Standing Up For America

The war on Lucky Charms

Share It
Tweet It

Want to post your comments? Hit Subscribe to register for a free account - then post your comments!

Don Surber Unsubscribe
Fri, Apr 19, 7:07 AM (1 day ago)

The war on Lucky Charms
Cigarettes are OK but the government is going after a cereal because it may give you diarrhea
APR 19


The Daily Mail reported, “From Flamin’ Hot Cheetos to Lucky Charms and even Gatorade: The thousands of everyday snacks that face BANS in multiple states over ingredient links to cancer.”

The story said, “Bills advancing in multiple states could see thousands of America’s favorite candies, snacks and sodas banned in their current form.

“Last October California approved a historic Skittles ban that outlawed four food additives linked to cancer and fertility issues.

“Now, New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois have advanced similar measures, targeting a total of 13 additives that are already banned in some European countries over alleged health risks.

“New Jersey and Missouri are also considering the bans. If passed, they would force companies to change their recipes or face legal action.

“And experts say the moves could change the look, taste and texture of some Americans’ favorite food items.”

The government is soooooooo concerned about your health, isn’t it?

And yet, 60 years after the Surgeon General’s report, you can still buy a pack of smokes. If we slapped a $5 a box tax on Lucky Charms, there would be no problem. The government doesn’t care about your health. It just wants a piece of the action.

Lucky Strikes are protected, but they’re always after me Lucky Charms.

The campaign against Lucky Charms began two years ago. Matthew Cantor of the Guardian reported at the time, “According to a mountain of consumer claims, the cereal is causing an array of gastrointestinal symptoms, including nausea and diarrhea. The Food and Drug Administration says it has received hundreds of complaints about the cereal this year. The food safety site, which lets consumers warn others when they believe a product has sickened them, paints an even more alarming picture, citing 4,500 reports of illness.”

Mountain? A few hundred complaints in a nation of 328 million is a molehill. Even an ambulance chaser smelled that rat.

The Guardian report said, “William Marler, a lawyer who has been at the center of food safety battles for decades, isn’t convinced that the cereal is to blame for the reported illnesses. ‘Correlation is not necessarily causation,’ he wrote in an email to the Guardian, echoing comments by colleagues elsewhere.”

I have no idea if it is true or not and certainly I am no doctor. But if you eat a cereal and it gives you the runs stop eating it.

But cancer, schmancer. States also want to go after the colors in Lucky Charms because they make kids happy — and maybe a little too happy.

The Daily Mail story said, “Lawmakers in Pennsylvania are calling for multiple food colorings — Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1 and Blue 2 — to be outlawed, due to their links to hyperactivity in children.”

I am no chemist or dietitian, but maybe — just maybe — all that sugar makes the kids bounce off the walls.

The story continued, “Pennsylvania’s ban is the most far-reaching because it targets five of the food coloring agents that are commonly used to give candies bright, attractive colors or to change the hues of processed foods to make them more appealing.”

So Pennsylvania is banning candy cigarettes if they use food coloring, but not actual cigarettes because Pennsylvania gets $2.60 for every pack for cigarettes smoked. So smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette. The government will tax you to your death!

Six years ago, the communists at the Environmental Working Group bragged, “Under pressure from EWG and other environmental and public health groups, the Food and Drug Administration has banned seven substances used in artificial flavors that have been linked to cancer in animals.”

Well we cannot give cancer to animals, but humans are another matter. Light ’em if you got ’em.

The FDA in 2020 discouraged people from using ivermectin to treat covid because officials wanted to approve a new drug without testing it first. The rules are such that this can be done only if there are no available treatments. Ivermectin worked. The government’s so-called vaccines didn’t. Putting your health in the hands of government is like handing a kid a pistol unsupervised.

Other governments are worse.

Canada was all set to euthanize people for depression, backing down only after loud citizen protest. Now I know why the government sets up suicide prevention phone lines. It does not want competition from do-it-yourselfers.

The madness of cancer scaring goes beyond foods.

The Seattle Times reported last fall, “A bill in Olympia to ban the use of chemicals in cosmetics died last year. But the Legislature appropriated $266,000 for the study to identify cosmetics marketed to or used by people of color, including adults and children, and test those products for potentially harmful chemicals.

“Now, with the Department of Ecology report in hand, state lawmakers are making another run at it.”

Smoke will still get in your eyes but eyeliner will be banned. But don’t worry, white people. The law apparently would only apply to people of color.

Washington state also is prepared to protect people from perfume because the story also said, “The department is accepting public comment on proposed restrictions on toxic chemicals like per- and polyfluorinated substances and phthalates used in perfumes, electronics, vinyl flooring and drink packaging. Under the Safer Products for Washington Act, signed into law in 2019, the agency is working to eliminate toxics where safer alternatives are available.”

The people gave the government the power to restrict vinyl flooring, because possible links to cancer are bad.

But known carcinogens are OK. So what if one-in-three smokers gets cancer? Washington state’s cigarette tax is $3.025 a pack.

The state of California is pushing passage of Proposition 65, which would give the state more power to ban more chemicals. Shoplifting and looting stores is OK, but using a pesticide could land you in jail.

The state said, “The list contains a wide range of naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals that are known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. These chemicals include additives or ingredients in pesticides, common household products, food, drugs, dyes, or solvents. Listed chemicals may also be used in manufacturing and construction, or they may be byproducts of chemical processes, such as motor vehicle exhaust.”

Not to be outdone, New York will begin banning gas stoves in some apartments in two years because the stoves may somehow trigger asthma.

But keep smoking because the state collects $5.35 a pack. It is lung money.

While the states go after Lucky the Leprechaun and eyeliner, many states have legalized marijuana and allow junkies to shoot up in city after city. This is not about public safety. This is about government power — and marijuana taxes.

I no longer want to ban smoking even if it kills one-third of its users and ruins the health of most of the rest of pack-a-day smokers.

What I want to ban is the ability of government to ban things.

What is the main reason we should not trust public health officials?