I do not eat much junk food. I haven’t since 1949. In that year, I was put on a rigorous diet by America’s first nutrition physician, Francis Pottenger. I was 7 years old. He got me well. He took me off white bread, refined sugar, and anything resembling junk food. I got well in 18 months. I have stayed well.
To stay healthy, you must say “no” to lots of good-tasting food. Millions of Americans know this. That’s why we call junk food, “junk food.”
Whose job is it to see to it that Americans do not eat too much junk food? Americans.
Self-control. What a concept!
Americans are way overweight, we are told. Yet the Bible praises fat. Go to an electronic Bible site and search for “fat.” You will see what I mean. But America’s health nannies don’t believe this.
We are told that there is an epidemic of obesity in America. But when the TV camera crews go on the street to find obese people, they have to wait for hours to get their quota of waddling, headless, obese people.
If there is an obesity “epidemic,” why can’t we see it? Why are most people well within the biblical definition of fat?
Because the nanny state never sleeps.
To generate an epidemic of obesity, the nanny state re-defined obesity. The government did this in 1998. The change got little publicity, but there were a few articles in the mainstream media. The National Institutes of health issued a press release on June 17. It announced a remarkable event: a co-ordinated (by whom?) breakthrough in science.
The first Federal guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults were released today by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), in cooperation with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK).
These clinical practice guidelines are designed to help physicians in their care of overweight and obesity, a growing public health problem that affects 97 million American adults — 55 percent of the population.
These individuals are at increased risk of illness from hypertension, lipid disorders, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis, sleep apnea and respiratory problems, and certain cancers. The total costs attributable to obesity-related disease approaches $100 billion annually.
“Overweight and obesity pose a major public health challenge. The development of these guidelines was a pioneering achievement since they were the first ever developed by the Institute using an evidence-based model and methodology,” said NHLBI Director Dr. Claude Lenfant. “This report will be an invaluable clinical tool for any health care professional who works with overweight or obese patients,” he added.
The guidelines are based on the most extensive review of the scientific evidence on overweight and obesity conducted to date. The review involved a systematic analysis of the published scientific literature to address 35 key clinical questions on how different treatment strategies affect weight loss and how weight control affects the major risk factors for heart disease and stroke as well as other chronic diseases and conditions.
The guidelines present a new approach for the assessment of overweight and obesity and establish principles of safe and effective weight loss. According to the guidelines, assessment of overweight involves evaluation of three key measures–body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and a patient’s risk factors for diseases and conditions associated with obesity.
Presto! The nanny state had received justification from “science” to launch a propaganda war against Americans who enjoy eating.
For an article on the 1999 response of the food industry to this propaganda campaign, click this link. You will read a recent New York Times report on a meeting of the industry that year. It sounds so sinister.
What did this cabal conclude? This: “If Americans like junk food, we should sell it to them.”
I am shocked. Shocked!
The report of course focuses on children. Something must be done to save the children.
I ask: Who should do this? If parents are not the proper legal authorities to do this, then who is? The Times does not say. We must read between the lines.
What follows is a series of small case studies of a handful of characters whose work then, and perspective now, sheds light on how the foods are created and sold to people who, while not powerless, are extremely vulnerable to the intensity of these companies’ industrial formulations and selling campaigns.
Think of this article as food for thought. Liberal junk food for thought.