Now we know MeMe’s not alone, and we don’t even need to “help.” In yesterday’s Los Angeles Times, one columnist laid out his contempt of consumer choice:

I know, I know: People should be able to eat whatever they want, and government officials have no business passing nanny-state rules that meddle in basic notions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, blah, blah, blah.

If only it were that simple. The harsh reality is that millions of Americans can’t be trusted […].

Since we “can’t be trusted,” what does the columnist propose be done to our choices? Joining Robert “We I.D. For Soda” Lustig, he says, “I think it’s time that food and drink received the same level of regulatory oversight as tobacco and alcohol.” Prepare to be carded for that morning doughnut.

Apparently the columnist didn’t get the memo: To the “sophisticated” food cop like Kelly “Twinkie Tax” Brownell, Americans are victimized “food addicts,” not children. (Although Brownell hasn’t called himself an “addict” despite being less than svelte.)

Nevertheless, those four words—“Americans can’t be trusted”—signify a lot. In politics, pundits call that sort of saying a “Kinsley gaffe,” a secretly held truth that isn’t supposed to be expressed. We’ve long suspected that the food police mentality stemmed from a lack of respect for Americans’ ability to make their own choices. Now we know that lack of respect is right at the heart of the food-police mentality.

There’s also a superficially clever bit of activist strategy going on here: By convincing Americans that they are “McVictims,” to borrow one physician’s phrase, the activists turn Americans’ concentration from improving their own health to punishing bogeymen. Of course, the game only works if people trust that activists are motivated by something other than contempt for those who would make their own choices. On top of claims that beliefs in personal responsibility are “prejudicial attitudes,” this columnist’s assertion that we “can’t be trusted” throws that contempt into stark relief.

That perception could hardly be further from the truth, but it’s not surprising given HSUS’s advertising, which relies heavily on dogs and cats. We conducted a review that showed that 85 percent of the animals in HSUS TV commercials were in fact cats and dogs. That’s definitely deceptive when one considers that less than one percent of HSUS’s $130 million budget is shared with local animal shelters. That got us thinking: What do HSUS’s donors think of HSUS’s misleading appeals?

Now we know. We conducted an online poll of self-described HSUS donors and found that 90 percent didn’t know how little of their gifts HSUS gives to local pet shelters. Armed with the truth, 80 percent agreed that HSUS “misleads people into thinking that it supports local humane societies and pet shelters.”

That shouldn’t be surprising. Before telling the surveyed donors how little HSUS gives to local pet shelters, we asked their primary reason for giving to HSUS. The vast majority donated to help shelter pets: 40 percent said they gave to “help HSUS care for homeless dogs and cats in animal shelters and humane societies” while another 36 percent gave to “reduce the number of animals put down in shelters each year.” They aren’t the first pet-loving HSUS donors to be shocked by the truth.

And there’s a whole lot more truth to share with HSUS donors. When HSUS isn’t factory fundraising, stockpiling pension funds, or propagandizing children, it’s lobbying to take meat, dairy, and eggs off the table, just like PETA. We have to wonder what these HSUS donors think about their doggie dollars going to a radical animal rights agenda. And we know an easy way to find out.

To alleviate public confusion, HumaneWatch.org launched a new online video, “HSUS: Lawyers in Cages,” which parodies the deceptive fundraising practices of HSUS. HSUS’s advertisement featuring actress Wendie Malick employs images of downtrodden cats and dogs to pull at the heartstrings and wallets of America’s pet lovers.

“The Humane Society of the United States intentionally uses manipulative ads to raise money on the backs of abandoned and abused dogs and cats, yet it gives just one penny of each dollar it raises to local pet shelters,” said CCF Senior Research Analyst J. Justin Wilson. “While the video is tongue in cheek,HumaneWatch.org wants to ensure that America’s pet lovers know full well just what their donations are funding: a PETA-like agenda, not pet shelters.”

After learning that the HSUS did not spend a majority of its funds assisting local hands-on pet shelters, 80 percent of HSUS donors polled believed the group engaged in deceptive fundraising practices, with nearly 50 percent reporting they are now less likely to support the group.

“Think of how many more abandoned and abused pets could be saved if HSUS donors knew to give to their local shelter directly,” Wilson continued. “HSUS actively participates in duplicitous fundraising practices, using its classic bait-and-switch manipulation—reeling people in with pictures of sad-looking puppies and kitties, while funneling their donations to a radical animal rights philosophy.”

For a copy of the complete poll, visit HumaneWatch.org.

Without lean finely textured beef, or LFTB, the price of manually recovered lean beef trimmings have skyrocketed while the price of fatty trimmings (the raw ingredients for LFTB) have plummeted. As a result of the scare, 650 American workers have been laid off and US beef imports from Australia, New Zealand, and Uruguay have skyrocketed.

So what are Americans seeing at the supermarket? Retail ground beef prices hit a record high in March. Taking the equivalent of 1.5 million head of cattle out of the food supply won’t help ease that strain. (Not using LFTB wastes the equivalent of 1.5 million cows’ worth of beef over the course of a year.)

It’s also a divine irony that one of the prophets of the local-food movement, Mark Bittman, helped fuel the “pink slime” scare. Now, instead of consuming more meat from each U.S.-raised animal, Americans will get more of their ground beef from the Southern Hemisphere. When elitist food myths face off, it’s survival of the smuggest.

Food snobs may think that LFTB was the “lowest common denominator” (to quote Marion Nestle), but the evidence suggests that mindlessly bashing food processors isn’t helpful. Americans want their ground beef and buy it in spite of the scare. Unfortunately, they’ll have to pay more for it — while hundreds of other Americans have already lost their jobs.

So it’s all over then, no?

Alas, bureaucrats, regulators and their elite allies have not yet begun to food-fight. A Reuters “Insight” piece reports extensively on the next front in the war on food, and it’s a direct, open assault on the very concept of consumer freedom.

You see, Reuters conducted a poll that showed that when people were “[a]sked to identify the main cause of the epidemic, 61 percent chose ‘personal choices about eating and exercising’; 19 percent chose the actions of food manufacturers and the fast-food industry.” That sounds like a victory for common sense. But consider what the Reuters writer said just before stating that result: “A new Reuters/Ipsos online poll […] captures some of the prejudicial attitudes [emphasis added].” You read that right: Our betters have decided that trusting the American people to make their own decisions is a “prejudicial attitude.” How insightful.

Of course, when the linchpin of your agenda, the reviled soda tax, polls 18 percent support, it’s easier to expel spittle than convince policymakers. Rebecca Puhl of Yale is happy to lecture us:

As long as we have this belief that obese people are […] lacking in discipline, it will be hard to get support for policies that change the environment, which are likely to have a much larger impact than trying to change individuals.

We’d expect no less from Kelly “Twinkie Tax” Brownell’s colleague. (After all, he thinks we are “addicted” to food. But what about he himself?) The motives are transparent: Classify personal choice supporters as bigots and shut them up, using the law if necessary. (It’s not like activists hold the First Amendment in any high esteem.)

The editors of The Wall Street Journal warned against this political science: “Beware of scientists who moonlight as politicians. A case in point is this week’s Institute of Medicine obesity report that endorses far more regulation.” The paper noted that “[activists] envision a government-led transformation ‘across all levels and sectors of society,’” concluding judiciously: “It’s never a good omen when planners use such language.”

To the social engineers, we are giant lab rats playing in a maze. Forgive us for thinking more highly of the American people.

That sounds like awfully providential news. And now, thanks to an op-ed in Newsday, we know a little bit more about how, in spite of falling added-sugar consumption and a leveling off of obesity rates, this result was generated. The authors note:

The assertion, however, is as reliable a predictor as a Magic Eight Ball. It’s based on projections like the number of fast-food restaurants likely to be built over the next two decades. Wall Street analysts can’t predict such things five years out. […] That’s about as nutty as predicting obesity based on Internet access.

And sure enough, that’s what the researchers did. The researchers also assert that their “projections assume that […] parameters […] from past data will continue to hold in the future,” failing to consider that since 2008 (when their data was generated) the restaurant and food landscape (to say nothing about the rest of American life) has changed. As consumers have demanded healthier options, for instance, restaurants and food companies have provided those options.

So if this projection isn’t an accurate reflection of the future of America’s health, what is it? One need only look at where the projections were announced. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now run by former New York City Health Commissioner and would-be dietary dictator Thomas Frieden, is holding its “Weight of the Nation” conference to build support for anti-obesity social engineering.

In order to serve the engineers’ ends, the food police are pulling out all the stops: Wild projections, manifestos for dietary central planning, ludicrous comparisons of food to tobacco, and even a week-long HBO documentary.

They’ve even proposed mandating the content of restaurant menus because they don’t think people are smart enough to make their own choices. Our Senior Research Analyst went on National Public Radio’s Diane Rehm Show to respond to this implicit insult:

Well, recommendation two [of the manifesto] is specifically related to the government’s attempts to make concerted efforts to reduce unhealthy food and beverage options. This is  [...] a sea change in government policy-making with respect to the government’s ability to tell us what we are allowed to eat. And I see it as really troubling and, frankly, very paternalistic. You know, no one seems to be questioning: At what point did it become legitimate for the government to tell us how much we’re allowed to weigh?

What’s missing in all this? Any acknowledgement that personal irresponsibility played a role in the causes of obesity and that only by restoring personal responsibility can we fix the problem. As we told USA Today:

Personal irresponsibility is to blame for obesity; personal responsibility is the only viable solution. We shouldn’t promote policies that serve only to diminish it.

PCRM is a “physicians committee” in name only: Only 10 percent of its members graduated from medical school, and not all of those even have degrees relevant to nutrition. As the Associated Press points out, the organization has a vegan agenda stemming from PCRM’s stealth animal-rights agenda: Its largest donor is a wealthy animal-rights activist, and PCRM President Neal Barnard is a former science advisor for PETA and used to run The PETA Foundation (now the so-called Foundation to Support Animal Protection).

“PCRM is just another animal-rights group created to spread fear about perfectly safe food that’s not PETA-approved,” said J. Justin Wilson, CCF’s Senior Research Analyst. “PCRM’s Petition for Executive Action should be laughed right out of the White House.”

In its increasingly cheesy attempts to promote veganism, the group has ludicrously compared bacon to cigarettes and its president has claimed that giving a kid cheese amounts to child abuse. “Cherry-picking data, a common PCRM practice, does not mesh with the scientific method,” writes McGill University’s Joe Schwarcz.

“The real reason PCRM created this petition is not to send a healthy message to Americans, but to push their own PETA-like vegan agenda,” Wilson continued. “When it comes to the First Family’s dinner choices, the Center for Consumer Freedom suggests that they trust experts, not evangelical vegetarians who don lab coats to assume credibility.”

The group intends to petition the White House to forbid pictures of the Obamas or other members of the President’s staff eating what PCRM calls “carcinogenic or obesogenic foods.” Meanwhile, media outlets are eating PCRM’s press releases up. More and more, it seems PCRM is adopting the “press slut” philosophy of its comrades at PETA.

What are these evil foods anyway? Given PCRM’s track record, they are any foods with animal products. Whether it is bashing heart-healthy fish, lean chicken, or even milk, PCRM is no stranger to employing junk science to scare Americans to cut animal protein from their diets. The group has ludicrously compared bacon to cigarettes and its president has claimed that giving a kid cheese amounts to child abuse. “Cherry-picking data, a common PCRM practice, does not mesh with the scientific method,” writes McGill University’s Joe Schwarcz.

Why does PCRM push so hard against animal-based foods? Because PCRM is deeply involved in the animal rights movement. PCRM’s president was once a scientific adviser to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and head of the Foundation to Support Animal Protection (a.k.a. the PETA Foundation). PCRM and its affiliated groups get much of their money from a wealthy animal rights activist, and PCRM has received substantial grants from PETA in the past.

That track record drew the justified skepticism of the Los Angeles Times’ health blogger, who noted the real reason PCRM is pushing this petition: PCRM just wants free press to push veganism. What’s the matter, guys, did you have to cut your billboard budget?

And with an ear to activists’ new crusade to diminish the role of personal choice by concocting the notion of narcotic-esque “food addiction,” Reuters reports that the IOM declared that “people cannot truly exercise ‘personal choice’ because their options are severely limited.” Of course, as evidence on expanding access to healthy foods shows, you can lead people to healthy food, but you can’t make them eat it. It’s up to them to make good choices.

As for the other policies that IOM proposes, the evidence for the soda tax projects everything from mere failure to possible counter-productivity. (Perhaps soda is merely the thin end of the centrally planned diet wedge.) Marketing regulations didn’t help Quebec or Sweden buck the trend of expanding waistlines. And restaurant zoning bans are based on a false premise.

When it comes to children’s menu item regulation, it’s probably not even necessary as both chain and quick-service restaurants have responded to consumer demand for healthier products for their kids. Not to mention that parents can and should exercise appropriate veto power over what their kids eat. (What a concept.)

But the IOM didn’t pass up the opportunity to bash adults’ choices either. The “broccoli mandate” might be a thing of legal hypotheticals for now, but the IOM called for the creation of “strong nutritional standards” and ensuring that foods that meet them “are available in all places frequented by the public.” Does that mean movie theaters must serve carrot sticks—even if nobody buys them?

Of course, the report only suggests that the recommendations hold the force of law in government procurement. But we heard similar things recently said about “voluntary” advertising guidelines. True to form, the IOM now calls for those guidelines to be made mandatory if there aren’t enough volunteers. How far off can a national menu czar be? Let’s hope it isn’t Cass Sunstein.

Fundamentally, the IOM panel and its supporters in “public health” think that Americans are lemmings incapable of exercising restraint. (Were it 1899, they might have said we were “half devil and half child.”) Treating Americans as children or “McVictims” is only a recipe for fat-fighting failure.

Washington, DC – Today the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is refuting the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) new report, “Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation,” which misguidedly calls for the government and industry decision-makers to actively reduce the number of choices Americans have when they sit down to eat.

The IOM report proposes to improve the food environment by taxing sugar-sweetened beverages, creating restaurant zoning laws, and giving breaks to those building grocery stores in “food deserts.” Yet, in a recent study of America’s food environment conducted by Drs. Charles Baum (Middle Tennessee State University) and Shin-Yi Chou (Lehigh University), environmental factors like food prices and restaurant location were shown to play a minuscule role in America’s current obesity rates. The study found a lack of personal responsibility is making Americans overweight. Fundamentally, the key to maintaining a healthy weight is what it always has been: striking a balance between calories taken in (food) and calories expended (exercise).

“The Institute of Medicine and other food nannies are no longer just calling for Americans to reduce their consumption of certain foods,” said J. Justin Wilson, CCF’s Senior Research Analyst. “They’re flatly arguing against consumers having any choice in their snacks and meals. It is arrogant and absurd to suggest that Americans are too stupid to make their own food choices.”

The IOM proposal comes as data from the National Center for Health Statistics recently showed obesity rates in the United States to have slowed or possibly even to be leveling off. Many public health zealots and legislators are quick to champion heavy-handed government policies, such as taxing soda and sweets. However, what’s working for Americans is what always has, personal responsibility and consumer choice. Restaurants and food companies, meanwhile, have recognized changing consumer tastes by offering more options and smaller-portioned meals and snacks. Companies are responding to consumer demand by expanding their menus, not limiting them to low-sodium crackers and water.

“Increasing consumers’ options on menus and store shelves is the real key to curbing obesity,” Wilson continued, “not imposing one-size-fits-all policies that completely ignore the importance of personal responsibility.”