Category Archives: Food Policy

Food Policy, GMO, Sound Science / Health

Update: Roberts-Stabenow

July 7, 2016 Jerry Rogers Leave a comment

Click here and join us for a segment where Andrew and Jerry discuss GMO labeling on Episode #106 of the LangerCast:

LangerCast on the RELM network: Roberts-Stabenow

Jerry and Andrew discuss S-764, or the Roberts-Stabenow bill, creating a national labeling standard that will protect consumers, advance conservative principle, and support sound science.

The National Academies of Science, in a 400-page report on GMOs released in May 2016, concluded that there is “no substantiated evidence that foods from GE [genetically engineered] crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops.”

To date, more than 50 bills have been introduced in dozens of states to require the labeling of genetically modified foods, or GMOs. Vermont’s law took effect on July 1. If Congress fails to act, Vermont and the myriad others following suit will upend the nation’s entire food system, from farming to supply to retail.

Academic and scientific studies over the past 30 years – by such groups as the World Health Organization, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Academies of Science – have said, unequivocally, that GM foods are safe and healthy. Studies have concluded that GMOs are as safe as, or safer than, conventional or organic foods.

GMOs now make up a major part of the American diet: 60-70 percent of all food on supermarket shelves is GMO. So the issue of labeling needs to be addressed in a manner that defers to sound science. An alternative to the state-based food police is a national standard. If the Anti-GMO activists were truly interested in science and consumer safety, they would aggressively support this approach.

A patchwork of state labeling requirements would create mass confusion among consumers and cause food prices to skyrocket. GMOs are among the most analyzed subjects in science. With over 2,000 global studies affirming safety, the science over GM foods is unquestionably settled. The world’s most prestigious science, health, and academic institutions have confirmed and re-confirmed over again that GMO science does not pose a risk to our health, and GM foods are as safe and/or safer than conventional or organic foods. In an overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research, scientists could not find a single instance where GMO food posed any harm to humans or animals. GMOs are safe and healthy, period.

Capitol Allies (CapAllies) applauds Sens. Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) for the bipartisan agreement on a national GMO labeling standard. The Senate must still give final approval to the new agreement, and then it will need to be passed by the House of Representatives before going to the President.

The Senate could vote as early as this evening.

Food Policy, GMO, Sound Science / Health

Media Alert: Bipartisan Agreement on National GMO labeling Standard

July 1, 2016 Jerry Rogers Leave a comment

Roberts-Stabenow Labeling Agreement

Washington DC – Capitol Allies (CapAllies) applauds Sens. Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) for the bipartisan agreement on a national GMO labeling standard. The Senate voted 68-29 on a procedural move that will allow for a final vote on the Roberts-Stabenow agreement after July 5. The Senate must still give final approval to the new agreement, and then it will need to be passed by the House of Representatives before going to the President.

The bi-partisan legislation will prevent states and municipalities from creating chaos with food labeling laws intended to stifle science and ban biotechnology.

“A patchwork of state labeling requirements would create mass confusion among consumers and cause food prices to skyrocket. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are among the most analyzed subjects in science. With over 2,000 global studies affirming safety, the science over GM foods is unquestionably settled. The world’s most prestigious science, health, and academic institutions have confirmed and re-confirmed over again that GMO science does not pose a risk to our health, and GM foods are as safe and/or safer than conventional or organic foods. In an overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research, scientists could not find a single instance where GMO food posed any harm to humans or animals. GMOs are safe and healthy, period,” says Jerry Rogers, president and founder of CapAllies.

The anti-GMO activists want a protracted “death-by-a-thousand-cuts” campaign to establish state-based labeling regimes. Joseph Mercola, an alternative-medicine advocate, has said, “GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this.” Veteran activist and organizer Ronnie Cummins has called the EU’s labeling laws “the crucial blow to GMOs.” The activists are looking to ban science, not promote the “right-to-know.”

As a Vermont labeling law is set to take hold on July 1 (enforcement to start in January 2017), this new biotech food labeling legislation will allow a consistent, national labeling policy to govern our food chain. Such a national policy will inform consumers, protect sound science, and advance market principles.

Capitol Allies was established to turn policy into practice. Our work is to advance ideas and policies supportive of free enterprise, economic growth, sound science, and property rights.

# # #

Media Contact: Jerry Rogers 202.302.9783 / jerry@capallies.com

Jerry Rogers is the founder of Capitol Allies, an independent, nonpartisan effort that promotes free enterprise, and he’s the co-host of The LangerCast on the RELM Network.

Food Bans, Food Policy, Food Surveillance

Food Bans, the 1st Amendment, & much more

July 1, 2016 Jerry Rogers Leave a comment

Click here and join us for Episode #105 of the LangerCast:

The LangerCast on the RELM network: Episode #105

Andrew and Jerry talk politics, policy, music, and culture … this week, among other topics like the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, we break down the misguided proposal by Maine Governor Paul LePage to use the government to ban “unhealthy” foods and the First Liberty Institute’s Defense of Religious liberty.

A retired Air Force NCO is forcibly removed from another’s retirement ceremony. His crime? Daring to utter the word “God” during a flag-folding speech! We talk to Mike Berry from the First Liberty Institute about the case of Oscar Rodriguez, and the good work of First Liberty. We talk food policy, and Maine Governor Paul LePage, as well as more on the Philly Soda Tax!

Governor Paul LePage’s Food Police

Some in the political class believe that solving nutritional issues is the responsibility of the government. However, banning certain foods will not make people healthier; it will not save taxpayer money; and it will not reform entitlements. Instead, the food-police will disrupt the free market and create government food bureaucracies.

If the precedent is set that the government on the basis of public health has the authority to monitor the food choices of the poor, Governor LePage will set us down a slippery slope toward the food-police regulating and keeping watch over the diets of all Americans.

Oscar Rodriguez Assaulted and Dragged Out of Retirement Ceremony

From First Liberty, “Oscar Rodriguez, Jr. is a decorated Air Force veteran who has delivered a patriotic flag-folding speech over 100 times at civic and military events. In March 2016, a retiring service member asked Rodriguez to deliver the flag-folding speech at his retirement ceremony, to be held at Travis Air Force Base near Sacramento. Rodriguez agreed, but when he began the speech, uniformed Airmen assaulted him, physically dragged him out of the ceremony, and kicked him off the military base because the speech included the word “God.” First Liberty Institute sent a letter to the United States Air Force on June 20, 2016, demanding justice for Rodriguez, and for those responsible to be held accountable.”

Big Government, Food Bans, Food Policy, Food Surveillance

Food Fight in Maine

June 24, 2016 Jerry Rogers Leave a comment

Maine Gov. Paul LePage is challenging the federal government over how to administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. Under the guise of reforming SNAP, Maine’s Republican governor wants to monitor what poor people eat and drink. The governor wants to create a state-based “food-police” to control what Maine’s poorest citizens put in their grocery bags.

Why should we trust that food bans in Maine won’t spread to other states or to the feds? If your poor food choices impact the cost of my insurance premium, why shouldn’t there be a national food-police restricting the diets of all Americans? If consuming less of an unhealthy food is good for poor people, consuming less of an unhealthy food is good for all people. Public health advocates will look at food bans in SNAP as a model for national efforts to restrict the food choices of all Americans.

Public health advocates believe that Americans are unable to make responsible decisions about the food and beverages we consume. Conservative advocates and elected officials should stand against paternalistic policies aimed at our diets, and trust the American people to decide for ourselves what is healthy or unhealthy. Food monitoring and restrictions violate individual liberty, and create a gateway for more government intrusion into our lives. Food surveillance is not entitlement reform, and it is not going to make Americans any healthier – as if that’s the government’s business anyway.

Conservatives should reject proposals to leverage government agencies (like the USDA) to interfere so deeply in the personal choices of Americans. Monitoring what some Americans put in their grocery carts is decidedly bad policy and anathema to conservative values.

Whether it’s under the guise of entitlement reform or public health, some politicians may favor food monitoring and restrictions because it’s an easy way to mislead voters to think they’re being good stewards of taxpayer money. But, food restrictions in SNAP will create a food bureaucracy mimicking the complexity of other regulatory boondoggles. Bureaucrats will have to analyze and categorize the 300,000 food and beverage products on the market now and the additional 15,000 food items introduced every year.

Food Policy, GMO, Sound Science / Health

Media Alert: Food Labeling

June 18, 2016 Jerry Rogers Leave a comment

National GMO Labeling Standard

Washington, D.C. — Capitol Allies (CapAllies), an independent, nonpartisan effort that promotes free enterprise, and its partners urge Congress to reach a bipartisan agreement on a national GMO labeling standard before Vermont’s GMO labeling mandate takes effect on July 1.

Time is running out. After the Senate approves a bill, the House of Representatives must also pass the Senate legislation in quick time. The House is out of session the last week of June leaving only five legislative days remaining.

CapAllies agrees with the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food: “We need a uniform national solution to eliminate the potential confusion and costly red tape associated with the growing, 50-state patchwork of mandatory state labeling laws that could raise the cost of food for families by up to $1,050 per year.”

“To date, more than 50 bills have been introduced in dozens of states to require the labeling of genetically modified foods, or GMOs. Vermont’s law takes effect on July 1. If Congress fails to act, Vermont and the myriad others following suit will upend the nation’s entire food system, from farming to supply to retail,” said Jerry Rogers, CapAllies president, in a segment on the LangerCast on the RELM Network.

CapAllies commends Senators Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) on their efforts to draft compromise legislation that will offer a common sense, national food labeling solution.

# # #

Media Contact: Jerry Rogers 202.302.9783 / jerry@capallies.com

Jerry Rogers is the founder of Capitol Allies, an independent, nonpartisan effort that promotes free enterprise, and he’s the co-host of The LangerCast on the RELM Network.

Food Policy, Soda Tax, War on the Poor

Philly Soda Tax Breaks the Rules and Hurts the Poor

March 15, 2016 Jerry Rogers Leave a comment

Philly Soda Tax Hurts the Poor Institute for Liberty 3/15/2016

By Jerry Rogers

Mayor Jim Kenney (D-Philadelphia) has proposed a massive tax hike on the residents of his city. The soda tax, set at 3 cents an ounce, will be an added cost on top of the city’s existing 8 percent sales tax. Today, a 67-ounce bottle of Coke is $1.99. Kenney’s soda tax would add $2.01 to the price, more than doubling the cost.

Kenney says the tax will raise $400 million over five years to pay for a universal pre-K program. But, this is a cruel deception.

The mayor’s proposal breaks all the rules on “Tax it or not” Situations:

When you tax something more you get less of it.
If X and Y are two locations, and if taxes are higher in X and lower in Y, consumers will have a greater incentive to shop in Y.
Businesses don’t pay taxes. They pass the cost of all taxation onto their customers in the prices of the goods and services they sell

Imagine a scenario: Compare two states or two cities — one with a giant tax on beverages and one without. Then do your own calculation and analysis. The results should be apparent. States and cities with lower tax burdens always have higher and faster growing economies and personal incomes than in states or cities with rising tax burdens. For evidence, look at 1990s New York City. Under Rudy Giuliani New Yorkers’ tax burden was reduced by nearly 20% – its lowest level in generations. Giuliani cut taxes 23 times, and the whole city benefited, from Wall Street to Main Street and from lower Manhattan to the Bronx.

Kenney’s tax on beverages is fundamentally unfair. The Kenney tax is regressive, betraying—for Democrats particularly—the sacrosanct principle of tax fairness. Mayor Kenney’s tax will disproportionately harm low-income individuals, as they spend a larger portion of their income on consumer goods like soda.

A soda tax will hurt Philly’s poorest families, and it won’t fund universal pre-K. Those who can will buy their beverages outside of the city’s limits. And, such arbitrary taxation will have businesses and jobs fleeing Philadelphia.

Kenney’s tax proposal is not a tax on Big Soda. It’s a tax on Philadelphia’s poorest residents.

Big Government, Food Bans, Food Policy, Food Surveillance

The Food Bullies of Maine

November 24, 2015 Jerry Rogers Leave a comment

By Jerry Rogers

Just in time for Thanksgiving the Food Bullies are back looking to ban foods and monitor what we eat – all in the name of what they think is good for the rest of us.

Maine – through its Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) – is renewing its push to ban certain foods and drinks purchased through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP (food stamps). This time it’s trying to get the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to allow a ban as an addition to federal healthy-eating efforts.

According to the Portland Press Herald, “The state Department of Health and Human Services is once again seeking to ban food stamp recipients from using their benefits to purchase candy and soda. The department announced that it will seek a federal waiver to prohibit so-called junk food purchases within SNAP. The move by the department follows several failed efforts to seek the waiver through legislation, including a bill that died in the Legislature this year. This time DHHS will pursue the change through rulemaking.”

How will store clerks distinguish between food purchased through SNAP or with cash? Why should we trust that the surveillance will not spread to all food purchased by all Americans? Conservatives should reject proposals to leverage government agencies (like the USDA) to interfere so deeply in the personal choices of Americans. Monitoring what some Americans put in their grocery carts is decidedly bad policy and anathema to conservative values.

Food surveillance is a misguided, dysfunctional idea that will result in less freedom, bigger government, and more spending.

Whether it’s under the guise of entitlement reform or public health, some politicians may favor food monitoring and restrictions because it’s an easy way to show voters that they’re being good stewards of taxpayer money. On the contrary, if the precedent is set that state governments – on the basis of public health – have the authority to monitor the food choices of the poor, state-bureaucracies from coast to coast will set us down a slippery slope toward the food-police regulating and keeping watch over the diets of all Americans.

There are some politicians who believe that solving nutritional issues is the responsibility of the government. However, a food surveillance program will not make people healthier; it will not save taxpayer money; and it will not reform entitlements. Instead, the food-police will disrupt the free market and create massive state-based food bureaucracies. And if consuming less of an unhealthy food is good for poor people, consuming less of an unhealthy food is good for all people. Food surveillance will have its start in SNAP, but will end up impacting all Americans.

Public health advocates believe that all adults are unable to make responsible decisions about the food and beverages we consume. Conservative advocates and elected officials should stand against paternalistic policies aimed at our diets, and trust the American people to decide for ourselves what is healthy or unhealthy. Food surveillance violates individual liberty, and it creates a gateway for more government intrusion into our lives. Food surveillance is not entitlement reform, and it is not going to make Americans any healthier – as if that’s the government’s business anyway.

Food Policy, free enterprise, GMO

The Truth about GMO Labeling

Audio November 3, 2014 Jerry Rogers Leave a comment

Are the anti-GMO activists pushing flawed labeling requirements in the states? What is their true agenda–a ban on GM science or the consumer’s right-to-know? What’s best–a patchwork of 50 different labeling regimes or one standard under FDA authority? Listen here as we discuss GMO labeling in a civil, yet spirited, debate on Grass Roots Radio Colorado with Kris Cook.

http://grrc.podomatic.com/entry/2014-10-31T16_56_22-07_00

Crony Capitalism, Food Policy, Free Speech, GMO, Innovation

The Langer Cast! Rights, Innovation, and Czars

Audio October 23, 2014 Jerry Rogers Leave a comment

Episode 30 of the LangerCast is up and ready for your enjoyment! “We’ve Seen All Good People”— recapping Homecoming weekend(s) (both mine and Andrew’s). Andrew talks about what makes great people—like the wonderful group of friends he saw this past weekend.

We turn to Andrew’s op-ed in Townhall.com, and my recent piece on GMOs at the The CapAllies Post—talking about how politics impacts food innovation (and innovation generally).

Then, we go back and revisit the story of Houston subpoena-ing pastors, and talk about the Coeur D’Alene, Idaho situation. Andrew talks about the nature of rights, how rights intersect, and how to relieve tensions when rights clash.

Finally, we talk about Ron Klain’s appointment as Ebola Czar, just what this portends for the American republic generally and the Obama administration specifically. How Klain’s appointment compares to Stuart Simonson’s, and the hue and cry that would have been raised had a Republican president appointed Karl Rove to be Ebola Czar.

Music this week from Grandmaster Flash, Greg Kihn, Lyn Johnson, the Pretenders (among others) and we close out (on the recommendation of Rob Lane) with Wilson Pickett singing Hey Jude, accompanied by a then-unknown Duane Allman.

https://soundcloud.com/…/the-langer-cast-30-weve-seen-all-g…

http://www.stitcher.com/podc…/relm-network/the-langer-cast-2

https://itunes.apple.com/podca…/the-langer-cast/id824436935…

http://langerpopp.libsyn.com/

Practical Intelligence