Michelle Obama's Food Police Take on Global Warming

That means less food and more expensive food


The political establishment of the Eastern Rome was consumed in complex rhetoric — what historians would later call “Byzantine debate.” Just days before the city fell to the Islamic armies that were surrounding its walls, a rabid debate was splitting the lawmakers and their respective intellectuals. "What is the sex of the angels? Are they males or females?"

Fortunately we are a far more rational people. We focus on issues of genuinely serious importance. Like how to build nutritional food guidelines to include Global Warming.

At a closed-door meeting Friday, administration officials and their advisers will plot to insert the global warming agenda into dietary guidelines mandated by Congress.

The Agriculture and Health and Human Services departments are updating the guidelines for publication next year.

By favoring foods activists think have a smaller carbon footprint, the new guidelines will increase the prices you pay for what you eat. It will also increase the cost to all taxpayers, since the dietary guidelines are used to set policy for food stamps and military diets.

For the first time, “sustainability” is part of the agenda in drafting the guidelines. Other agenda items include “immigration,” “global climate change” and “agriculture/aquaculture sustainability.”

At a January meeting, committee member Miriam Nelson emphasized the importance of addressing “sustainability” of food to make sure it has the “littlest impact on the environment.”

Kate Clancy, a visiting scholar at the Center for a Livable Future in the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, was invited to advise the committee at a recent meeting and warned that it would be “perilous” not to take into account global warming.

So now it turns out that diet is just a front for the same old environmental activism. That means less food, more expensive food and more food bureaucracy.

Is there any chance Michelle Obama would consider switching her focus over to debating the gender of angels? It would be just as pointless and a lot less harmless.