Slate has an article on the growing ambitions of the food police wherein they realize that anybody in power begins to overreach. On how the left is now intruding in our lives:
We're what we were five or 10 years ago: skeptics and fact-mongers with a bias for personal freedom. It's the left that's turning conservative. Well, not conservative, but pushy. Weisberg put his finger on the underlying trend: "Because Democrats hold power at the moment, they face the greater peril of paternalistic overreaching." Today's morality cops are less interested in your bedroom than your refrigerator. They're more likely to berate you for outdoor smoking than for outdoor necking.
Welcome to the conversation guys!
He goes on to discuss the current topic of soda taxation. Aside from being the best example of why you don’t want a government run health option (that being he who pays for your body makes the rules for your body) and highlights a very scary slippery slope comment in a New England Journal of Medicine paper
No adverse health effects of noncaloric sweeteners have been consistently demonstrated, but there are concerns that diet beverages may increase calorie consumption by justifying consumption of other caloric foods or by promoting a preference for sweet tastes. At present, we do not propose taxing beverages with noncaloric sweeteners, but we recommend close tracking of studies to determine whether taxing might be justified in the future.
Excuse me? “Promoting a preference for sweet tastes”? This argument is basically that diet Coke is a gateway sweet which will lead to the hard stuff – caramels.
Normally I’d mock this and chalk it up to some wacky writer, but this was published in a well respected medical journal. That makes it evidence for the eventual hearing in front of the House UnFitness Committee.
(HT: The Agitator)