With ideological activists trying every measure to get foods regulated like alcohol — their openly stated goal — it shouldn’t surprise anyone that activists are trying hard to hoodwink the public. First, they speculated on essentially no evidence that sugar was “toxic.” Then they proposed the notion that almost all foods are “addictive” like drugs.
Now, they’re claiming that by eating comfort foods, mothers hurt their babies. And like all food scares, there will be a muckraking book and a New York Times featurette. The Times piece ran as an op-ed, and it called for the full litany of alcohol and tobacco-inspired bans, warnings, and regulations:
If we hope to reverse the tide on obesity and diet-related disease in America, regulating processed food products and infant formula, and creating clear warning labels to deter parents from feeding their children potentially harmful foods may be our best shot. Let’s make sure future generations have the best chance to become healthy adults.
There is, typically, no credible evidence that maternal or paternal diets somehow prime kids for a nonexistent condition of purported junk food addiction. The sole recent study claiming such a thing is an Australian rat study from over a year ago that was published in a relatively obscure journal. In other words, it’s a speculative and unproven hypothesis, not a scientific consensus.
We’ve warned repeatedly that this is where the activists will go. They are prepared to use every dubious study, every panicky press release, and every author’s questionable conclusions to harass the government into placing more regulations and taxes on everything consumers buy. Don’t fall for the fear.