of predation by one or the other of these means at little cost to ourselves, ought we to do it?

To his credit, the writer admits engineering a world without predators could have unintended consequences, such as overpopulation among the herbivores, followed by starvation.  He also acknowledges that some nature-lovers would object to the intentional extinction of any species — even blood-thirsty carnivores.  But then he makes his crucial point:  when the good of the world is at stake, no single species is sacrosanct. If some must die off so others can live, so be it.

After reading the essay, I considered it for a long time — especially that last crucial point.  With my mental gears oiled by deep thinking, I soon came up with my own proposal for improving the world.

A Modest Proposal
by Tom Naughton

It is a melancholy sight to those who travel this great world to see the streets crowded with beggars, followed by three or four or six children all in rags.  Unable to work for an honest livelihood, they are forced to beg sustenance for their helpless infants who, as they grow up, either become thieves or leave home to fight for the current warlord.

I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of people has led to a deplorable destruction of the planet, as the need for producing an ever-greater food supply has taken its toll in the form of over-farming, over-fertilizing, and over-irrigating; and therefore whoever could find a cheap and easy method of either reducing the worldwide requirement for food, or increasing the supply without further environmental damage, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up as Preserver of the Planet.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope shall meet with the least objection.

The number of souls currently living in this country is said to be 300 million, of which I calculate there are about 21 million vegetarians.  While it is claimed by health experts that this group is leaner than others, even the most conservative estimates put the average weight of an adult vegetarian at well over 130 pounds.

I have been assured by a very knowing explorer that a healthy vegetarian is a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked or boiled; and I make no doubt that one will equally serve in a fricassee or stir-fry.  Therefore I offer, for public consideration, that is time for the carnivorous people of the planet to consume the vegetarians for sustenance.

The advantages of the proposal are obvious and many, and of the highest importance.

Firstly, it would greatly lessen the number of Plantists, with whom we are currently overrun.  As anyone who produces written works centered on carbohydrate restriction or Paleolithic nutrition can attest, Plantists are our most self-righteous and hostile enemies, constantly showing up unannounced and uninvited, and plotting to take over through devious and dishonest methods of conversion.  With the institution of my proposal, carnivores could defend against attacks upon their dietary choices by replying, “Those are some interesting theories, but require further explanation.  Please stop by this address tomorrow evening, and I’ll have you for dinner.”

Secondly, it would ease the strain on the world’s scarce resources through both direct and indirect reductions in the population.  The direct reduction would occur as the result of re-purposing vegetarians as steaks, chops, hams, filets, and other protein-rich meals.  The indirect reduction would occur for the simple reason that vegetarians are disproportionately represented among those who are young and passionate, and therefore prone to reproduce.  A direct reduction by two now could therefore result in an indirect reduction of 16 or 20 over subsequent decades.

Thirdly, it would greatly reduce the economic barriers to providing a high-quality, protein-rich diet for the masses.  Plantists have frequently criticized the resources used and expenses incurred in raising cattle for beef.  By contrast, vegetarians would provide the unique advantage of raising themselves, at their own expense, until they are ready for consumption.  Thus they would reduce the cost of meals for carnivores both by providing an inexpensive source of complete protein, and by reducing the overall demand, and therefore the price, for beef, chicken, and pork.  A surplus of those products would likely follow, which would encourage producers in the United States to offer them as cheap exports to starving people overseas.

Fourthly, it would reduce unemployment by regularly removing a significant portion of the adult workforce from the population, and by encouraging carnivores to hire vegetarians for domestic positions, albeit on a temporary basis.

Fifthly, it would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by creating an ever-growing supply of inexpensive, pre-owned hybrid automobiles, such as the Prius and Smart Car.

Sixthly, it would provide a renewed source of entertainment to the sporting classes.  In regions where the deer, quail, and pheasant populations have dwindled, the hunting grounds could be re-stocked annually with vegetarians.

Seventhly, and most importantly, it would lead to an improvement in the nation’s overall health, with a concomitant reduction in medical costs.  Plantists have pointed out for years that vegetarians are the healthiest people in the world because of their exclusively plant-based diets.  By extension, vegetarians themselves would also make some of the most nutritious meals.  Carnivores who refuse to give up fatty meats and eat their vegetables would likely relish the opportunity to eat low-fat, low-cholesterol vegetarians as an alternative.  Instead of guiltily avoiding eye contact with the vegetarian section of restaurant menus, they would eagerly seek out the latest creations, such as Sam Chowder, Eggs with Benedict, McDougall with Cheese, Oz and Onion Omelet, Vegetarian Liver with Fava Beans and a Nice Chianti, or (sure to be a hit) T. Colin Campbell soup.

I am aware that some will raise objections to this proposal; the most likely being that consuming vegetarians for food is immoral.  This has already been refuted by an influential and highly intellectual writer the New York Times, who pointed out that when the good of the planet is at stake, no species is sacrosanct.  It has also been refuted by the most passionate Plantists themselves, who have stated countless times that a pig, a frog and a boy are metaphysically equal.  If you ask a sincere Plantist, “I’m going to broil either you or that pig over there … do you have an opinion about that?” the only honest answer could be, “Morally, it doesn’t make any difference.”

Another objection I anticipate is that it would be unfair to consume only the vegetarians among us.  This objection, however, is flawed on two counts.  Firstly, since the Plantists have spent so many years explaining that humans who eat meat are polluting their bodies, carnivorous humans cannot possibly be fit for human consumption.  Secondly, no matter how nutritious a food may be, it will never become a significant part of the nation’s diet unless it is palatable.  As countless bumper-stickers have informed us, vegetarians taste better.

In closing, I profess that I bear no animosity towards vegetarians, and have no personal interest in promoting this proposal.  My only concern is for the good of the public and the planet.

I was disappointed to learn that my home state of Tennessee is jumping on the “government must prevent obesity” bandwagon by instituting a new program called Eat Well, Play More Tennessee. 

The title pretty much says it all:  the state is going to tell us what to eat and encourage us to exercise more.  Man, it’s inspiring to see government officials thinking outside the box.

The program’s home page states This plan is closely associated with the Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity Program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  I’m guessing “closely associated” means the state program is funded by a federal grant.  It may even part of the “stimulus” package or the health-care “reform” bill … hard to say, since nobody in Congress actually read either one.

If the funding didn’t come from the feds, the advice certainly does.  One of the documents featured on the site is a list of anti-obesity strategies produced by the CDC.  Here’s a paragraph from the Methods section:

The Measures Project Team completed a full review of 94 articles and seven seminal documents, resulting in the identification of 791 potential obesity prevention strategies. Similar and overlapping strategies were collapsed, resulting in a final total of 179 environmental or policy-level strategies for obesity prevention.

Well, that boosts my confidence already.  If the CDC is promoting 179 separate anti-obesity strategies, there’s an outside chance one of them might work.  The trouble with offering a simple solution (such as admitting that sugar and refined carbohydrates are fattening and ceasing to subsidize them) is that if it fails, you don’t have 178 back-up plans.

Another document featured on the site is the Surgeon General’s Vision For a Healthy and Fit Nation.  This one is also full of bold new strategies, such as:

• Choose low-fat foods
• Eat more whole grains
• Become more physically active

The Surgeon General’s report opens by explaining that while obesity rates were low and stable during the 1960s and 1970s, they began to skyrocket over the next two decades.  I can’t help but wonder if the committee members who produce these reports ever engage in conversations along the lines of:

“In closing, Mr. Chairman, the data demonstrates that obesity began to rise around 1980.”

“I see.  And what can we do about it?”

“We recommend implementing programs to convince the public to consume less fat and more whole grains.”

“And this is a new strategy?”

“No.  We put it in place around 1980.”

Naturally, the new state program calls for getting the schools involved.  The recommendations include placing a nutrition counselor at every school and requiring teachers to take nutrition classes.

I can see how that will make a big difference.  Look at the current situation: kids leave the classroom for the school cafeteria, where they’re served meals dictated by federal guidelines … teeny portions of protein with sides of mashed potatoes, noodles, rolls, peaches in syrup, and boxes of apple juice.  Amazingly, those foods haven’t produced thinner kids.

After years of research, the state pinpointed the reason:  the teachers don’t understand why kids need mashed potatoes, noodles, rolls, peaches in syrup, and boxes of apple juice.  Educate the classroom teachers, and the federal guidelines enforced in the cafeterias will finally work.

Germany, perhaps not surprisingly, is considering a somewhat more punitive means of dealing with fat people:  slap higher taxes on them:

Marco Wanderwitz, a conservative member of parliament for the German state of Saxony, said it is unfair and unsustainable for the taxpayer to carry the entire cost of treating obesity-related illnesses in the public health system.

“I think that it would be sensible if those who deliberately lead unhealthy lives would be held financially accountable for that,” Wanderwitz said, according to Reuters.

It’s nice to know the deep thoughts of MeMe Roth are finally gaining a following in Europe.

Others are suggesting even more extreme measures.  The German teachers association recently called for school kids to be weighed each day, The Daily Telegraph said.  The fat kids could then be reported to social services, who could send them to health clinics.

Given the country’s history, let’s hope sending the inferior people off to “clinics” strikes most Germans as a very bad idea.

The state of Michigan helped its citizens to become leaner and healthier this year, too.  How?  By encouraging them to give up meat for a day.  The resolution is fascinating; I’ve never heard vegan propaganda translated into legalese before:

Whereas, A wholesome diet of vegetables, fruits, and whole grains promotes good health and reduces the risk of heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, and other chronic diseases, which take the lives of approximately 1.3 million Americans each year; and,

Whereas, The number of those who choose to live the lifestyle of a vegan or vegetarian has increased and so has the availability and selection of meat and dairy alternatives in mainstream grocery stores, restaurants, and catering operations; and,

Whereas, Reducing the consumption of meat or not eating meat at all can significantly decrease the exposure to infectious pathogens such as salmonella, E. coli, and campylobacter, which take the lives of several thousand Americans and sicken millions more each year; and,

Whereas, The benefits of a plant-based diet can consist of increased energy levels, lower food budget costs, and simplified food preparation and cleanup; and,

Whereas, It is encouraged that the residents of this state get into the habit of healthy living by consuming a diet that is rich with vegetables, fruit, and whole grains, and by staying active;

Now, Therefore, be it Resolved, That I, Jennifer M. Granholm, governor of the state of Michigan, do hereby proclaim March 20, 2010, Michigan Meatout Day in Michigan. In observance of this day, I encourage the residents of this state to choose not to eat meat.

I love it.  It’s nearly as silly as the opening speech in Monty Python’s sketch The Royal Society For Putting Things On Top of Other Things.

Speaking of silly people across the pond, Scotland has decided it can cure obesity by ordering restaurants to serve smaller portions:

The SNP administration at Holyrood said it will ask chefs to reduce the calorific content of their meals, but warned legislation will follow if they fail to make “sufficient” progress.

The strategy argues an interventionist stance is required by the state because people will not sufficiently change their eating and exercise habits of their own free will.

Riiiiiight.  But if you force the restaurants to serve smaller meals, then people will lose weight.  I mean, it’s not as if they’ll go home and say, “Aaaacchhh!  That damned little meal!  Step aside, I’m fryin’ up a pan of chips.”

Shona Robison, Scottish public health minister, said: “No country in the world has successfully addressed obesity and we want Scotland to be the first.

Now that statement shows some amazing stupi–  uh … confidence.  No government in the world has successfully addressed obesity, but Shona Robinson has it all figured out.  And here I thought the obvious conclusion is that government anti-obesity plans don’t work.

Or perhaps government programs need a more direct approach, like the one suggested by an official in Britain:

Doctors should stop mincing their words and tell the overweight they are fat, the public health minister has said. Anne Milton called on the NHS to ban terms such as “obese” because they do not have the same emotional impact.

The former nurse said larger people were less likely to bother to try to lose weight if they were told they were obese or overweight than if the doctor was blunt and said they were “fat.”

Mrs Milton told the BBC that it was important people took “personal responsibility” for their lifestyles. Speaking in a personal capacity, the public health minister said: ‘If I look in the mirror and think I am obese I think I am less worried than if I think I am fat.’

“How’s my health, doctor?”

“I’m sorry to break this to you, but … well, you’re fat.”

“What?!  No way!  I looked in the mirror this morning.  I’m not fat; I’m just obese!”

“No, I’m sorry, but you’re fat.  Really, really, really fat.”

“I’ll be damned.  Now I feel personally responsible.”

By the way, the picture you see to the left is of Mrs. Milton.  Someone needs to tell her she’s fat.  She clearly hasn’t been informed.