Thursday, June 12, 2014

Student Lunches Soon Could Be Influenced By Climate Change Concerns


THE ENVIRO-MOONBATS ARE ABOUT TO STAVE YOUR CHILDREN...AND YOUR LITTLE KITTEHS TOO

The Dietary Guidelines may soon be based on global warming as much as human nutrition.
Currently, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) is working on recommendations for the 2015 Guidelines. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will use the Committee’s recommendations to modify the Guidelines, which are updated every five years. Unfortunately, the DGAC has taken the Guidelines in a radical direction that has nothing to do with dietary health.
Make no mistake:  the Guidelines are influential. They are used to develop many federal nutritional programs, including school meal programs. If this environmental hijacking of the Guidelines is left unaddressed, the nutritional health of children, and the public generally, could be weighed against the political agenda of environmental special interests.
Dr. Barbara Millen, chair of the DGAC, remarked at their first meeting, “Overall, we want to be certain to make recommendations for a healthy, ecologically responsible diet.”
A subcommittee was even formed called the “Subcommittee on Food Sustainability and Safety.”  In a presentation, the subcommittee explained, “The goal is to develop dietary guidance that supports human health and the health of the planet over time.”

Human nutritional interests and political environmental agendas are completely unrelated.  Developing legitimate nutritional guidelines therefore becomes an impossible task.  For example, if the best nutritional advice recommends increasing meat consumption, but the extreme environmental agenda pushes for reducing meat consumption, it isn’t clear which objective would win out if the DGAC continues to operate under these misguided principles.  Although, given the DGAC’s actions and statements so far, the environmental objective would likely be very persuasive.

Read More At The Daily Signal

No comments: