DC Trawler

Al Gore: ‘It’s Time For A National Policy On Food’

Font Size:

And you’ll never guess why! Well, unless you guessed “global warming,” which is what you did the moment you saw Al Gore’s name. He cannot and will not shut up about it. And I, for one, don’t want him to.

Here’s the President of the Environment:


If Al Gore thinks it’s brilliant, it must be hilarious. Let’s take a look!

From Friday’s WaPo:

How a national food policy could save millions of American lives

By Mark Bittman, Michael Pollan, Ricardo Salvador and Olivier De Schutter

It took four guys to write this. That means it’s four times as true.

How we produce and consume food has a bigger impact on Americans’ well-being than any other human activity. The food industry is the largest sector of our economy; food touches everything from our health to the environment, climate change, economic inequality and the federal budget. Yet we have no food policy — no plan or agreed-upon principles — for managing American agriculture or the food system as a whole.

That must change.

Absolutely. How can Americans get through a single minute of the day without liberal policies to tell them what to do and how to do it? If we keep allowing people to make personal choices about what they eat, and how to provide food for other people, it will be bad. It will be bad because you’re fat and you’re stupid and you need to be controlled.

Why do you want bad things to happen?

The food system and the diet it’s created have caused incalculable damage to the health of our people and our land, water and air. If a foreign power were to do such harm, we’d regard it as a threat to national security, if not an act of war, and the government would formulate a comprehensive plan and marshal resources to combat it. (The administration even named an Ebola czar to respond to a disease that threatens few Americans.)

You got that? Your dinner plans are more dangerous than a virus that liquefies your internal organs. If we have an Ebola Czar, why don’t we have a Food Czar? It’s simple logic, you cretins.

And what would this “national food policy” entail? I’m glad you asked the question I’m assuming you just asked. The government needs to “invest resources” to make promises about the following:

● All Americans have access to healthful food;

● Farm policies are designed to support our public health and environmental objectives;

● Our food supply is free of toxic bacteria, chemicals and drugs;

● Production and marketing of our food are done transparently;

● The food industry pays a fair wage to those it employs;

● Food marketing sets children up for healthful lives by instilling in them a habit of eating real food;

● Animals are treated with compassion and attention to their well-being;

● The food system’s carbon footprint is reduced, and the amount of carbon sequestered on farmland is increased;

● The food system is sufficiently resilient to withstand the effects of climate change.

See? Simple! Good things are good and bad things are bad, and therefore it’s the role of government to ensure good things and abolish bad things. Everywhere, all the time, whether you like it or not.

And in case you have a problem with any of these common-sense policy items, you can just shut your teabagger trap right now:

Only those with a vested interest in the status quo would argue against creating public policies with these goals.


Election? What election? Just because you voted overwhelmingly against this entire mindset, America, that doesn’t mean you have any choice in the matter. Now stop whining and eat your federally mandated Brussels sprouts. (No, Al Gore isn’t required to eat them too. He tells you what to do, fatso!)

Read the rest. If you’re still not convinced, that’s too damn bad. Keep paying your taxes, and do as you’re told by your employees.

(Hat tip: Twitchy)

Tags : treacher
Jim Treacher