food

Key points of the EO

Section 1 of the EO includes some disturbing points:

“As articulated in the National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats and implemented in Presidential Policy Directive 2 (PPD-2), promoting global health security is a core tenet of our national strategy for countering biological threats. No single nation can be prepared if other nations remain unprepared to counter biological threats; therefore, it is the policy of the United States to advance the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), which is a multi-faceted, multi-country initiative intended to accelerate partner countries’ measurable capabilities to achieve specific targets to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats (GHSA targets), whether naturally occurring, deliberate, or accidental.” [Emphasis added]

Coordinated effort with military backup

Section 2 of the EO states that the “Council” will include personnel from a multitude of federal government agencies, including the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Department of Defense (DOD) may “facilitate implementation and coordination of Department of Defense programs to further the GHSA, as well as provide technical expertise to measure and evaluate progress in countries the United States has made a commitment to assist.” In other words, the military will enforce this EO if deemed necessary.

Connection to GMOs

How does this tie in with GMOs? The government claims that farm animals are supposedly infected (but typically are not) and must be slaughtered to make way for their “vastly upgraded” counterparts, which are genetically engineered and thus patented and owned by global organizations. The public receives a fear-based agenda riddled with hysteria over disease threats, and they respond to that by willingly going along with the GMO agenda. It’s a convenient agenda for the powers that be, as it allows them to maintain tight control of the food supply while attempting to obliterate small and organic farms.

Unrealistic aims and better alternatives

The EO is titled “Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda to Achieve a World Safe and Secure from Infectious Disease Threats,” but achieving a world like that is unrealistic. Infectious disease threats have always existed on this planet. The title implies a fear of infections, which is portrayed in the popular music video Vaccine Zombie by Mike Adams. As the lyrics say, “I’m afraid of invisible germs … .” Rather than promoting GMOs and toxic initiatives to address infectious disease concerns, a more effective approach involves educating people to lead healthy lifestyles through nutrition and other immune system-fortifying natural strategies.

Action steps

Don’t be fooled by the impressive- and altruistic-sounding title of this EO. Spread the word about GMO dangers by working to inform family and friends through intelligent conversations and the sharing of relevant online content. We can take back our food supply and end the danger of GMOs for ourselves and future generations. Stay tuned as the GMO issue continues to unfold, and be grateful that Obama’s days of signing his name to oppressive executive orders are rapidly winding down as the January inauguration approaches.

Sources:

It is undoubtedly not healthy to drink sugar and fructose corn syrup-laden soft drinks.

Instead of allowing people to make their own health decisions, however, increasingly government is stepping in to make those decisions for them, usually through taxation.

In California last November, 75% of the votes cast on Measure D in Berkeley were in favor of taxing soft drinks at the rate of one cent per ounce. For a liter bottle of soda, the tax amounts to nearly 34 cents.

Granted, this is not a large amount of money. However, it speaks volumes about the attitude of people who believe government has the right to tax the consumption habits of citizens.

Advocates framed the taxation vote as a battle between “communities of color and their kids” and “Big Soda.”

“The community in Berkeley took on Big Soda and prevailed, against all odds. The American Beverage Association poured over $2.4 million dollars into our city and expected to crush the effort like they had so many others. But our community coalition held firm and fought back with the power of relationships: grassroots organizing, volunteers, and thousands of conversations between neighbors, parents, and friends. This victory belongs to all of us,” proclaims the Berkeley Healthy Child Coalition, an organization supported by the NAACP, Latinos Unidos, and the Berkeley Federation of Teachers.

It’s also a big win for government.

The tax generated $116,000 in revenue in the first month of its operation, according to Councilman Laurie Capitelli. The windfall was pumped into Berkeley’s General Fund.

The city did not meet its goal of reducing consumption, however.

“In light of the predictions of the proponents of the tax, as well as in light of the previous research, we expected to see the tax fully passed through to consumers,” said John Cawley, professor of policy analysis and management and of economics in Cornell’s College of Human Ecology. “In contrast, we find that less than half, and in some cases, only a quarter of it is. This is important because the point of the tax was to make sugar-sweetened beverages more expensive so consumers would buy, and drink, less of them.”

Instead of buying soda in Berkeley, many consumers may decide to go elsewhere to avoid the tax and in the process endanger business in the city.

“The reason for this surprising result could be related to the fact that it’s a city tax and therefore store owners have to be concerned about the ability of consumers to shop at stores outside of Berkeley,” Cawley added. “Concerns about cross-border shopping could contribute to a low pass-through of the tax.”

Despite the failure to reach its goal, advocates celebrated.

“We believed that we would succeed, and we delivered. And most importantly, we delivered for the children of Berkeley,” said Councilwoman Lindo Maio, who obviously believes government has the right to make decisions for children, instead of their parents.

Children and their families will fight obesity despite the effort, according to Cawley.

“There is an economic rationale for taxes when consumption of the good imposes negative externalities, and obesity costs taxpayers billions each year in medical care costs in the U.S.,” Cawley said. “A sugar-sweetened beverage tax is a very narrow approach to internalizing the external costs of obesity, because there are many other food and drink items that are also energy dense and lack nutritional value. But to the extent such a tax helps internalize the external costs, there is an economic rationale for it.”

If that were the case, the money would be used for nutrition, healthy eating programs and medical costs associated with obesity.

Instead, the tax money will continue to be deposited in the city’s general coffer.

Sources:

Berkeley Healthy Child Coalition

Cornell Chronicle

Obama’s new policy registration may very well have ended all non-GMO agriculture in the US

Key points of the EO

Coordinated effort with military backup

Connection to GMOs

Unrealistic aims and better alternatives

Action steps

Berkeley’s soda tax boondoggle enriches city, does not reduce obesity