(NaturalNews) Updated every five years, federal dietary guidelines were made into law after Congress passed the 1990 National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act. The 2015 committee is already being assembled to amend the current federal eating guidelines. The new committee members include many climatologists looking for greater "sustainability." The new members are advocates of new government policy that seeks universal food policies to create societal change.
Federal dietary guidelines don't tell the whole truth
Since the 90s, the federal government has tried to educate and advise Americans on how and what to eat. Remember the failed USDA Food Guide Pyramid? While these guidelines are well intentioned, they cave in to special interests along the way, especially to biotechnology, chemical and plastic manufacturers, and the dairy industry.
The guidelines provide basic knowledge, some of which are misleading. This includes advice on eating cereals, which are usually loaded with GMOs and artificial ingredients. The agency also advises drinking pasteurized cow's milk, which contains depleted enzymes and added recombinant bovine growth hormones. There's never any mention of foods that promote health like Eleutherococcus or dong quai root, which are amazing endocrine system balancers. There's never any mention of anticancerous, anti-inflammatory foods like turmeric and ginger spices.
Even so, these government guidelines are the centerpiece for American culture and are used to influence and guide the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), the National School Lunch Program and the USDA Agricultural Marketing and Research Services, as well as form the basis for US military food allowances and child support and foster care guidelines.
2015 committee gives lip service to nutrition while promoting climate change propaganda and new government "change" policy
The 2015 committee might be the first group of advocates to ever promote a vegetarian lifestyle as the healthier American way. But the new guidelines won't be promoting vegetarianism for health reasons. The guidelines look to be fueled more by climate change propaganda and world government sustainability jargon.
On top of that, the new guidelines will probably fail to mention the presence of alarming mixtures of pesticides, superbug-spawning antibiotics and biotechnology's use of genetically modified ingredients in the food supply.
Kate Clancy, a food systems consultant and Senior Fellow in the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture at the University of Minnesota, advocates that Americans should become vegetarians in order to achieve sustainability in the face of climate change. "After 30 years of waiting, the fact that this committee is addressing sustainability issues brings me a lot of pleasure," says the new committee woman.
Fellow committee member Dr. Miriam Nelson thinks similarly, believing that eating less meat is about lowering American's carbon footprint.
The committee's remarks reveal that the new guidelines may be fueled more by climate change propaganda than real education on the specific health components in nature and the need for proper digestion. Current guidelines fail to mention the powers of individual vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and essential fatty acids and the importance of probiotics and enzymes in digestive health.
The new committee isn't focused on education. In fact, the committee's vice chair, Alice Lichtenstein, is mainly concerned with changing the people's eating habits through government policy. She's a fan of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's soda ban, touting the plan as a "societal change" that can help alter people's behavior. That plan ultimately caused public backlash.
Does government policy know what's best for your health?
The question is: Does government policy know what's best for each and every person? Apparently, the force of taxation doesn't influence people to change their behavior.
Can laws and public policy really make people become vegetarian or more concerned with changing the world's temperature?
How might government-enforced health education force people to eat foods that really aren't that healthy? Look at the First Lady's recent endorsement of Subway. Subway uses processed nitrates in their lunch meat and "yoga mat" chemicals in their bread.
How might specific industries influence government to endorse their way, as special interests push their agenda through government and onto the people?
How might governments use public policy to suppress knowledge about anticancer foods and herbs at the demands of an industry?
This coercion is already prevalent, considering that information on superfoods like spirulina is not even included in federal food guidelines. True sustainability would embrace spirulina, since it is one of the highest concentrations of plant protein on the planet and a powerhouse of micronutrients.
The coercion can be seen in policy making hemp illegal. The absence of information on hemp seed oil limits hemp's potential. True sustainability would embrace hemp as a greater source of energy, food, medicine and building material.
Does government policy know what's best for your health? And will new policy and taxation make you want to follow regulators' expertise?