This is the "Food Justice Manifesto,"
http://foodjustice.wikispaces.com/Food+Justice+Manifesto+Updated+october+2008
Classmate 1:"Bear with me here. I think this statement touches on a number of amazing themes, but a large part of my brain wishes a more condensed and focused version of this manifesto could exist (which is probably why I tend to excel at math and science far more than social sciences... literalmindedness.) Equity, political power, cultural identity, idividual action, marginalization, history, oppression, community, dialogue, etc. You can pick and choose any of these words and mash them together to come up with a theme integral to the idea of food justice.
I run into this problem when people ask why I'm going back to school, so maybe I was hoping there was an easy answer (ha,) and this reinforces to me how there really are none. I launch tend to launch into a ramble when asked why I'm in school. It starts with public health, segueing into nutrition, which then segues into food accessability, our mammoth industrial agri-system, marginalized populations, etc. Just as much stuff as in this manifesto, if not more.
I find myself thinking, especially as I delve more into the resources, organizations and actions going on all over the world that due to the complexity of the issues surrounding "food justice" a huge issue is fragmentation. There are a mindboggling number of amazing people and communities doing work out there, but part of building community we discuss so much involves recognition of how many frickin' different communities, focuses and needs there are and facilitating exchange of resources and dialogue. Thoughts?
(Little devil's advocate here too, the statement of belief "that all forms of violence... should be ended." Hasn't violence been always been an integral part of human history? I don't know where I'm going with this, anyone else?)"
Classmate 2:"We need to increase understanding of the systems we seek to change through analysis, shared learning, stories, and shared action."
This is definitely one of the key issues for me, that we need to dialogue, to teach and learn as possible to deal with this mammoth problem of food justice. We are wrestling with such strong capitalistic forces that are attempting every day to break down the structure of solidarity, community building and basic principles of Empathy and Compassion for our earth and peoples. I like how the Food Justice Manifesto emphasizes over and over that we are all together on this, because it is so easy to forget in a highly individualized society how inner-connected we all, every breath we take, the daily decisions we make affect others in truly powerful ways. We cannot buy food at the grocery store without making an ethical/political/social/nutritional/environmental choice that affects others and ourselves. This also really emphasizes the point that this subject is totally interdisciplinary. We need to get away from the idea of fragmentation, compartmentalization, departmentalization.
One thing I dwell on a lot, and which Devon mentioned in the previous post, is this question of "What is community?" This is a never-ending topic for me as I have never really felt apart of any one community. Being multi-ethnic and fairly radical in my beliefs has lead me to feel pretty excluded from a lot of circles of peoples. How does one develop and/or engage in a community? Here in Seattle I have noticed a distinct lack of cohesive community organizing, which has left me pretty jaded and isolationist. I am interested in Latin American cultures and indigenous movements but also feel largely out of place within them. I am not sure what community means for me, and while I am sure my views on this issue will morph and evolve over time, I would like to work harder to explore possibilities in my native, local area for more grassroots engagement.
"That ethical business practices along all points in the food system should be promoted with incentives and rewards through public policy and the marketplace."
One thing I would like to someday witness is a transformation of our food systems away from commodification, and re-reintegrate the largely native belief that land and food systems are shared spaces, they are for all of us. In a way, I think this means that we need to move away from the idea of marketplaces altogether, although I know it will take a while (if ever) for anything like that to happen. That's all I really wanted to add to the Manifesto."
Classmate 3: I want to respond to both of the above comments. First of all, to mmartz22, I often feel like that too. Like the words get too big and impractical and the goals seem too vague and far away. But manifestos are often like that. Their purpose is to declare solidarity and incite passion, not to really deal with the nitty gritty of the issues. But you're right, the issues seem huge and impossible sometimes. And yet there are people making differences. Look at the children who come out of gardening education programs, so much more conscious of their food habits and the environment's connection to food. And learning about the issues/developing networks of support in such things is important.
(RE violence being a permanent part of history, it would definitely seem so, especially if we count in non-physical forms of violence, but that doesn't mean we can't aspire to reduce it)
To apr7, I again feel the same way. Having moved a number of times in my life, I've never really felt a part of one community. This has made me very aware of the lack of community in many of the places I live. Neighbors often do not know each other, and rather than findign community locally, people often end up looking to organizations and clubs and activities for their community. This, it seems to me, keeps people isolated within their own spheres of interest, which can become very narrow and lose a lot of the perspective that they would gain by associating with people just living nearby, who might have very different interests. Do any other people feel this way? That communities of place are fading and instead we're getting internet, facebook, narrow-interest communities? Can we have a resilient local food system without first having strong, place-based community?
My response: I love the idea of community, and the ones that I am fortunate enough to be apart of. I believe that communities are wide-ranging and vary depending on interest, involvement, activity, etc. However, the integral idea about community is that it is different for everyone. As with anything, people perceive and interpret situations differently and this is what people may love or hate about various communities. Therefore, I believe that everyone is connected somehow, it just depends on the degree to which you internalize your beliefs about where you are.
To kind of respond to [classmate 3]'s question toward the end of the post...(in which I will likely end up rambling a bit.. sorry!) I think a resilient food system can function without a strong, place based community, because there are always people who are busy, on the go. People move, and as much as many people would like to settle down, some don't, and enjoy the lack of home and moving. There of course needs to be a strong part of the community that takes a leadership position that facilitates communication and organization in order make a local food system that supersedes the convenience of grocery stores. Additionally, what about travel? Nowadays, that is commonly a part of people's lives. Travelers or vacationers could participate in other region's local food systems with knowledge or advertisement about them, rather than stopping at the nearest chain store. However, one must be cautionary of creating a local blueprint of how to have a strong food system, although that seems like an easy way to create something that will be able to be wide-ranging and somehow get rid of grocery stores. The difficulty is encouraging a wide-ranging interest in creating a grassroots local food movement, exactly because of the differences between places. It's not that grocery stores are bad... but the few companies that stock their shelves that maintain poor labor practices that are problematic. Yet, they are huge, wealthy, and difficult to combat with many activist groups. A large common voice is necessary. Regardless, I know that this is by no means the majority. Nevertheless, I think that a local food system is possible, particularly in Seattle, however, the largest obstacle is the corporate grocery stores. It is a tremendous resource for food that most people take advantage of. I mean, one stop shopping once a week rather than waiting for farmers markets or your garden to produce your anticipated produce. I do understand some options are better than others, community based co-ops, but still. They function the same convenient manner even if they do provide more organic and local options. Food isn't convenient for everyone. It's work to create it. Not saying that it needs to be difficult to get it if you are not producing your own, but without an experience of the production process, I understand why this idea is difficult to grasp. The difficulty is creating the desire for people to take the time to change their routine. It is a necessity. What if five stores, specializing in various types of food were located next to one another and you just went where the type of food you needed. Thinking of the french boulangeries, patisseries, etc. And that's all folks :)
Almost, in response to [classmate 1], violence... it has been frequent in history, but really.. integral?? Did we have to take violence means to get to where we are? (Exactly, yes) however, I really do think more peaceful means would have been just as, if not more productive. True, the world would not be the same. Open and honest people who confront problems rather than taking violent action, the histories of wars that people may fantasize about would not be, the world would inherently look different, varying state boundaries, but then that brings in the whole issue of states and control, both of which are produced by individual imaginations are then internalized. Now, we have violence rooted in societies, and memories which will be extremely difficult to overcome in a nonviolent way. I mean, in our education we learn about our pasts of wars and violence. Why reenforce the bad when we could instead have learned about the amazing, willful actions of others. Overcoming the bad with good rather than with violence and hate.
Devon: "I think a resilient food system can function without a strong, place based community, because there are always people who are busy, on the go. People move, and as much as many people would like to settle down, some don't, and enjoy the lack of home and moving.
This is by far the most interesting and provocative statement in this conversation thread, and indeed the entire board to this point. There are so many ways to respond and interweave my own sense and understanding of food justice and its connections to place. Let's start here: I am certain many of you have heard the phrase: "No matter where you are, there you are." I'd like to modify that in the following proposition: "No matter where you eat, the food you consume came from some place." That place was impacted by many things, including your desire to consume the food. In this sense you are already connected to a community somewhere, with its own deep history, perhaps shattered and disrupted, but nonetheless still connected.
There is a concept in the anthropology of consumption that intrigues me in this context: Distanciation; sometimes: distantiation. It has to do with the tendency or capacity for consumers to maintain their distance to the sources of the objects of their consumption. This allows consumers to suspend their moral obligations by feigning ignorance of the conditions under which that food system operates. Of course, the slow food movement involves, in part, efforts to increase awareness of where food comes from by re-appreciating food we can eat locally, etc. None of this is really enough in my mind for the attainment of food justice and resilient agriculture.
The very real challenge posed by Jackie is this: Yes, we are urban and definitely very mobile. The average US resident (funny word in this context) moves 14 times in a life span. The Anasazi lived for 800-1000 years in the same buildings at Chaco Canyon. What a contrast. Capitalism; modernity; these systems require speed, motion, circulation, networking, etc. Staying in place is definitely not valued. Some of that geographic mobility is based on the privileges of career opportunities or the ability to finance a move to "better" surroundings - better schools, cleaner air, low crime, etc. Indeed, in LA air quality is calculated as part of real estate values. In this manner space also gets segregated by race and class based on social and environmental amenities. These are all consequences of mobility. Indeed, the European diaspora is the conquest and colonialism from the vantage of the indigenous. This is why native peoples just don't understand why Europeans and EuroAmericans are so restless; just can't seem to stay in place. Rightly or wrongly, this means that the thousands of existing place-based cultures and communities in the US (for e.g.,) are demanding, OK, if you want to be restless, do it somewhere else, because we are working on our enduring commitments to place and we do not need to be disrupted by this restlessness. This is part of Wendell's message as well in the first reading for class: the exploitative impulse underlies the placeless amnesia and restless mobility of certain European and EuroAmerican cultures that colonized native homes (yearning to be restored homes again). is this an ethnocentric argument? It is if we fail to also recognize and respect the polycultural nature of food justice struggles that the Manifesto identifies as intrinsic to a social formation born of place-makers in place and in motion coming together. Mobility is not thus inherently problematic but if the nomad "goes rogue" in the animating pursuit of speculative life and resists "going native" certainly, one can/would expect conflicts and resistance to arise from the perceived (and real) injuries to place-based Others. The city is the parasite of the countryside is one way this conflict gets played out. We must also recognize the importance and somewhat parallel experience of the Mesoamerican diaspora that the most paranoid followers of Glenn Beck or Lou Dobson today construct as the biggest threat to EuroAmerica since terrorism.
In this proclamation of the hyper real in placelessness and an allusion to the constant change of nomadic lifestyles, we can discern problems and contradictions; limitations. This does not mean the "end of travel" or "motion" or any of that. It does mean that the food justice movement is based on people and communities, both deeply rooted and itinerant, that are making commitments to place and one another, and to "home" land ethics that they are actively restoring by learning and respecting the deep histories of place. One challenge for such communities are the restless nomads [sic] that can't seem to stay in one place long enough to value the earth right there where they are. "Is the Earth local?" Or is it placeless, now that it is also cybernetic? We might ask these things of ourselves to understand that place is always present, even if it is just a space some one else is moving through...."
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
a mini thread on GMO's
http://food.change.org/blog/view/is_monsantos_corn_destroying_your_internal_organs
My response to the above article:
Farming is a skilled position with very particular knowledge about the region, the time of year, and types of crops being grown. It saddens me that the capitalistic fundamental of efficiency and exploitation, not to mention the invasive technological sciences, have changed farming into a monkey's job; granted they are most closely related to human, but really? More on Monsanto though, I just cannot grasp why they expect to be successful with GMOs, or GEO (genetically engineered organism) when they are not natural and good for people. Furthermore, the fact that it destroys present systems and depletes the ecology of the area and creates a dependency system for the farmer would be very hard to accept on a ethical basis as an employee or supporter of Monsanto. How is that favorable? I just don't understand. However, I guess people still work for cigarette companies, and food is a necessity, even if it's not addictive. Frustrating.
Comments from Devon Pena:
"They expect to be successful because they have some very powerful technology, an incomparable R&D apparatus, a near-monopoly status is several sectors (hence the Justice Dept. investigation), and they have powerful White House and Congressional connections (biotechnology sector folks are spread well across Obama's administration in mid to high level deputy secretary positions). The dependency you speak about is crucial problem and could even be seen as an attack on the community and its autonomy. As to "they are not natural and good for people," well, the truth is that we actually don;t know for sure because we have never done systematic predictive ecology or epidemiological studies, and the empirical data from human populations is zilch. This is why the CRG opposed approval in the absence of biosafety studies of potential or probable impacts on the environment and people. The Precautionary Principle approach we all took, however, failed, to stop this from spreading and, frankly, we are now all unwitting participants in a grand experiment since the "genie" is literally out of the bottle."
"I should add a caveat to the previous post. While no direct empirical (and especially longitudinal) data exist on the health effects of transgenic foods on humans, there is evidence of at least a "correlation," especially in relation to food allergies. The scare a few years back involving Starlink GEO corn (approved for feedstock) demonstrated that, when this stuff gets into the human food supply, it can cause adverse reactions in some consumers. There are many other reasons - other than human health - to be concerned about transgenics."
My ending thoughts:
GMOs are frustrating, not to mention scary, particularly with unknown health risks. However, I do see how sceintists could be excited in developing a new "food." I think the whole debate is interesting to look at in a larger scale and think about stem cell research, its similarities and differences with GMO food. I find myself supportive of stem cell research due to the benefits for people, considering the shortage of organs for transplants. (Also influence by knowing an individual who has greatly benfitted from the technology). However, I am strongly against GMO food. Yet, I find this due to ethical beliefs rather than complete sensible comparison.
A classmate of mine stated: "This world of GMOs we live in has me completely intimidated." I wholeheartedly agree! It is hard to balance nutritional needs and intake with knowledge regarding our food system. One can make the effort to eat organic, buy local, however, sometimes it seems like so much work to avoid the system.
Devon's important and relevant point: "May I propose a simple idea: Feeling guilt about our complicity in food injustice is a luxury or privileged emotion."
My response to the above article:
Farming is a skilled position with very particular knowledge about the region, the time of year, and types of crops being grown. It saddens me that the capitalistic fundamental of efficiency and exploitation, not to mention the invasive technological sciences, have changed farming into a monkey's job; granted they are most closely related to human, but really? More on Monsanto though, I just cannot grasp why they expect to be successful with GMOs, or GEO (genetically engineered organism) when they are not natural and good for people. Furthermore, the fact that it destroys present systems and depletes the ecology of the area and creates a dependency system for the farmer would be very hard to accept on a ethical basis as an employee or supporter of Monsanto. How is that favorable? I just don't understand. However, I guess people still work for cigarette companies, and food is a necessity, even if it's not addictive. Frustrating.
Comments from Devon Pena:
"They expect to be successful because they have some very powerful technology, an incomparable R&D apparatus, a near-monopoly status is several sectors (hence the Justice Dept. investigation), and they have powerful White House and Congressional connections (biotechnology sector folks are spread well across Obama's administration in mid to high level deputy secretary positions). The dependency you speak about is crucial problem and could even be seen as an attack on the community and its autonomy. As to "they are not natural and good for people," well, the truth is that we actually don;t know for sure because we have never done systematic predictive ecology or epidemiological studies, and the empirical data from human populations is zilch. This is why the CRG opposed approval in the absence of biosafety studies of potential or probable impacts on the environment and people. The Precautionary Principle approach we all took, however, failed, to stop this from spreading and, frankly, we are now all unwitting participants in a grand experiment since the "genie" is literally out of the bottle."
"I should add a caveat to the previous post. While no direct empirical (and especially longitudinal) data exist on the health effects of transgenic foods on humans, there is evidence of at least a "correlation," especially in relation to food allergies. The scare a few years back involving Starlink GEO corn (approved for feedstock) demonstrated that, when this stuff gets into the human food supply, it can cause adverse reactions in some consumers. There are many other reasons - other than human health - to be concerned about transgenics."
My ending thoughts:
GMOs are frustrating, not to mention scary, particularly with unknown health risks. However, I do see how sceintists could be excited in developing a new "food." I think the whole debate is interesting to look at in a larger scale and think about stem cell research, its similarities and differences with GMO food. I find myself supportive of stem cell research due to the benefits for people, considering the shortage of organs for transplants. (Also influence by knowing an individual who has greatly benfitted from the technology). However, I am strongly against GMO food. Yet, I find this due to ethical beliefs rather than complete sensible comparison.
A classmate of mine stated: "This world of GMOs we live in has me completely intimidated." I wholeheartedly agree! It is hard to balance nutritional needs and intake with knowledge regarding our food system. One can make the effort to eat organic, buy local, however, sometimes it seems like so much work to avoid the system.
Devon's important and relevant point: "May I propose a simple idea: Feeling guilt about our complicity in food injustice is a luxury or privileged emotion."
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Capitalism's New Form of Slavery
The use of biotechnology in agriculture production systems is the most recent technological innovation to combat a growing global population and its consequent food scarcity, particularly in developing states. However, the increasing use of biotechnology in long-established food production is fundamentally changing hundreds of years of agricultural traditions. This framework is problematic for various reasons: it disregards the many ethical issues regarding food, the adverse ecological effects, overlooks health effects, as demonstrated by Monsanto’s corn MON83, and represents the corporatization of life, particularly regarding genetically engineered (GE) seed patents. The adaptation and widespread use of GE crops is exceedingly threatening to socio-environmental health around the world and a precautionary principle at minimum is necessary. It is essentially the practice of slavery within a modern context of food however, corporations rather than individuals as the owners. More explicitly phrased, slavery is forced labor; within capitalism, the limited choices of food, limited in regards to diversity of production, subjects consumers to a form of slavery due to the concentrated market dominance.
There is an important difference between genetically modified (GM) and GE foods. Horizontal gene transfer occurs naturally across species boundaries and sometimes taxa; however, GE gene transfers clear across phyla. Farmers have been modifying genomes in plants for centuries but biotechnological practices are now crossing this traditional modification practice and literally engineering seeds: “[w]hen a desired trait cannot be found within the existing gene pool, breeders can create new variants by intentionally mutating plants with radiation, with chemicals, or simply by culturing clumps of cells in a Petri dish and leaving them to mutate spontaneously during cell division” (Prakesh & Conko 2004). This work done in the laboratory is not the same as the time intensive practices that farmers would engage with in order to select the proper genome and modify the seed over seasons. In laboratories, instead of crossing one species plant with another species of plant, it combines plant, bacterial, and viral DNA. Neither nature nor traditional agricultural GM practices cross the boundaries of phyla and seldom of taxa. As a result of this distinctive difference, I will reference seed modification that occurs in laboratories as GE rather than the commonly used GM.
The human necessity of caloric consumption is fulfilled through the ingestion of foodstuffs. Yet, corporate interests have drastically influenced the principles regarding food, particularly within the US. The impoverished and exponentially growing populations of developing regions are often, somehow, blamed. However, it is important to realize that “[t]he poor are neither a burden on us nor a threat to our interests. Unlikely as it may seem, the interests of the vast majority of Americans have much in common with those of the world’s hungry” (Lappe et al. 1998). It is the large corporations who have differentiated between the biological necessities for nutrition and created a market that reaps with profits from ignorant consumers. Caloric requirements in schools are commonly fulfilled through tater tots rather than dense and nutritious food for children who are creating eating habits that many continue throughout their lives. Obesity, heart disease and diabetes have steadily been on the rise in the United States as a consequence of poor eating habits that are preventable. “Food deserts” are created when groceries are unavailable in areas and the only food options that remain are those of fast food chains. Each of the previous examples are dependent on the present large scale food industry on which the majority of America functions. These industries are reliant upon a constant and reliable supply of ingredients that is fulfilled through large-scale, industrial agriculture. Fortunately, recognizing these injustices and ethical implications, citizens’ movements around the world have mobilized against GE and corporate control over agriculture and are moving concerns regarding GE “from the fringe to the center state of trade and economics” (Shiva 2000). However, this is not enough. GE “crops manufactured by corporations pose serious ecological risks” including the destruction of biodiversity, increased use of agrochemicals, herbicide resistant weeds (Shiva 2000). They can contaminate organic seed stocks and devastate soil if there are within a reasonable proximity. Food needs to have more value than just a caloric intake and a reasonable profit margin for agribusinesses.
Nutritional science is an emerging academic field that commonly concludes in contradictory studies. Unsurprisingly, this is the case with studies regarding the health effects of genetically engineered foods, particularly when a large corporation with economic interests funds research. Analysis and reanalysis by Monsanto funded researchers failed to associate any adverse health effects as result of ingestion of MON83, a genetically engineered corn (Doull 2007). This study was conducted on rats over three months. However, this study overlooked different reactions in male and female rats and maintains that its corn is safe. A comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized GE maize over 90 days concluded that there are side effects linked with GE maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent; the effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs although in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system were also observed (de Vendomois et al. 2009). These conflicting results become more intriguing when the study finding a lack of adverse effects was made possible by funding through the company that hopes to profit from the large-scale production and adaptation of GE seeds. However, if transgenes are adapted, reverting back to traditional seeds will be exceedingly difficult due to the wide-scale contamination.
Life became patentable with a Supreme Court Decision in the mid 20th century. In Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the Court ruled that a laboratory-modified bacterium constituted a patentable reorganization of matter in 1980. Consequently, this new patentable form of invention, GEOs as a growing and living organism, enables life to be quite literally owned. Owning life is very much a form of slavery in loose terms, whether or not labor is demanded. This decision has legitimized the corportization of life, essentially monopolized by a single company, Monsanto. This is problematic in various ways. Monsanto favored qualities and favorable plant qualities and values don’t necessarily coincide. For example, some crops are grown as food for humans, or it may be produced for fodder. A further implication is that “[t]he patenting of crop genes means that farmers in the future may be obliged to pay royalties to foreign companies on varieties bed by their ancestors” (Lappe et al. 1998). There are presently 5.5 million farmers who grow GE crops on 143 million acres in 16 countries, where a quarter of farms in the developing world use GE (Prakesh & Conko 2004). GE advocates claim that concern regarding biotechnology is unwarranted. However, due to the environmental, nutritional and social implications explored above, concern is justified and warranted.
Corporate interests, particularly profit, are driving biotechnological experimentation and implementation in agriculture. However, these efforts are being done before proper consideration is given to ethical issues regarding food, health and ecological affects and patent implications. As a result, a precautionary principle is very much worth maintaining before widespread implementation. Monsanto’s M83 corn is a sufficient example of how a questionable product has already been released to the market and new studies are delegitimizing ones done prior. The adaptation and widespread use of GE crops is exceedingly threatening to socio-environmental health around the world despite the success for a single company. Monsanto has put farmers in the grasps of the new form of slavery, with tight holds on farmers’ wallets and future agriculture production capabilities.
Works Cited
Cayford, Jerry. 2004. Breeding Sanity into the GM Food Debate. Science and Technology: 49-56.
de Venomois, Joel Spirous, Francois Roullier, Dominique Cellier and Gilles-Eric Seralini. 2009. A Comparison on the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. International Journal of Biological Science 5: 706-726.
Doull, J., D. Gaylor, H.A. Greim, D.P. Lovell, B. Lynch and I.C. Munro. 2007. Report of an Expert Panel on the reanalysis by Seralini et al. (2007) of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn (MON 863). Food and Chemical Toxicology 45.11: 2073-2085.
Lappe, Frances Moore Joseph Collins, Peter Rosset and Luis Esparza. 1998. World Hunger. Grove Press.
Prakash, C.S. and Gregory Conko. 2004. Technology for Life: How Biotech Will Save Billions from Starvation. The American Enterprise: 16-20.
Shiva, Vandana. 2000. Stolen Harvest. Cambridge: South End Press.
There is an important difference between genetically modified (GM) and GE foods. Horizontal gene transfer occurs naturally across species boundaries and sometimes taxa; however, GE gene transfers clear across phyla. Farmers have been modifying genomes in plants for centuries but biotechnological practices are now crossing this traditional modification practice and literally engineering seeds: “[w]hen a desired trait cannot be found within the existing gene pool, breeders can create new variants by intentionally mutating plants with radiation, with chemicals, or simply by culturing clumps of cells in a Petri dish and leaving them to mutate spontaneously during cell division” (Prakesh & Conko 2004). This work done in the laboratory is not the same as the time intensive practices that farmers would engage with in order to select the proper genome and modify the seed over seasons. In laboratories, instead of crossing one species plant with another species of plant, it combines plant, bacterial, and viral DNA. Neither nature nor traditional agricultural GM practices cross the boundaries of phyla and seldom of taxa. As a result of this distinctive difference, I will reference seed modification that occurs in laboratories as GE rather than the commonly used GM.
The human necessity of caloric consumption is fulfilled through the ingestion of foodstuffs. Yet, corporate interests have drastically influenced the principles regarding food, particularly within the US. The impoverished and exponentially growing populations of developing regions are often, somehow, blamed. However, it is important to realize that “[t]he poor are neither a burden on us nor a threat to our interests. Unlikely as it may seem, the interests of the vast majority of Americans have much in common with those of the world’s hungry” (Lappe et al. 1998). It is the large corporations who have differentiated between the biological necessities for nutrition and created a market that reaps with profits from ignorant consumers. Caloric requirements in schools are commonly fulfilled through tater tots rather than dense and nutritious food for children who are creating eating habits that many continue throughout their lives. Obesity, heart disease and diabetes have steadily been on the rise in the United States as a consequence of poor eating habits that are preventable. “Food deserts” are created when groceries are unavailable in areas and the only food options that remain are those of fast food chains. Each of the previous examples are dependent on the present large scale food industry on which the majority of America functions. These industries are reliant upon a constant and reliable supply of ingredients that is fulfilled through large-scale, industrial agriculture. Fortunately, recognizing these injustices and ethical implications, citizens’ movements around the world have mobilized against GE and corporate control over agriculture and are moving concerns regarding GE “from the fringe to the center state of trade and economics” (Shiva 2000). However, this is not enough. GE “crops manufactured by corporations pose serious ecological risks” including the destruction of biodiversity, increased use of agrochemicals, herbicide resistant weeds (Shiva 2000). They can contaminate organic seed stocks and devastate soil if there are within a reasonable proximity. Food needs to have more value than just a caloric intake and a reasonable profit margin for agribusinesses.
Nutritional science is an emerging academic field that commonly concludes in contradictory studies. Unsurprisingly, this is the case with studies regarding the health effects of genetically engineered foods, particularly when a large corporation with economic interests funds research. Analysis and reanalysis by Monsanto funded researchers failed to associate any adverse health effects as result of ingestion of MON83, a genetically engineered corn (Doull 2007). This study was conducted on rats over three months. However, this study overlooked different reactions in male and female rats and maintains that its corn is safe. A comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized GE maize over 90 days concluded that there are side effects linked with GE maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent; the effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs although in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system were also observed (de Vendomois et al. 2009). These conflicting results become more intriguing when the study finding a lack of adverse effects was made possible by funding through the company that hopes to profit from the large-scale production and adaptation of GE seeds. However, if transgenes are adapted, reverting back to traditional seeds will be exceedingly difficult due to the wide-scale contamination.
Life became patentable with a Supreme Court Decision in the mid 20th century. In Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the Court ruled that a laboratory-modified bacterium constituted a patentable reorganization of matter in 1980. Consequently, this new patentable form of invention, GEOs as a growing and living organism, enables life to be quite literally owned. Owning life is very much a form of slavery in loose terms, whether or not labor is demanded. This decision has legitimized the corportization of life, essentially monopolized by a single company, Monsanto. This is problematic in various ways. Monsanto favored qualities and favorable plant qualities and values don’t necessarily coincide. For example, some crops are grown as food for humans, or it may be produced for fodder. A further implication is that “[t]he patenting of crop genes means that farmers in the future may be obliged to pay royalties to foreign companies on varieties bed by their ancestors” (Lappe et al. 1998). There are presently 5.5 million farmers who grow GE crops on 143 million acres in 16 countries, where a quarter of farms in the developing world use GE (Prakesh & Conko 2004). GE advocates claim that concern regarding biotechnology is unwarranted. However, due to the environmental, nutritional and social implications explored above, concern is justified and warranted.
Corporate interests, particularly profit, are driving biotechnological experimentation and implementation in agriculture. However, these efforts are being done before proper consideration is given to ethical issues regarding food, health and ecological affects and patent implications. As a result, a precautionary principle is very much worth maintaining before widespread implementation. Monsanto’s M83 corn is a sufficient example of how a questionable product has already been released to the market and new studies are delegitimizing ones done prior. The adaptation and widespread use of GE crops is exceedingly threatening to socio-environmental health around the world despite the success for a single company. Monsanto has put farmers in the grasps of the new form of slavery, with tight holds on farmers’ wallets and future agriculture production capabilities.
Works Cited
Cayford, Jerry. 2004. Breeding Sanity into the GM Food Debate. Science and Technology: 49-56.
de Venomois, Joel Spirous, Francois Roullier, Dominique Cellier and Gilles-Eric Seralini. 2009. A Comparison on the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. International Journal of Biological Science 5: 706-726.
Doull, J., D. Gaylor, H.A. Greim, D.P. Lovell, B. Lynch and I.C. Munro. 2007. Report of an Expert Panel on the reanalysis by Seralini et al. (2007) of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn (MON 863). Food and Chemical Toxicology 45.11: 2073-2085.
Lappe, Frances Moore Joseph Collins, Peter Rosset and Luis Esparza. 1998. World Hunger. Grove Press.
Prakash, C.S. and Gregory Conko. 2004. Technology for Life: How Biotech Will Save Billions from Starvation. The American Enterprise: 16-20.
Shiva, Vandana. 2000. Stolen Harvest. Cambridge: South End Press.
Purpose and intent
So it would be a lie to say that I have not blogged before. However, my two prior experiences have been isolated blog attempts at informing friends and family of my travels while studying abroad in Africa and Asia. The first time, it was difficult to write, because I didn't know who was going to read it, I was only committing myself to write for three weeks and I didn't have consistent internet access. The second time, I blogged over a much longer time period, and found myself much more invested because I knew this would be the best way to not only remember what I did, but inform my loved ones of my activities and reassure them about my safety. However, at the request of my Food Justice professor, Devon Pena at the University of Washington, I am trying again. I can't say how often I will keep up with this, or am I going to try to categorize the topics that will come up (besides they will be things through my perspective, and consequently things that I believe are important or worth sharing to a larger audience). Here's to another attempt! Further, since this is a more generalized blog name, I am hoping that it will entice me to continue past the extent of the quarter. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
