Food Fights and Political Philosophy

Misinformation followed us like a plague.

   - Paul Simon, Peace Like a River

Two seemingly distinct issues about the food we eat demonstrate how the radical, minimalist approach to government espoused by the dangerous rightists adrift in the land cause direct harm to us, the eating public.The radical right would like even less government involvement in food safety and purity just at a time when we need more. Much, much more.

The first issue concerns the soft drink sugar tax working its way through New York State's Legislature. The second is a report from Pew Charitable Research that totals up the economic impact of food-borne diseases, a shocking $152 billion per year.

I came across this article in Advertising Age on Wednesday (March3). It clearly stakes out the positions of the Alliance For A Healthier New York (pro) and the American Beverage Association (con, surprise).

"Sugar-sweetened beverages play a significant role in New York's obesity epidemic," Lisa Altshuler said in a statement from the alliance. "This campaign is about sending a message that by adding a small excise tax on soda and other sugary drinks, we can reduce consumption of these empty calories and make real progress towards making all New Yorkers healthier."

The penny-per-ounce tax will be put against threatened health care cuts on the table due to the recession. Makes sense.

"New Yorkers aren't buying at all that this tax has anything to do with public health, nor that a penny of it will go to health programs," said Kevin Keane, senior VP-public affairs at the American Beverage Association. He goes on to contend that "People view it as an overreach when government uses the tax code to tell them what to eat or drink."

But what Mr. Keane is really arguing for is the rights of the industry he represents to continue to slowly and sadistically poison our children with sugar. No one needs reminding that the childhood obesity rate in the country is of epidemic proportions. The general rate for kids is about 15% and for poor children an astronomical 40%. The beverage industry then is victimizing the least informed among us, and those who most need healthier foods in their diets.

If the beverage industry came out with self-governing rules mandating warnings broadcast in the media, or voluntarily placed warning labels on bottles, he might have a very small case. But they don't and he doesn't.

The fact is that the government - which means all of us - has a vested interest in better health.

The FDA is responsible for monitoring food safety. Its budget for 2010 is around $3 billion. Yet society incurs $152 billion yearly in costs related to tainted foods. (See US News Report on the Pew findings by clicking here.)

One would think that until the efficacy of the FDA increases enough to come close to eradicating tainted food, that its budget should increase. However, our old friends, the lobbyists, funded by agribusiness, supermarket chains, mass meat producers and fast food chains, lean hard on politicians, from the federal government on down to the most local level.

(Keep in mind that the FDA also monitors drug and supplement safety. So, we can factor in another enormous set of costs being passed onto society through egregiously poor oversight. There are fewer than 8,000 FDA inspectors on the job.)

Every year 76 million Americans are sickened by impurities in food. Thousands die. Hundreds of thousands miss work. Billions are spent on medical treatment.

During the past 35 years, the decrease in funding for inspection of our food supply has forced FDA to impose a 78 percent reduction in food inspections, at a time when the food industry has been rapidly expanding and food importation has exponentially increased. FDA estimates that, at most, it inspects food manufacturers once every 10 years.
      - 2007 Food and Drug Administration subcommittee report

This has been due to a radical ideological shift right from the 1970s when the FDA was one of the MOST trusted government departments (81%) to today when it is one of the least trusted (at 36%).

The most persistent line of attack was concisely expressed by Newt Gingrich, who dubbed the FDA the "number-one job killer in America." This is misinformation of the most despicable kind.

Let us say for a moment that the $152 billion in economic impact could somehow be translated directly into jobs. $152 billion would represent 2.5 million jobs per year at the above-average pay of $60,000 per year. I'm not enough of an economist to project what $152 billion dollars over ten years (a total of $1.5 trillion) would do if it were invested in infrastructure, research, green energy, or education, but I am sure the multiplier effect would be spectacular. 

There are some real consequences of right wing radicalism. But people keep voting for these most monstrous of human beings.

So, What IS Terrorism?

When Joseph Stack flew his plane into the IRS building in Austin and his manifesto was published, I admit my knee jerked and I said "terrorist" to myself. Well, truth be told, I said "right wing terrorist."

His political jeremiad aside, I now think Stack is not a terrorist at all as we understand the word in the 21st century. He sort of shared similar beliefs with some already identified terrorists and he acted a lot like terrorists generally do. In this case, though, Stack doesn't pass the smell test. 

Aside from the people who were victimized by him (and their family and friends) and the extensive property damage, does anyone feel exactly terrorized by his act? I would venture that the answer is a firm "maybe" verging toward a soft "no." There are good reasons for this.

First, we know that there will eternally be lone nuts out there ready to act horrifically who are motivated by a variety of beliefs and impulses, some political, some personal, occasionally a blend of the two as was the case with Stack. (There are, as well, psychopaths for whom reason is never in season. There is also the terror of organized crime and drug cartels, other castes altogether.)

Second, Stack's sense of personal victimization at the hands of government clearly shoved him into what he considered "political" beliefs. If the IRS had magically dropped its case against him, his plane would still be on a runway ready to whisk him to his next contract job. If Stack had remained relatively prosperous and still developed a theory of social inequity - a la Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and even Lenin and Trotsky - then we might be able to view his acts as political. 

Third, there is no Stackian Liberation Army lurking about, ready to strike again. Might there be other radical tax protesters willing to act? Possibly. These are very edgy times. But you can be sure such radicals didn't train with Stack, nor read polemics by Stack, or congregate in a radical, anti-tax madrassa established and funded by Stack or shadowy associates.

At least in my book terrorism has to have three components. There has to be a group. The group has to have an ideology or defined political goal, not just a set of personal gripes. The effort to terrorize has to be ongoing, concerted and somewhat consistent, if not constant. 

I think of our current battle with Islamist extremists as fitting the bill. And the OK City bombing. The French Reign of Terror. The terror that Japan inflicted on Korea and Manchuria. The Holocaust. Stalin's collectivization terror. Our own terrorism against Native Americans. The Killing Fields of Cambodia. The Algerian uprising against Franch colonialism. The Irish campaigns against the British (and vice versa). I cite these not because of the scale of terror, but rather because in each case they were performed by a cohesive group with a set ideology or goal and were carried out over some period of time.

People were terrified. 

As the old blues saying goes: "When Jesus gets you, that's a church song. When the Devil gets you, that's the blues."

And you know it.

Frightening Survey of Republican "Values" By the Daily Kos

Click here for the survey

While I am only the grandchild and great-grandchild of immigrants, a certain amount of my ancestors' values rubbed off on me. 

First and foremost they believed in knowledge. It could have been knowledge about anything - a trade, the natural world, a language, history, politics, mathematics. Being free young people, we could pretty much choose our fields of interest. "Study hard and be smart," they might have said. "Smarter than we are." When we began to surpass them in book learning, they would tease us by calling us "Professor," or "Doctor," often in Italian, but their faces also beamed with pride and joy.

None of my grandparents went beyond the 8th grade, and my parents only graduated from high school, although my father had "some college."  Even though they were all staunch Catholics, I never heard them speak of creationism, or doubt the theory of evolution.  Science and medicine were practically worshiped. History took the silver medal; we were from a culture that was 2700 years old, after all. And speaking well, utilizing good grammar and elegant words, earned even more kudos. It was shameful to be ignorant. Better to keep silent rather than betray your own stupidity. 

Now, however, in the dangerously right wing Republican Party, there has somehow grown up a pride in ignorance, misinformation, and lack of awareness. Even so radical a commentator as William Kristol warned the New Know Nothings in 2006 in The Weekly Standard against "turning the GOP into an anti-immigration, Know-Nothing party..." adding, "It could easily dash Republican hopes of becoming a long-term governing party. How many Republicans will have the courage to stand up and prevent the yahoos from driving the party off a cliff?”

Click here for the survey