Yesterday the grossly misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) directed its lobbying muscle toward using the federal farm bill to hurt ranchers and other livestock farmers. The group asked its supporters for phone calls to support legislation that would “reduce [farmer] subsidies overall, which means less support for meat.”Most federal farmer subsidies, PCRM explained, “support meat, …dairy products, and animal feed.” Sounds like PETA, right? That’s because the two groups are essentially different sides of the same coin. (For a primer, click here, here, here, here, and here.)
Federal lawmakers deserve to know that when PCRM lobbies them, it’s an animal rights group talking — not a mainstream medical charity. So in this morning’s issue of Roll Call, we’re calling a spade a spade. Click here to read our ad.
Menu labeling has already taken a legal beating in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan and still bears fresh political scars after being vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger in California. But some politicians just aren’t getting the hint. Luckily, in an op-ed in today’s Philadelphia Daily News, the Center for Consumer Freedom draws a very simple diagram of the best place to put these food cop warning labels:
Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown’s bill — the latest quick-fix diet scheme proposed in the name of public health — assumes consumers can’t tell the difference between french fries and fruit cups. It would require restaurants to turn their menus into encyclopedias featuring long lists of nutritional warnings next to every item. For most of us, a back page of fat-and-calorie notes would suffice. But Brown, who wrongly believes it will encourage better eating habits, would rather force us to suffer through the informational equivalent of an ice-cream headache before ordering lunch.