Don’t look now, folks. According to preliminary reports coming from a new USDA advisory committee, the next round of healthy food “suggestions” coming from the federal government may take into account more than their dietary value as far as humans are concerned. Sustainability is the order of the day: more specifically, the potential environmental impact of the foods we eat.
What does that mean in plain English? Well, when the FDA decided that sugar was the enemy, the price of sugary drinks went up. Soft drinks that sold in twelve packs for two dollars just ten years ago are now a bargain at five dollars. Some municipalities even imposed “vice taxes” or attempted to implement outright bans on things like sodas and slurpees.
But environmentalists suggest that meat – primarily red meat, but you know the chickens will be next – will be the first designated villain in the government's alimentary witch hunt. Apparently the environmental cost of raising, feeding, and slaughtering animals for human consumption is just too high.
Food stamps are the likely first casualty – and don’t get me wrong, I’m ok with food stamp benefits being limited to foods with actual nutrition value. If I, as a taxpayer, am going to be financing the stocking someone else’s pantry, I’m ok with the federal government saying that it has to be stocked with actual foods.
But the school lunches will be next – in much the same way as Michelle Obama’s “healthy food” initiative has invaded public schools to the point that high school athletes have to sneak in their own snacks and protein supplements just to make sure their caloric intake allows them to function. Imagine, if rumors hold true, what will happen to those same school lunches as plant-based “sustainable” foods are substituted for protein rich meats and dairy products.
Get ready for a vice tax on red meat and bacon, increased prices on all meats, and federal tax breaks for vegan establishments.
Anyone else ready to buy an island and stock it with cows and pigs?
