Customer Reviews

The Food and Drink Police: America's Nannies, Busybodies, and Petty Tyrants

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

If you are one who thinks the government had your best interest at heart when it took on the cigarette industry, you need to read this book because you'll find out here that the federal tobacco wars were only the beginning. Sugar, salt, fat, wine, beer, distilled spirits, and beef are all on the chopping block of federal nannies who want only what is best for us. And it's all "for the children." Bennett and Dilorenzo make an important contribution to the national debate over what role--if any--the federal government should play in providing for the happiness which Americans derive from their personal choices of food and drink. The authors skewer federal bureaucrats and their private sector "non-profit" cronies who use taxpayer money to try forcing their own self-righteous world views on all citizens. They show with bitter humor that prohibitions on food and drink will follow in the wake of recent success against tobacco companies. I'll put this slim, entertaining, alarming volume right up there with James Bovard's Lost Rights as a book which thoughtful Americans should read. If citizens don't start reining in their representatives in D.C., the executive branch bureaucrats will be free to continue spending our tax dollars to make us all miserable. And thin. And free of alcohol, beef, and pleasure. An important book.

This book is so badly needed. It shows the racism, elitism, paternalism, and hypocrisy that infuses the demands of those who want to run our lives and tell us what to do, what to eat, and how we should think. The authors have an incredible way with humor. Once I started the book, I could not put it down. What is very impressive is the huge list of footnotes that provides solid documentation for their research... This book is scholarship and was published by a University press. Well Done!! A must-read for everybody who is tired of the endless pontification and preaching.

I expected a lot more in the way of serious and thoughtful scholarship from two economics professors. Unfortunately, the constant ad hominem attacks and (almost) witty zingers directed at people the authors obviously don't like make it hard to take this book seriously.

It doesn't take long for Bennett and DiLorenzo to lauch into their diatribes and name-calling. The second paragraph of the first chapter takes off after their arch enemny, Michael Jacobson and the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). Right away CSPI and their allies are the "nutrition Nazis." They then pretend to know what Jacobson's motivition is - "a desire for control of other people's lives." And then (p4), they refer to Jacobson as a "nut." It goes on.

The authors slam one of the members of the CSPI board, actress Anne Bancroft, by claiming she should know something about junk food because she is "married to the slovenly slapstick comedian Mel Brooks." Sure, attack a relative instead of addressing the issue. They later try to give credence to the view that artificial flavorings are really good for us and may explain the falling rate of heart disease - well, why not? Maybe my doctor should prescribe a case of Twinkies for me. (Sorry, I'm doing exactly what the authors have done - resorting to sarcasm instead of reason.)

The ultra-conservative bent of the authors comes through loudest and clearest when they discuss the role of greed: "...it is precisely the greed of business people that is the surest guarantor of even safer and healthier products." Gordon Gecko lives. Those who brought down the the economy thorugh unfettered greed should be deemed heroes, not villains?

If you are of a particular political persuasion and want a book that caters to your views, go for it. But if you want to read something that is serious and thoughtful about an important topic, run. One could rationally criticize what CSPI and other similar groups are doing. But Bennett and DiLorenzo would rather show how clever they can be in putting down those with whom they disagree rather than seriously address the real issues.