For those whom may not know the different types of diets, the foods we eat consist of protein, carbohydrates, and fats. (There are essential amino acids (protein) and fatty acids, but there's no such thing as essential carbohydrates.) The principal prescribed diet over the past 4 decades has been low-fat, given the fact that fats are calorie-dense, and high consumption of certain types of fat (saturated fat) are thought to be associated with heart disease risks. A lower-carb diet focuses on minimizing intake from those higher-glycemic foods associated with higher rises in blood sugar (and the need for insulin to deliver these nutrients to cells): those nutrients are primarily carb-based. Thus, lower-carb diets try to limit the intake of the so-called "white foods"--sugar, rice, potatoes, and flour. A lower-carb dieter would minimize consumption of things like fruits, breads and pasta, and almost any dessert. During the 2003-2004 low-carb fad, the number of low-carb foods exploded in the U.S., and a number of bakeries saw a precipitous decline in sales. Like any fad, the low-carb movement ran out of steam, mostly because dieters often find the restrictions monotonous and difficult to follow in most restaurants, and some rumors rose after the death of a prominent proponent, Dr. Robert Atkins.
I discovered during my own learning experience that people can get as emotionally charged in debating food as they get in discussing religion or politics. I found that Atkins Diet purists accepted no variation in chapter and verse, and I was quickly deemed a heretic. People were choosing the few vegetables they eat based purely on carb counts. I remember one case in a forum where one dieter posted her diet and complained that she was not losing weight. Other readers were speculating on which vegetables in her mixed vegetables were holding her back. I thought the diet she was following was very good, and I asked her a simple question about her exercise regimen. She responded, saying she was chair-bound and didn't know what kinds of exercises to do. At this point, a flood of readers provided her helpful guidance and references, but it took someone like me to change the direction of the thread.
My own nutrition principles are beyond the scope of this post, but let's just say that my relatives have heard me lecture on the virtues of cold-water oily fish (like wild-caught salmon, mackerel, and sardines) and grass-fed beef (but I don't like processed meat products like hot dogs and Spam), I don't like gimmick foods like diet shakes and bars, and I prefer to steam, grill, broil or bake (vs. deep-fry) meat and fish, no breading (but I'm partial to hot 'n spicy preparation and eat more picante sauce, hot sauce and sliced jalapenos than most people).
So imagine how I felt when I found myself reading about the St. Cecilia Catholic Church in the suburbs of Pittsburgh which uses Lenten fish fries as a fundraising operation; in addition to deep-fried or baked haddock and cod prepared in state-licensed kitchens, slices of donated homemade pies are sold for an additional $1 each. And that is the source of controversy. A state inspector noticed the homemade goods on sale and since the good ladies who donated them have not had their kitchens inspected by the state, the homemade goods cannot be legally sold. And how many people are going to agree to public inspection of their home kitchens just so they can donate a pie?
My initial response is that I'm not a big fan of the very concept of deep-fried fish and sugary desserts; I think most people would be better served not eating these, although an occasional indulgence is forgivable. At the same time, I don't think that the government should micromanage dietary choices.
This is not a new type of controversy. For example, in many states, you have periodic stories of state or local authorities trying to shut down weekly Bingo games at churches. In most cases, these fundraisers serve a dual purpose: a means of socializing with other parishioners, and helping to subsidize construction or maintenance of church buildings and property or private school operations.
I'm sure that statists will argue that the health inspector was just doing his job; don't kill the messenger. Not to mention the slippery slope argument (where do we draw the line?), maintaining double standards, etc. But basically, most people understand that these women are not operating bakeries, and chances are, the only reason this is being treated differently than a potluck is the fact of the donation.
It's very difficult to demand common sense and judgment from public employees, instructing them not to sweat the small stuff, to consider the context and the scalability of the effort. I mean, what's next? A man getting busted for making toys in his home workshop for a charity raffle? What kind of message is this sending to people whom offered donated goods and services in good faith and find themselves being treated as lawbreakers?
It looks like Pennsylvania legislators are moving with due speed to provide legal cover for those wonderful, warm-hearted pie-baking housewives of St. Cecilia's. But it's impossible to anticipate all the possible excesses of government regulators seeking to unilaterally increase the scope of their mandate vs. realize that the very purpose of their job is to serve the public, not harass it.
