OPINION:
The $100 million that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg invested in Joe Biden’s presidential campaign already appears to be paying off.
Although the nation’s election results have yet to be certified and several court challenges remain, Mr. Biden has already released an expansive transition agenda that includes a whole host of big government mandates. Those include (but are not limited to) developing a public option for health care and implementing a federal $15 minimum wage.
Mr. Bloomberg supports these mandates and more. Unfortunately for the billionaire, it’s President Trump — the man he called a “carnival barking clown” earlier this year — that remains fully in control over his most well-known public policy priority’s fate.
That priority is adding more nanny state controls over the American people’s eating and drinking habits.
In the next few weeks, the Trump administration will finalize a five-year update to the federal Dietary Guidelines. Typically, there is little controversy around these routine modifications that the government makes twice each decade. They are usually minor, insignificant adjustments based on the latest scientific findings and research from nutrition experts.
Sadly, this year is different.
Unelected bureaucrats within a government advisory committee have called for Bloomberg-level changes that are more radical and more far-reaching than anything seen while I was the chair of the House of Representatives’ nutrition subcommittee and vice chair of the Science Committee.
Take, for example, their nanny state recommendation on added sugar.
The courts beat down Mr. Bloomberg’s 16-plus ounce soda ban in New York City, calling it “arbitrary and capricious.” That should have ended this government overreach in one fell swoop. But unelected bureaucrats have now resurrected this monster and given the horror story a new chapter. They now want the federal government to tell the American people to reduce their added sugar intake by over 40% to just 6% of their daily calories. They are advising the government to make this change despite a lack of scientific evidence to justify this capricious action.
The effects of this change would be breathtaking. It would put an American that drinks a lemonade with a piece of barbecue chicken over their daily limit.
The most troubling part is that the government advisory committee appears to be aware that it’s not making this change under the basis of science, as they are mandated to do. Outrageous!
As The Heritage Foundation pointed out, the committee could have said the same thing about kale or just about any singular food item. This senseless reasoning is just an excuse to extend the reach of the control culture. There is no viable reason for changing standards that have stood for decades.
Sadly, these unelected bureaucrats’ desire to do Bloomberg’s Nanny State bidding doesn’t end with sugar. They’re also targeting moderate, responsible drinkers, just as the former mayor did in New York City.
The committee wants adult males to reduce their alcohol intake by 50%, down to just one drink a day. No more having a couple of cold ones with friends while watching Sunday Night Football. According to the committee, not even if you went all week without a drink.
Is the science on the side of these unelected bureaucrats? Of course not. In its report, the committee admitted that the basis for the requested changes comes from just one study within the approved governmental review process. They ignored dozens of others that found positive health benefits or no relationship between moderate drinking and mortality from all causes.
These bureaucrats’ push to change the alcohol guidelines is so egregious that a bipartisan coalition of 28 members of Congress has gotten involved. They wrote to the administration saying, “this recommendation runs directly contrary to the DGAC’s charter requiring that recommendations be based on the ‘preponderance’ of current science.”
Indeed.
Should Mr. Biden prevail, Mr. Bloomberg will likely succeed at pushing an array of big government mandates through the executive branch next year. Nevertheless, the Trump presidency isn’t over yet.
As the White House weighs enacting these proposed Dietary Guidelines, Mr. Trump and his cabinet have every right to reject these egregious examples of big government control culture. They have a responsibility to send the Mike Bloombergs of the world packing for another five years. At least until the next governmental update. And that’s exactly what they should do. Americans don’t need or want more baseless nanny state edicts handed down by federal bureaucrats, especially from the Trump administration.
• Gil Gutknecht, a former Republican U.S. representative from Minnesota, served as chair of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Operations Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry and vice chair of the Science Committee.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.