The first ad showed the portrait of a Pennsylvania family with two kids who were saying, “Let’s move milk out of school lunch” A much smaller print said, “One in eight Americans is lactose intolerant.” Really? Because 12.5% of the population is lactose intolerant we must now remove milk from everyone’s diet because the 12.5% are not smart enough and would drink something that would cause them to be sick? Should we take all peanut butter out of consumption because some people are allergic to peanuts? Is there perhaps a more onerous reason why we would want to ban anything that comes from animals, especially cows because they are the primary “emitters” of methane gas, a gas blamed for global warming by the left?
The second ad, with a smiling 9 year old girl from Georgia said, “Let’s move cheese out of my school lunch.” Much smaller letters proclaimed, “Most cheese is 70% fat.” Would the food police go next after all products that contain cheese? Do we need the nanny state to tell us what to eat? Should we be using children as pawns to advance liberal agendas?
In the third ad, a 6 year old boy from New Jersey says, “Let’s move hot dogs out of my school lunch.” In smaller letters, the ad continues, “Processed meats increase colorectal cancer risk.” Aren’t most meats, by definition, processed? Should all humans become vegetarian or vegan?
The three ads are sponsored by Let’sReallyMove.org, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a pro-vegan group. I have no problem with people following a vegan diet, other than the fact that they look kind of ashen, waxy and sickly. Millions of Americans, however, prefer to get their protein from meat, cheese, eggs, and milk. Besides, there are not enough vegetables cultivated on the planet and grasses to satisfy all demand from 7 billion humans, domesticated animals, and wild animals. In liberal opinion, which ones should be sacrificed first through starvation, humans or animals? Do humans take a back seat to nature as animals gain rights and can sue us as part of the planetary stewardship?
UN Agenda 21’s 40 chapters outline human activities and decisions that are not sustainable based on environmental impact on global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction: family unit, farming, commercial agriculture, livestock, pesticides, herbicides, grazing cattle, irrigation, paved roads, private property, fossil fuels, golf courses, ski lodges, consumerism, logging, dams, reservoirs, fences, and power lines.
Food must be controlled through regulations and interdiction of agriculture achieved through water control, land usage control, genetically engineered seeds that do not germinate again after the first year’s crop, pesticides and herbicide use. The planet must be de-populated to manageable levels, no more than a billion people, and the family unit must be restructured. As Harvey Rubin, the Vice Chair of ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) now called Local Governments for Sustainability, has said, “Individual rights must take a back seat to the collective.” Is that not communism but on steroids?
Education curricula must purposefully dumb down education for Sustainable Development. Agenda 21 for Dummies quotes, “Generally, more highly educated people, who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have lower incomes. In this case, more education increases the threat to sustainability.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM)
Good stewards of the planet, young and impressionable students have to “construct [their own] understandings of reality and [realize)] that objective reality is not knowable.” The aim of education is the knowledge not of facts but of values.” (‘Constructivism’ as defined and quoted in Agenda 21 for Dummies You Tube video)
Suddenly, foods that have sustained generations around the globe, preventing malnutrition, calcium deficiency, osteopenia, and osteoporosis are now maligned by the nanny state, by the elites who know what is best for us. Is it any wonder that we are skeptical?