FDA Pushing New Guidelines Based On “Climate Change”

They say they are doing this because of “the environment”, but, what the mean is Hotcoldwetdry

Nutrition panel urges Americans to eat green

Americans should consider the health of the planet along with the health of their hearts when deciding what to eat, according to an expert panel that advises the federal government on nutrition.

It is the first time the advisory committee, which updates its recommendations in a report every five years, has considered the environmental impact of food choices.

Rather than obsess over individual ingredients, the report urges Americans to think about healthy dietary patterns, with more fruits, nuts, legumes, vegetables and whole grains, and less red or processed meat. That type of diet is linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease. Plant-based diets also use fewer resources, such as land, water and energy, and produce fewer greenhouse gases, which trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute to climate change. Vegetables also are less likely than livestock to pollute the land, according to the report, issued Thursday.

“We need to think about a sustainable diet that’s supportable and accessible for generations to come,” says committee member Miriam Nelson, a professor of nutrition at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. “A sustainable diet is also a very healthy diet.”

The FDA has apparently reached the point where they do not care about your health, they’re more concerned about Hotcoldwetdry.

In all fairness, they do care a bit about the actual environment, too

The report encourages people to consume fish, for example, but to choose kinds that are harvested in ways that avoid “overfishing,” or wiping out a region’s entire supply of a particular species. Although some health advocates are concerned about the risk of mercury contamination from fish, the report finds that the benefits of fish oils for the heart and brain outweigh those concerns.

Over-fishing is an actual real environmental concern, rather than “climate change”.

At the end of the day, though, their ideas about obesity and doing away with red meat are really about “climate change”, rather than being healthier. Fortunately, kids around the country will be the major recipients of this as the guidance changes their school lunches yet again, though, I’m not sure if the lunches could become more unpalatable after Michelle Obama’s push for changes in schools everywhere…well, except in the school her own kids attend.

On a hat tip to Lauren Phillips, who emailed me this Politico article. Unfortunately, that article is dramatically different now then when she sent it on around 6pm on the 19th. I mean, big time different.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “FDA Pushing New Guidelines Based On “Climate Change””

  1. david7134 says:

    This is exactly what I have been ranting about for several years. About 10 years ago, the FDA published a huge lipid summation that supposedly slammed dunked any thought other than that dietary fats were excessively bad. Now, they have had to eat crow and back track there previous statements. This was very firm “science”. Just like the climate issue is supposedly very firm “science”. When we called them to task on the issue, we were treated like mentally challenged individuals. Of course, the only damage done as a consequence of their error was that people ate less fat, which only resulted in untimely deaths, poor brain and immune system development and a world wide fat epidemic. Now, based on similar “science” they desire for us to eliminate our economy, eliminate our wealth and well being and become communistic. Then after all that, they will likely apologize for their error.

  2. Deserttrek says:

    eat more meat .. you will be healthier

  3. Casey says:

    FDA has way too much time on their hands. Too much money too.

  4. Jeffery says:

    FDA has way too much time on their hands. Too much money too.

    Wrong. I have dealings with the FDA all the time and find them to be hard-working and competent. They are no overfunded.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    They are no overfunded.

    Yeah…. after all, their war against cheese and milk shows they have no shortage of money.

  6. John says:

    Wow!,, 21 states had temps lower than Pt Barrow in extreme northern Alaskathat whole hotcoldwetdry thing really is going crazy Teach please continue the mov
    Cling it is really quite ironic now

  7. david7134 says:

    Wow, Jeff just gave a major revelation. Not only does he have a corporation, a sin among the liberals, he also deals with the FDA meaning that he likely has a computer interest there and is one of the scum bags draining our government and our taxes. The FDA was useful, no longer. Many might not know this, but they have just about made it impossible for you to get pain medications. This all because we have some epidemic of abuse. It is strange that many countries allow pain meds (opiates) to be sold across the counter like aspirin, yet that is impossible in our free country. The result that I see is numerous older people in my office in horrible circumstances as a result of FDA and DEA interference. You might not think this is your issue yet, but it will be at a latter date.

  8. Jeffery says:


    I am a cofounder, and still associated, but I don’t “have” a corporation. Why do you think corporations are a sin?

    What do you mean that I have a “computer interest there”? You’re an idiot. I’ve worked in the pharmaceutical industry for decades and the pharma industry pays almost 1/2 of the FDA’s drug regulation budget from user fees.

    So you think the pharma industry should be able to market “drugs” without regulation? That would benefit me greatly. A drug that I invented 2 decades ago, approved in the EU, is under consideration by the FDA. Also, my current company has an agent in Phase 1b in cancer patients and it’s doing well. If we could just offer it to patients today and skip the Phase 2 and Phase 3 studies we’d save investors well over $200 million, even more depending on how many Phase 2 indications we pursue.

  9. david7134 says:

    I was associating you with computers as I was being kind. Now you freely admit that you are in the pharma business. I have never, ever run into anything as corrupt as that process. I don’t think corporations are bad, but for a progressive and communist like yourself, it seems rather two faced to participate in the protective structure of a corporation and then complain about those of us trying to seek tax breaks and other avenues that are necessary to get the government out of our lives.

Pirate's Cove