us_ch10_webquest

=**Ike Has a Heart Attack Triggering Government Nannyism**=


 * Task:** Discover how President Eisenhower having a heart attack would lead to a push for the American "Nanny State."


 * Process:** Follow through the web quest and answer the questions that are with each section.


 * Background:** Today, science is often manipulated to support agenda. One of the biggest examples is global warming. Science looked like it supported global warming, but as it turns out research was manipulated to support the anti-capitalist agenda of global warming supporters. Non-bias research has shown no evidence of man-made global warming. Proof??? We don't call it global warming anymore....it's now called "climate change." This isn't anything new...in the 1970s the fear from the anti-industry crowd was "global cooling." This is merely one example of how a person with an agenda can manipulate science to increase the role of the government in our lives. The combination of science, anti-capitalism, and big government nannyism along with vegan extremism led to the politicization of America's diet. How?

**Part 1: What happened to President Eisenhower?**
In September of 1955, President Eisenhower was on the golf course and having played 27 holes, he complained about an upset stomach. The doctor treated him for heartburn. That night he woke up with chest pain. The doctor came back and gave him injections. He wasn't taken to the hospital until 12 hours later. A chief cardiologist at Walter Reed Army Hospital came and was convinced Ike had a heart attack and had been misdiagnosed. What was found was that a blockage had led to an aneurysm. Dr. Paul Dudley White, one of the nation's top heart surgeons was contacted. Many in American didn't only want to know what happened, they wanted to know the cause. As a result, a war on meat began and is still even continued today. Moreover, the government grew from this point into more of a "Nanny State."


 * 1. What is meant by "Nanny State?" (A) increase in government spending (B) increase in taxes (C) increase in government control over our personal decisions (D) government day care set up to raise children of working parents (E) all (F) none**

**Part 2: Media hysteria leads to misguided decisions on diets.**
Because of the media's uninformed sensationalism around the event and the medical profession's activism, Americans began to believe the government should play a role in an individual's health. After all, the president's diet was public record and could be manipulated to improve his health, therefore many thought the same guidelines should be made for everyone. Some also felt if the guidelines were good, then the government should require them. The government began to take advice from so-called experts on incomplete studies to give the public potentially dangerous guidelines. The media eagerly followed the president's recovery and in the process instructing Americans on the dangers of coronary disease. A new word crept into everyday vocabulary - cholesterol - the new polio...the new monster America must defeat! Americans embraced all ideas to lower cholesterol - quit smoking, exercise, and eat right. Ike had stopped smoking in 1949, he always exercised, and was not overweight plus his cholesterol was below normal before his heart attack. Even so, Ike began a strict, low-fat diet, but his weight began to rise. He then cut out breakfast, but his weight still went up. He read about people cutting out margarine, lard, cream, and butter and switching to corn oil. His weight somewhat stabilized, BUT his cholesterol rose.


 * 2. How can the media have an impact on people? (A) people are quick to believe what is told to them on the news and don't understand the possibility of a reporter having a bias (B) the media follows government officials closely (C) the media does a lot of investigating (D) they don't impact (E) all (F) none**

**Part 3: Research begins over the causes of heart disease.**
Ancel Keys, a physiologist at the University of Minnesota, conducted research and concluded that a low-fat/low-cholesterol diet prevented heart disease and was endorsed by the American Heart Association. Heart disease became viewed as an epidemic. In reality, there were new cures for what previously were causes of deaths. Claims that Americans ate more red meat in the 20th century are false. In 1910, about 1/4 died of heart disease while another 1/4 of Americans died of infections, flu, parasites, pneumonia, bronchitis, or tuberculosis, which were eliminated or suppressed as causes of death by 1970. People were able to live longer and encounter heart problems, something not many lived long enough to encounter before major improvements in medicine. Put simply, it appeared there was an epidemic of heart disease, but in reality medical advances helped people survive what use to cause numerous deaths.

Anti-meat vegans try to assert that America use to be a vegan society, which led to further misconceptions about meat. Believers of this myth thought the late 1800s was free of chronic disease that was ruined by the rise of meat that led Americans to heart attacks. Two factors contributed to belief by many in this myth. One was //The Jungle// by Upton Sinclair who demonized the meat industry - cut their sales in half. Two came from flawed estimates by the FDA, which ignored statistics that showed Americans in the 19th century ate more meat than those in the 20th century. Keys ignored this and did research in 6 countries linking fats and meat to cholesterol and cholesterol to heart disease. Further examinations of his research discovered that he left out 16 countries his results didn't fit his beliefs. A wave of research was conducted from 1961 through the 1970s with no clear conclusions, which set up two camps on the matter:
 * Those who went with Keys believing a high fat diet led to heart disease vs.
 * Those who felt something else (carbohydrates and insulin) were the problems, not fat and meat.

The first side with Keys became activists while the second side was more like scientists and saw that nothing was proven.

In 1961, as studies were being prepared, the American Heart Association was already preparing booklets emphasizing the importance of lowering cholesterol. Some researchers were spinning results to match Keys. Data that didn't fit was arbitrarily dismissed. For example, evidence of Japanese men in California who had low cholesterol levels had higher rates of heart disease. Later, the Framingham Heart Study disproved Keys and the Western Electric Study showed no correlation between heart disease and cholesterol. The flawed science of Keys and his supporters became politicized by hysteria over population growth. Concerns about the growing population worldwide along with the flawed notion that "not cleaning your plate" would somehow cause "kids in China to starve" allowed anti-meat activists to gain a foothold on policymaking.


 * 3. Why was there really not an epidemic on heart disease as many thought? (A) Such disease wasn't able to be diagnosed (B) Previously fatal diseases were now able to be cured (C) The president had a heart attack (D) Because there really was an epidemic (E) all (F) none**


 * 4. Keys's research saying a high fat diet led to heart disease was later found to be (A) flawed (B) correct (C) in line with other studies (D) proven in other nations (E) all (F) none**


 * 5. Research other than Keys's showed the the real problem was (A) cholesterol (B) high fat (C) sodium (D) carbohydrates (E) all (F) none**

**Part 4: Government gets involved in American diets.**
Activists such as Jean Mayer claimed that more grain and soybeans were going to feed animals (which were used for beef and other meat) and decreased the amount for the poor. This was illogical since if there was such a demand, then farmers would have produced more, which they did. Those who held this belief were obsessed with the idea that resources are limited when in reality there is always growth, which has been proven throughout centuries. Government inserted itself into America's food long before Ike's heart attack, but after his heart attack the government increased its control over our diets. Overall, the government began making decisions about contested science, which meant that the decision of which side to accept was determined by politics, power, and money...not science.


 * 6. Government power is going to increase over American diets siding with the Keys camp, which means the power and money influencing the government was with (A) the anti-meat crowd (B) those who wanted to limit carbohydrates (C) Republicans (D) Democrats (E) all (F) none**

In 1977, the McGovern Committee released //Dietary Goals for the United States//, which increased the government's role. Most government officials who were on the committee only knew what they read in the newspapers, which at first had reported the Keys studies and what was put out by the American Heart Association, not both sides of the issue. The first goal listed was to increase carbohydrates and decrease fat consumption all on the assumption that this would help people lose weight.


 * 7. The first goal listed by the government committee showed that the government was influenced by (A) the anti-meat crowd (B) those who wanted to limit carbohydrates (C) Republicans (D) Democrats (E) all (F) none**

The Department of Agriculture under Jimmy Carter turned guidelines into policy as Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Carol Foreman worked with the Surgeon General. "Support" for the guidelines grew as researchers who failed to support the government position found they lost government funding for their research. Therefore, if your research didn't side with the government's position of the day that it was cholesterol and fat that were the problems they would cut the funding to that research.

The playing field steadily shifted. Recall the sequence of events that started it all: Ike had a heart attack and people became concerned that cholesterol influenced heart health; then they started demonizing fat as a high-cholesterol food; and finally they began to blame heart disease on meat. By the 1970s, however, even Ancel Keys admitted there was "no basis" for the claim that there was a heart attack "epidemic" in the first place, and by 1987, he further admitted that "cholesterol is not as important as we use to think it was.

The stage was set for Dr. Robert Atkins and his diet book in 1992. He wrote that what increased in American diets was refined carbohydrates (mainly refined sugar, corn syrup, and white flour). Refined carbohydrate consumption increased 60% from 1910 to 1970. The Atkins research relied on plenty of research that was disregarded by the fat-is-evil crowd. The Atkins Diet was a high-fat, meat-heavy, low-carb diet. Other studies confirmed his findings. Studies were showing that low-carb diets were losing more weight than low-fat diets. Obesity, diabetes, and heart disease had gone up in the final decades of the 20th century due to the offensive against fats and meat in favor of carbohydrates. The Atkins study was showing that carbohydrates were the bigger problem.


 * 8. The Atkins Diet came from studies that showed that weight gain was attributed more by (A) high fat (B) high cholesterol (C) carbohydrates (D) low cholesterol (E) all (F) none**

Buried beneath the obesity hysteria was a deep hatred of capitalism and prosperity. Those against capitalism and prosperity view expansion of the food industry as a negative and some attributed it even to global warming theories saying that obese people emit more carbon. The combination of the anti-automobile, anti-capitalism, vegan/anti-meat, and environmentalist groups led a call to limit freedoms in terms of the automobile, business expansion, meat, and using natural resources citing dangers to the earth. Local government actions around the nation began acting as "food police." Such activists also grew into the more recent global warming hysteria, which like the research on what causes weight gain and heart attacks was flawed to support what the researcher wanted to believe, not what could actually be proven. "Green" parties had been formed by socialist groups in Europe and in time came to America. Ideas on environmentalism were merely a cover for being against economic growth. Global warming was less about the environment by the activists who started the hysteria and more about government control and redistribution of resources (take from wealthier nations and give to less developed nations). Why else in the early 2010s would America stop drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, but pay Mexico to drill there...we stopped because drilling for oil was "bad for the environment" yet those same policy makers agreed to pay Mexico to drill in those very same spots! Why...global redistribution (if you want the story from 2009, [|click here]). We also were paying Brazil for oil too instead of drilling ourselves ([|click here] for the story and source).


 * 9. How was research that "supported" global warming similar to that research that said meat was a health risk? (A) both were flawed (B) both were risks to our health (C) both were proven theories (D) both were supported by most Americans (E) all (F) none**


 * 10. Global warming was a cover for those who were against capitalism and economic growth since activists who supported global warming wanted (A) to save the environment (B) build business (C) find alternative fuels (D) redistribute resources like redistribution of wealth (E) all (F) none**

=**Part 5: Conclusion**= American grew as a "Nanny State" with food police and environmental police based on flawed research that was flawed to support a certain point of view. Government policies on food had supported the Keys camp that fat and cholesterol were the big problems and didn't change when studies pointed to carbohydrates. Why? The anti-meat crowd wouldn't support the studies against carbs since meat isn't full of carbohydrates. The environmental police went after automobile emissions and global warming theorists went after industrial carbon emissions. Why? Most (not all) environmentalists are against industrialization and business growth and paint industry as wasting natural resources and harming the environment. In reality, evidence doesn't show that the earth is warming (though now even the cooling gets the global warming blame by some). As for car emissions, do tests on emissions help? If so, then why do citizens of Cambria County have to pay for emissions (gas cap) testing on their yearly inspection but residents of Somerset County do not? If environmental protection was truly the goal, it would be policy everywhere. The Nanny State is a term for government making personal choices for people. The issue then becomes loss of personal freedom.

"Food police" and other Nanny State policies were far from the Founding Fathers' intentions. Franklin said "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." He most likely meant British tyranny but the principle was the same. Adams said "liberty once lost" --- such as government telling you what to eat --- "is lost forever." Edmund Burke in 1784 seemed to have the "food police" and global warming crowd in mind when he wrote "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." In this case, the delusion was that medical science had settled on what were healthy diets and that big government needed to protect us from Twinkies and Humvees. Yet in both cases, even if science firmly established the dangers of either, no individual should surrender personal liberty to the discretion of faceless bureaucrats who can never have an individual's best interest at heart. The science was never settled in either the food case or the global warming case but recent studies are showing that both premises are false. However, that is a matter for science, not the government. If President Eisenhower knew what he'd started, he'd likely have had another heart attack.


 * 11. Those who favor the "food police" don't look at all of the data yet try to limit personal choices when it comes to food. The "environmental police" target certain industries without concrete evidence of environmental harm. The underlying reason is both groups are against (A) personal choices (B) the Bill of Rights (C) Capitalism and the free market (D) jobs (E) all (F) none**


 * 12. Which group (that we've discussed in class) sees government making personal choices for people as a good thing? (A) Democrats (B) Republicans (C) the Founding Fathers (D) Progressives (E) all (F) none**


 * 13. If government telling you what you can eat or what energy to use takes away your personal freedoms that the Founders intended, how do they get away with it? (A) no one has the ability to stop them (B) the claim is that it's to keep people safe (C) the people making the laws are Progressives (D) no one realizes what the Founders intended (E) all (F) none**


 * 14. Yes or No: Are you able to make wise decisions on what to eat or items to buy or do you need the government?**


 * 15. As a future voter, why is it important for you to pay attention to candidates running for office...and being informed...knowing which candidates favor more government decisions of personal choices and which ones are against?**

View other examples of the "Nanny State" in America. Record your reflections on what you view. Progressives who support the Nanny State point out the benefits to the people and public safety. The question is though, how much freedom are you willing to give up? How much is too much? When is it necessary for the government to get involved in personal lives?
 * The Nanny State Today:**

[|California's Fitted Sheet Law]

[|California Tanning Bed Policy]

[|Texas Getting Federal Funds To Count Calories in Schools]

[|Pinatas - A Target of the Nanny State Police]

[|San Francisco Bans Happy Meals]


 * A little nanny state political humor for you!**

Back to the Chapter 10 main page