You’ll normally see CREW in action when it files an ethics complaint against a Congressman or calls for an investigation of one group or another. (CREW has targeted us with frivolous complaints in the past.) But all of this supposedly unbiased work has a hidden agenda. Seventy-six percent of the complaints CREW filed with the Federal Election Commission were targeted at Republicans and right-leaning groups; only 10 percent were filed against Democrats and left-leaning groups. And 100 percent of complaints CREW filed with the IRS have attacked conservative nonprofit organizations and Republican members of Congress.

Sensing a trend?

Like many of the other groups that we’ve profiled on ActivistCash.com, CREW’s funding tells a lot about the group’s agenda. In addition to receiving money from George Soros’s Open Societies Institute, CREW has received funding from the SEIU, Democracy Alliance, and other groups that strongly support Democratic politicians.

Ironically, CREW attacks other nonprofits for not revealing their donors. But when it comes to CREW’s donors, executive director Melanie Sloan doesn’t take her own group’s advice, saying, “I wouldn't have any donors if I revealed all my donors.” Or, rather, CREW’s credibility would be where it should be: nonexistent.

Head on over to CrewExposed.com for the full story on how one of DC’s “watchdogs” does little more than lick the liberal hand that feeds it.

Haven’t America’s animal-rights loonies taken enough fun out of life already? When the Weekly World News, better known for breaking news about supposed Elvis and UFO sightings, reports on a story and it doesn’t seem out of place, it’s usually a good sign that someone is playing a practical joke.

But San Francisco’s Animal Control & Welfare Commission isn’t laughing. Just 11 months ago the Commission recommended a citywide ban on the sale of practically all pets. And now the other flipper is dropping.

At the time, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) CEO Wayne Pacelle was lukewarm to the idea, telling the Los Angeles Times that San Franciscans might find an incremental approach easier to swallow than such a broad move.

I think the best thing would be to start with [banning] the sale of dogs and cats from these pet stores. I think [with a ban affecting more species] you attract a set of additional opponents that sink an otherwise achievable goal.

It now appears Pacelle has his wish. First it’s the goldfish. And then what—hamsters? Turtles? Parakeets? (We’ll leave frogs out of it for now, although a certain parable about boiling water does leap to mind.)

Silly initiatives like this don’t happen by themselves: They require a push from activist groups. HSUS and other animal-rights organizations agitate constantly for just this sort of ordinance, as a baby step toward control over the way humans interact with animals. Self-styled nutrition gurus organize similar pushes for government intrusion into our diets—“for our own good,” of course. And environmental groups spend tens of millions of dollars every year lobbying their way to new roadblocks on food technologies that could make our food supply safer, more abundant, and healthier to eat.

And why not? They’ve spent decades perfecting the twin arts of the swindle and the legislative arm-twist. As long as well-meaning Americans keep funding them, they shouldn’t be surprised when Twinkie-taxes, onerous warning labels, zoning restrictions, salt-starved meals—and, yes, even bans on goldfish—are among the results.

If you think telling grade-schoolers they can’t raise money for charity with a lemonade stand is silly, you’re absolutely right. And if you believe telling inner-city kids they can’t have guppies falls in the same class of foolish, remember that this idiotic idea came from some of the same animal rights activists who are trying to nudge us all toward vegetarianism.

“Crazy is as crazy does,” Forrest Gump famously said. “Mama always said you can’t outgrow crazy.” 

At least that’s what renowned chef Mark Liberman is hinting at on his well-regarded foodie blog. Because as your great-great-grandparents would tell you (if they could), there’s really nothing “new” or revolutionary about eating local:

What I don’t like is this new self indulged movement that says to be a locavore you need to go to a farmers market, pickle something from the winter to enjoy in the spring, buy from local vendors, go to a farm and meet the man who raises your chickens and make your own vinegar from leftover grapes during harvest. Do I agree with all these?? Yes, of course I do!! But these are things that have been around for centuries, in fact I have several cookbooks in my library at home that date back to the 1800′s that focus on this. So, when I hear someone tell they are a locavore, I have nothing to say. Locavores have good ideas, relevant ideas, but there is nothing new.

On his own blog this week, Sacramento Bee restaurant critic Blair Anthony Robertson took notice of Liberman’s judgment, adding his own suspicions of the “self-congratulatory component to it that tends to be annoying”:

I even encountered a menu in Roseville that touted "local" halibut. I'm not a fisherman, but I didn't think halibut were found wending their way through the shallow waters of the American River, though I have spotted a sea lion at Sutter's Landing. I had always thought that the biggest and best halibut were caught in Alaska. When I asked the server, she wasn't sure what “local halibut” meant, so she checked with the chef. Turns out, “local”meant Pier 36 in San Francisco …

Too often, touting local or farm to table is an excuse to take the rest of the night off. I mean, if it's local and we can even name the farm, we don't have to do anything interesting to the cooking or even to the prepping. Yes, I've eaten plenty of steak of laudable provenance only to encounter lots of local gristle.

For most consumers, of course, farm-to-table dining ethics aren’t where the rubber meets the road. Most households are more concerned with how available food is, what it costs, and whether or not they enjoy it enough to have it again. And in most parts of the country, eating strictly local would mean avoiding veggies during the coldest months. (How healthy is that?)

For locavores who haven’t sufficiently hamstrung their cooking options, they can always become raw-food vegans, or “invasivores” (the “if you can’t beat ‘em, eat ‘em” approach to managing invasive species), or even “freegans” (because it’s hard to eat more “local” than your nearest dumpster).

These are all legitimate, if unconventional, choices. Different strokes for different folks. Just don’t do too many victory laps around the kitchen.

Nestle blogged last Friday about something we’ve been emphasizing for months, namely, that “sugar is sugar” whether it comes from beets, cane, or corn. And, she reiterated that the biochemical difference between corn sugar and ordinary table sugar is so “biologically insignificant that the body can’t tell them apart.” (The difference in fructose between corn sugar and table sugar is only five percent.)

The U.S. sugar cartel’s only interest in slamming the “corn sugar” name is to protect its product from a legitimate competitor—not to safeguard public health. That’s Nestle’s straight-shooter opinion:

[T]his lawsuit is about marketing competition among sources of sugars (plural). It has nothing to do with health.

Sugar companies aren’t in the habit of describing their product as “beet sugar” or “high fructose cane polysaccharide granules.” So it’s no surprise that they’re opposed to the “corn sugar” name change. Consumers might actually understand that there’s no significant difference between table sugar and corn sugar, forcing Big Sugar to compete with its primary competitor on a level playing field.

Thankfully, Marion Nestle recognizes corn sugar and beet sugar are about as different as chickpeas and garbanzo beans. Anyone who says otherwise is probably trying to sell you something.

This episode of “No Reservations” included a scene with Bourdain and equally irreverent rocker-turned-hunter Ted Nugent discussing food issues on WRKO’s Howie Carr show. Here's our favorite exchange:

Caller “Bill from Maine”: I do not want a dictated diet. I want the right to eat what I like regardless of whether or not it’s healthy…

Bourdain: I support fully all, you know, all adult Americans’ right to eat themselves to death. It's pretty much what I’m doing for a living…

Bill: I would like people to go to ConsumerFreedom.com and understand this is the Center for Consumer Freedom that fights for our right to choose what we eat regardless of whether or not it’s good for us … We are not each other’s property. We are individuals and we deserve the right to make our own choices … I’m not your responsibility.

We couldn’t have said it better. Thanks to Bill and everyone else who shares our mission of promoting personal responsibility and protecting consumer choices—whether it’s by engaging talk show hosts and their guests, discussing these issues with your family, or letting everyone know where you stand on decisions you make for yourself and your family.

Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side has implemented a strict ban on all outside food brought to school. Unless children have a medical excuse, the Chicago Tribune notes, they are required to eat (or at least try to stomach) cafeteria food.

Principal Elsa Carmona is convinced that her school’s lunches are superior in nutrition and quality to those prepared by moms and dads. And this is not an isolated incident of nanny state bureaucracy gone wild, the Tribune reports. While other Chicago public schools do not impose outright bans on home-packed lunches, some routinely “confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt.” (Those contraband goodies are often returned to kids after school.)

The Tribune asked for our thoughts about how these controversial school lunch restrictions interfere with parents’ ability to choose what their children eat. We gladly responded:

This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility. Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal? This is the perfect illustration of how the government's one-size-fits-all mandate on nutrition fails time and time again. Some parents may want to pack a gluten-free meal for a child, and others may have no problem with a child enjoying soda.

Schools have an obligation to provide opportunities for learning and exercising; but food choices should be strictly up to parents. Teaching kids about health and nutrition is important, of course, but schools should complement those lessons with equally valuable ones about common sense, moderation, and actually enjoying food. Bullying kids away from targeted foods and beverages ultimately serves no one, and heavy-handed attempts to reform school foods are doomed to failure.

Just ask celebrity chef-turned-public school cafeteria pest Jamie Oliver.

CSPI president Michael Jacobson announced that “Food Day” will save us from the “typical American diet [that] is basically killing us.” The nationwide event will wag its proverbial finger at several farm-to-food targets that CSPI has consistently failed to sue into submission—though not for lack of trying—throughout its 40-year existence.

Helping Jacobson fulfill his prophetic vision of a joyless eating utopia will be a virtual Who’s Who of the food fringe, including:

Michael Pollan – A journalism professor who opposes modern farming techniques because he prefers to fantasize about the meals our ancestors used to whip up from only a handful of raw ingredients. (No one is nostalgically dreaming of a return to 19th-century medical practices, so why argue that food isn’t “real” if our great-grandmothers wouldn’t recognize it?)

Caldwell Esselstyn – While the PETA-linked Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) hasn’t been tapped as a co-sponsor of CSPI’s inaugural celebration, you might as well consider Esselstyn PCRM’s unofficial goodwill ambassador. A cancer surgeon by day, Esselstyn moonlights as a vegan evangelist for PCRM’s lab-coated animal rights activists.

Kelly Brownell – Yale University’s resident obesity hysteric and creator of the “Twinkie tax.” Brownell's job involves repeatedly demonizing whole categories of food and thinking of ways to get people not to consume them—like arguing that the tax code should be used to nudge everybody in the “correct” direction.

Marion Nestle – Food maven and former CSPI board member who takes pleasure in chipping away at Americans’ sweet tooth. Speaking to The New York Times in 1996, Nestle made it clear that her primary agenda is not pro-nutrition, but anti-corporate: “I like it better when Mike [Jacobson of CSPI] takes on the big corporations like McDonald’s,” she said. “I like it less well when he takes on mom and pop outfits like Chinese restaurants.”

Alice Waters – Organic-everything evangelist and celebrity chef who the late Julia Childs said annoyed her “with this endless talk of pollutants and toxins.” Waters has denied being a food “elitist” for wanting lower-income Americans to “budget for high-dollar [organic] groceries.”

The Humane Society of the United States – Despite sharing part of its name with animal welfare organizations dedicated to finding “forever homes” for displaced cats and dogs, this animal-rights behemoth uses its $191 million (and growing) war chest to discourage Americans from eating meat no matter how humanely it’s produced.

We’ve grown accustomed to hearing about prominent activist groups predicting, if not promising, millions will be in attendance at their marches and rallies. It’s curious to note that Michael Jacobson and CSPI make no such claim in their initial publicity pushes. Perhaps that’s because just like CSPI’s frivolous lawsuits and high-profile scare campaigns, they tend to fizzle and fade once people realize who’s behind all the hype. On a side note, perhaps it’s fate that “Food Day” is also National Bologna Day. It’s something CSPI certainly has in abundance.

Before considering CSPI’s petition to ban food dyes last week, an FDA committee reported that that “a causal relationship between exposure to color additives and hyperactivity in children in the general population has not been established.” And following last week’s FDA meeting, The Wall Street Journal reported that the same committee rejected CSPI’s rationale for banning food dyes.

CSPI Executive Director Michael Jacobson said the FDA committee would have reached a different outcome if it hadn’t focused so much on asking CSPI for pesky proof that food dyes actually harm kids’ health:

The question was “is there proof?” They should have asked a different question. They should have asked “are the dyes safe?” The answers would have been different to that kind of question.

Downgrading the value of “proof” is Jacobson’s prerogative, but we’re glad it’s not the FDA’s. Food dyes are already so heavily regulated by the FDA that they must meet strict approval and safety standards not applied to other common commercial food ingredients.

Even food scold Marion Nestle admits she’s undecided about food dyes’ safety. But lacking “more conclusive research,” she says she’s leaving the ultimate decision of whether to purchase artificially colored foods up to the consumer.

After more than 30 years of food-dye fearmongers consistently failing to back up their tired rhetoric with actual “conclusive research,” it’s time to put this non-issue to rest. Those still on the fence have plenty of dye-free options at the supermarket. That’s just one benefit of having consumer freedom at the grocery store and beyond, and one we’ll keep defending against food-hype nannies like Jacobson and CSPI.

Animal Rights Group Honors Pro-Hunting Congressman – Yesterday Rep. Don Young (R-AK) didn’t feel too honored when the Humane Society of the United States offered him a “humane legislator” award. The 20-term Republican’s response? HSUS has “absolutely nothing to do with animal welfare.”
 

Millions Wanted to March Against Monsanto – Social media tools were largely responsible for sparking a revolution in Egypt, so they’re sure to topple the green fringe’s nemesis, biotech-improved agriculture. Right? The “Millions Against Monsanto” march attracted less than 7,000 “Likes” on Facebook. And when the big day came, about 50 hippies marched in front of the White House.
 

PETA Confuses Pet, Human Sterilization – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has offered to ensure one lucky guy will never have an unintended “oops” moment in the heat of passion. Have your dog sterilized? For a limited time, you can be neutered too. Snip-snip!
 

Mensa-Bound Ivy leaguers Give Failing Grade to Vegan Cuisine – College kids tend to be ideologically driven “followers,” but Yale University brainiacs aren’t hopping aboard the vegan bandwagon. “I don’t know anyone who actually enjoys tofu ravioli,” one bookish undergrad told reporters.
 

Sacre Bleu! New Fad Diet Sweeps France – Ten days of lean meat and oatmeal, and then you can eat bread, cheese, wine, and dessert. The only catch is that you have to exercise every single day. And we’re not talking about a walk around the chateau. Swear off escalators and elevators. And every Thursday you have to swear off Coq au vin.

Kvetching, Worrying, and Melting Those Pounds Away – Forget the stair-climbers and crash diets. It’s your positive thinking that’s keeping you fat. If your “Mary Sunshine,” glass-half-full friends, co-workers, and family members grate on your nerves, just take comfort in knowing that their optimism will eventually make them balloon up like Violet Beauregard. Scientists say so.
 

Animals Deserve Proper Biblical Names, Too – When the lion lies down with the lamb, they should call each other Ingrid and Neal—at least if PETA gets its way. The group wants translators of the New International Version (NIV) of the Holy Bible to stop referring to every animal as “it.” They want each of those multiplying fishes to have personal pronouns. (Maybe we’ll finally find out if the snake in Genesis was a “him” or a “her.”)

Figured it out yet?

April Fool! They’re all true. You just can’t make this stuff up—which is why we’re here every day. Come back all year ‘round to learn more about the nutty fringe of today’s food movement. You never know what kinds of fools we’ll call out tomorrow.

Consider what happened in one Ohio elementary school when BMI scores were given directly to kids instead of the being mailed to their moms and dads. One parent said her child was declared obese and “refused to eat dinner” as a result of the administrative blunder. Avon Lake (Ohio) Schools Superintendent Robert Scott responded, “It’s unfortunate this happened, but it’s not bad information to have.” (Except, presumably, if it causes kids to develop eating disorders.)

Arkansas made a similar mistake in 2003 by forcing schools to issue fat report cards. The completely predictable results? Thirteen percent of parents said their kids had been teased at school, and the program achieved absolutely no statewide decrease in childhood obesity. (Even when sent directly to parents, there’s no guarantee BMI reports are accurate.)

Overweight children who are stigmatized for their weight can cling to their unhealthy habits. USA Today reports that researchers at the University of Buffalo found overweight kids eat more and exercise less as a result of being ostracized and singled out:

[O]verweight kids seek food for comfort after they feel ignored, says lead researcher Sarah-Jeanne Salvy, an assistant professor of pediatrics … It may be that the children were so focused on dealing with the pain of the ostracism that they stop being as active, Salvy says.

This points to what we’ve been saying all along: BMI report cards are the bureaucratic equivalent of a bully’s “kick me” sign on the backs of some children. Dietary crusaders should understand that humiliating children isn’t a miracle cure for obesity.