State of the World

I found it hard to not like the main narrator Evans. As the novel progresses through his point of view, it is easy to realize he is just along for the ride but believes he knows what is going on. Morton only gives Evans bits of information but confides in him, and leaves him with encrypted instructions after his death. I found it was very easy to relate to Evans especially when he is given different assignments but does not quite know what he is getting into. I can think of plenty of times when I have been given instructions but do not quite understand what my boss or professor is wanting me to do so I just nod my head and figure it out as I go. Evans I would label as ‘the clueless one’, I see him as an educated citizen who is fairly confident that he knows what is going on, but his convictions are ‘wishy-washy’. For example, when Jennifer Haynes interrogates him he starts to almost doubt what he believes. Evans always seems to get pushed around and he just goes with it.

As I was reading in the beginning, Part 1, I kept getting the sense that the Author was holding back information (I understand Crichton had to captivate the audience), but there were constantly questions running though my mind as I tried to find connections between characters and piece together different parts of the book. There was always an undertone of discomfort; things are not as safe as the characters perceive them to be, which is evident by the number of innocent characters are killed quickly, like the wave scientist and the guy who helps move the wires. I predicted Morton’s death when he had Sarah buy an identical Ferrari to one he already owned. Also, it was hard to decide whom Evans should trust. I found myself reading this novel skeptical of all the characters and facts, and looking for ulterior motives.

By Part II I loved Kenner, he is informed, powerful, can be condescending and confident; a stark contrast to Evans. One of his quotes that struck me was on page 236,

“Remember African killer bees? There was talk of them for years. They’re here now and apparently there’s no problem. Remember Y2K? Everything you read back then said disaster was imminent. Went on for months. But in the end, it just wasn’t true.”

We as a society appear to be convinced easily and this theme seems to be what Crichton is chipping away at, and one of the best ways is by scaring people. The misconception that we are informed can be damaging. Naïve Evans is called out by Kenner for not knowing the facts to support his beliefs. Especially now in the days of social media and google searches at our fingertips it is easy to be persuaded by large numbers of people supporting a cause. One of the things that this book reinforces is to search out the data and facts, ask questions and figure out what is behind different perspectives. “Are you sure of your facts?” (Page 527). There can be a lot of politics and rhetoric behind an argument that can transform your beliefs to be swayed one way. The buzzword to correlate with this was ‘parameterization’ (Page 236); a way to disguise what is actually just a simple guess. It is amazing how much more convincing one word is from the other. “A prediction can never be proof” (page 532).

Blog posting #6 (due Sunday 4/1, 11:59 P.M.): Tell me who do you love? Getting into (a) STATE OF FEAR

Michael Crichton's State of fear is, in our opinion, the hardest book we're reading in this class. Nevermind that it's written at about a fourth-grade reading level and the plot and characters are cliché as hell. Crichton has produced an extremely tight, often inscrutably knotted hybrid of literature, research, rhetoric, ideology, history, 'publics,' seeing devices...and a whole lot more. Our task, over the next three weeks, is to untangle it and figure out how it works. Here, we make the first step.

Your assignment: react to the book -- or what you've read of it thus far.

(Try to get about 300-400 pages into it before responding, to get a decent grasp of the whole. It shouldn't take too long.)

Your reaction may take many forms, and go in many different directions, but it should include each of the following:

-- at least one passage from the text of the novel itself (see the work schedule for the passages we found most noteworthy),
-- at least one term/concept from science studies ('incorrigible propositions,' hybrids, paradigms, seeing devices, issue selection, circulating reference, non-human agents, talking corn (or bacteria), etc.), and
-- a term/concept from literary studies (remember?--high school stuff?):

CHARACTER(S) [the ethical argument]: In Omnivore's dilemma, we noted a cast of characters who end up making much of Pollan's argument—the saintly, crusty, pure Joel Salatin; the ambiguous organic capitalist Gene Kahn; the manly-man / hunter Angelo; the hard-working George Naylor.  Almost all of An inconvenient truth works by character, starring the good-hearted, pony-owning, commercial airline-riding, scissors-lift elevated Al Gore.  Nice guy.  Not like George Bush, or Senator Inhofe, who we see saying dumb things in public.  In classical rhetoric, making an argument by presenting yourself as a good and reliable character is called 'ethical argument': believe me; I'm a nice guy.

Get into the science, literature, rhetoric and politics of State of fear by reacting to one or more of the characters we meet in the early parts of the novel.  How did you like them? (be honest; it's OK to like shallow cliché character; don't take the easy, snarky low road). 

Don't-bore-your-friends (or your instructors) directive: when you post, do look at what's been posted already and try to add to the discussion, bringing in new passages and concepts and ideas, rather than rehashing points that've already been made. There's no shortage of material here -- be bold!

Background Report: The Merits of Meat

_{Alpha and Omega Present…}

_{A Presentation Assured to ROCK YOUR WORLD:}

_{THE MERITS OF MEAT}

_{Or, A Reasonable Approach to the Eating Meat in the 21st Century}

_{(Formatted in timeless Comic Sans MS for your viewing pleasure)
---}

_Rhetoric

_{Why is feasting on flesh such to some people--even taking hold of their identities as times--while others can’t be bothered by a pork chop gracing their plate for years at a time?  Who knows, but one thing can’t be doubted:  this question and this question alone seems to raise more hoopla than any other in the field of food.  It seems especially perplexing considering (as Pollan pointed out) the thousands upon thousands of species which humans may consume and draw energy from.  With animals making up on a small part of this collective, why is it such a big deal that we must eat them?  Take this into account with the actions of such extremist groups as PETA and the message becomes clear:  few questions in the world of the connoisseur raise such a stink as one’s choice to or to not eat meat.}                            

_{...Ever have to fill out one of those cards citing indicating your meal preferences before a conference, really fun leadership workshop, or wedding?  Do they ask you whether or not you want vegetables with your meal?  “Of course not—don’t be absurd!”  Exactly.  But one option that’s almost always offered is that of “vegetarian” (or, as is increasingly common, “vegan”).  In this way it can be seen that meat holds a very special place in the heart and stomachs of the human species (some societies more than others, but you get the point)—it exists as a complex, continually intertwining relationship between the hunter and the hunted where, as Pollan expounds on, the predator comes to resemble the prey more than anyone would have thought possible.  If we take all this into perspective, we can see the rhetoric in which people speak about eating food, specifically meat, pertains to many areas of life: health, biology, culture, and morality (and then some).}

_{Beef or fish?  You mean I can’t have both?}

_Health

_{Although it’s certainly not a challenge to find a study linking vegetarianism to a longer life span, decreased incidences of heart disease and cancer in comparison to meat-eaters, in this common assertion lies a dilemma:  is it the presence of less meat, more vegetables, or a synergistic of both which makes vegetarians healthier people?  Can it be that, by and large, vegetarians (seeing as how they can afford to buy more produce, and because produce is expensive, are therefore assumed to have more moo-lah) can just afford better health care?  Honestly, it’s hard to tell (although science will never admit how much they pretend).}

_Biology

_{The scientist in us (or if you’re the touchy/feeling/“back to nature” type, the scientist in others) recently discovered something which may help paint a fuller picture of why we crave the cow (not surprisingly, it’s something many non-American cultures have been aware of for centuries):  a taste bud completely devoted to meat.  It’s called umami.1  Whether you consider it to be the “scientific term to describe the taste of glutamates and nucleotides” or “a loanword from the Japanese umami meaning ‘pleasant savory taste.’”  Diving a bit into the topic of umami could be considered a science war in and of itself—although umami clearly “represents the taste of the amino acid L-glutamate and 5’-ribonucleotides such as guanosine monophosphate (GMP) and inosine monophosphate (IMP),” it  Once again proving the dividing—rather than the uniting—characteristics of meat in our modern-day society.  One last note:  there’s also morphological evidence to suggest that our ancestors developed bigger brains thanks to containing (maybe consuming?) animal flesh.  Kind of a foot-in-the-mouth situation to tell a vegetarian that he/she wouldn’t possess the mental faculty to make the choice not to eat meat if his/her ancestors wouldn’t have, huh?}

_Culture

_{Of course, what would the ethical/biological dilemma of eating meat be without culture contributing its fair share?  When you picture (a much younger) Arnold Schwarzenegger sitting down to a post-workout meal, do you imagine a heaping pile of greens or a giant steak?  While the case may be a rib eye for the Governator, five-time Mr. Universe Bill Pearl is a proud lacto-ovo vegetarian, and has been since 1969.2  So why did you picture a steak?  While you certainly can’t discredit the fame of Arnold Schwarzenegger (I mean, whoever heard of Bill Pearl?), the main culprit seems to be a fostered association of meat with manliness.  To many, the thought of slaying a beast and taking relish in the victory by feasting on its flesh evokes images of brawny, uni-browed cave people (enter Arnold).  Let’s face it:  no one wants to be the 98 pound weakling getting sand kicked in his face, even if you don’t have to eat half a cow to grow big and strong.  Is this indicative of something larger in our culture, of the rigid gender stereotypes which have been implanted since our mother first wrapped us in a blue or pink towel?  Absolutely—it’s just sad that something as primary as what we eat and how we eat it has to play a role in shaping how we’re perceived by our self and others.}

_{Who’s more of a man?}

_Morality

_{While some point to religious doctrine as a means with which to justify their not eating animals (or not eating them in certain combinations, as is the case with kosher law), some people, like Joel Salatin, who owns and runs Polyface Farm, actually use it to legitimize their acts.  Keep in mind, not every farmer considers slaughtering their pigs a religious experience—then again, not every farm has the goal of “emotionally, economically and environmentally enhancing agriculture.”3 Indeed, Salatin views his role as a “responsibility to honor the animals as creatures that reflect God’s creative and abiding love, and believes his method is to honor that of God.”3   When asked by Pollan in Omnivore’s Dilemma how he can justify killing living beings while maintaining his faith, Salatin quips that "people have a soul, animals don't” (331).  Perhaps in this sense, religion and its accompanying texts could be seen as means to an end—a way for people to feel secure in their decision to or not to partake in the process of animal consumption.  Indeed, whether or not we consume meat there are some realities of meat that we should all be aware of, like the difference between corn fed versus grass fed beef, and if eating grass fed is a possible way to crave our meat and eat it too.}

_Science

_{The scientific effects of corn fed beef have raised concerns in nutritional academia and with many environmentalist agencies. Corn fed beef has been scientifically linked to deficits in nutritional values, and an increased risk of consumers getting sick from specific strands of E. Coli. Besides the effects corn fed beef has on humans, the corn fed diet of the livestock also has been scientifically proven to be unnatural for cows and is linked to health problems in the cows themselves. The decrease in health of corn fed cows has caused an increase in antibiotics administered to corn fed cows, which can further erode their health and cause further complications. Environmental agencies have expressed concern that the carbon footprint of corn fed cows is larger and more detrimental to the environment than that of grass fed cows due to the increased levels of greenhouse gases emitted by corn fed cows.}

   _{Cows are ruminants, which is a classification of animals that have unique digestive systems that specifically break down plant material which would include grass or hay (EPA.gov, 2007). This means that a diet of mainly corn or soy products is quite alien to the digestive system of a cow. Unfortunately, this is exactly what most commercial livestock is fed. When a cow is fed a diet of corn or soy, there are significant alterations and deficiencies that are a result. According to James B. Russell of the US Department of Agriculture, cows that are fed grains digest the grain faster, and the grain ferments faster which gives the cow the nutrition from the grains faster, prompting more rapid growth of the cows. However, Russell claims the grain diet results in a deficiency in the absorption of fermentation acids in the rumen of the cow’s stomach which can cause medical problems for the cow, most notably ulcers in the stomach (Sciencedaily.com, 2001).}

   _{A grain fed cow also can have significant effects on the environment, which is specifically because of the massive amount of energy needed to harvest large amounts of grain for livestock. According to an article on GreenBlizzard.com, it takes roughly 248 gallons of oil to produce grain for the diet of one cow (GreenBlizzard.com, 2011). Because grains such as corn and soy are in high demand for livestock feed, the crops are commercially grown and harvested. In the process of growing the crops there are many pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers used which can be harmful to the environment, and require significant amounts of fossil fuels for production. Grass fed cattle can be better for the environment mainly because farmers normally care for the land, practicing proper grazing techniques and sparing the land of pesticides or fertilizers (SierraClub.org). The lack of fertilizers used is because there is a natural process of fertilization by the cows, and there is little to no fossil fuels used to harvest the grass because it is the cows themselves that harvest it (EatWild.com). Manure management on grass feeding farms is also superior because, according to EatWild.com, the cows naturally spread manure which can benefit the grass. This is unlike commercial grain feeding farms where feces build up in the confines of barns and sheds, which can produce harmful ammonia fumes that can sicken cows and workers (EatWild.com). However, despite evidence of environmental degradation by grain fed livestock, there has been opposing evidence that in fact it is grass fed livestock that actually has the larger carbon footprint. According to Matthias Schulz of the University of New South Wales Research Center, a grain based diet “can be digested better by the animals, so that reduces the enteric methane production by the animals” (Discovery.com, 2010). In the same article posted on the news blog of Discovery.com, it is reported that the research done by Schulz and his team found that grass fed cows emitted 20 percent more greenhouse gases than grain fed cows. They also concluded that although emissions were collectively higher on grain fed feedlots, the cows plump up faster and are therefore slaughtered faster, which means each cow actually emits less gas overall on feedlots (Discovery.com, 2010).}

   _{Regardless of environmental issues, there has been evidence that grain fed livestock results in significantly less healthy meat for humans. The processes of commercial livestock grain feeding are meant to grow the cows quickly, and to “plump” up the cows before slaughter. Grain fed cows yield beef that has the potential of containing higher levels of harmful bacteria and disease that can cause health problems in humans. This poses an even bigger concern considering the ubiquitous use of corn fed beef in America, specifically in fast food restaurants across the nation. In a study that was spearheaded by geobiologist, Hope Jahren, of the University of Hawaii, researchers targeted beef used by these fast food chains, and tested the beef for a specific type of carbon (13 C) that is found in higher levels in corn. The result was that “93 percent of the tissue that comprised the meat was derived from corn.” However, in the same article that this study was published Scientific American claims that although corn fed beef is undoubtedly widely consumed there has been no specific health effects in humans from eating corn fed meat (ScientificAmerican.com, 2008).}

   _{Unlike the article by Scientific America, there has been scientific evidence circulated that has shown noticeable nutritional deficiencies of grain fed beef. One of the most important deficiencies that exists in the meat is the lower Omega-3 fatty acids, which are considered “good” fats for humans. Grain fed beef also is lower in CLA (conjugated linoleic acid), which helps fight cardiovascular disease and cancer (SustainableTable.org). Grass fed beef on the other hand does not share the same deficiencies, and also has some benefits that grain fed beef does not have. Grass fed beef has been known to have higher levels of Omega-3 fatty acids, along with lower levels of Omega-6 fatty acids than grain fed beef; Omega-6 fatty acids are considered bad for human health, and can be attributed to obesity in America (OrganicGrassFedBeefInfo.com).}

   _{A final danger of grain fed beef is the higher risk for humans of contracting illness from the E. Coli strain  E. coli O157:H7. According to an article on the Cornell Chronicle website, both animals and humans naturally have E. Coli in their digestive systems, however strains like E. coli O157:H7 can cause serious health problems in humans. This strain is present in grain fed cows because they break down the starch poorly, and some undigested grain reaches the colon and ferments. Upon fermentation, E. Coli strains like O157:H7 are produced which are acid resistant – these strains can survive the acid shock of the human digestion system and cause bloody diarrhea and other complications in humans (Cornell.edu, 1998).}

_{Such large consumption of resources and materials mutates meat into something other than a food; it’s a political pawn, a resource, a commodity.  Not exactly what Hippocrates had in mind when he advised his patients to let “food be they medicine and let thy medicine be food.”}

_Politics

_{Politics is a big component of the meat eating hybrid. This is a topic that can extend into an endless discussion. However, three major players are inevitably crucial to the politics of grass fed beef: the consumer, the farmers, and the providers (conventional food systems).}

_{These players, however, could have not become so entangled in this issue without the catalyzing event of corn subsidization. World war two is a significant time period. Corn began to be subsidized right after the war; corn farmers were given economic incentive to grow and sell as much corn for whatever price they could forage. Corn became so heavily subsidized that it could be purchased for 50 cents lower than what it cost farmers to raise the corn crops. The political players who established corn subsidies must have forgotten that nothing in the world is free. Everything comes at a price. This includes the seemingly-cheaper costs of corn fed beef. Between 1995 and 2006, the U.S. government spent more than $177 billion in taxpayer dollars on agricultural subsidies. Hidden costs, called externality costs, range from $5.7 billion to $16.9 billion a year in the United States (International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 2005).}    

_{Nevertheless, the economic boom in the post-war era boosted the average household income, raising consumer demand for beef. Naturally, cattle farmers responded by seeking the most cost-effective method of raising cows. Corn was not only cheap, but overflowing in supply; they needed to be consumed somehow. Timing was perfect; more cows needed to be fed, corn needed to be consumed; corn had met its match and so was the concept of corn fed cattle born. Today, the 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population.}  

_{The context of the post-war era supported the development of industrial-scale institutions. Efficiency and profit maximization reigned supreme in America, and was largely credited for America’s success in the war. There was a trend towards the industrialization of everything: including farming methods and grocery shopping. Livestock farmers seized the opportunity of industrialization by creating the corn fed cattle. Like the tightly-packed, highly ordered, and compartmentalized factories, cows were labeled, grouped, and restricted to a specific domain. Feeding efficiency (aka fattening up phase) was maximized by designing a high-calorie corn-based diet fed in a period of 4 to 6 months while limiting the cow’s energy expenditure by confining them to a cubicle-like space. This allowed cattle to be brought to market in less than 15 months. The growing availability of meat raised the need for a sufficient mediator to be able to deliver the product to consumer. So was born the conventional food system web and the supersized supermarkets. These too were based on the economy of scale to maximize efficiency. These underlying similarities between the grocery and cattle business led to a natural collaboration between the two. Their alliance holds strong today, and perpetuates the cycle which keeps beef prices low, enticing the financially-savvy consumer.}           

_{The topic of the consumer in politics of beef consumption brings culture into play. Meat eating was no longer only a tasty experience, but it became a manifestation of class and manliness in the post-war era. Today’s popular concept of “Real men eat meat” stems from military pamphlets during the war: “meat … is needed to build muscles for hardy men who fight at sea.” This type of campaigning certainly had implications for driving up the consumer demand of meat. Although there is truth in the fact that animal protein helps build muscle, Americans are currently overdosing on animal protein: the average American male gets 154% of the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of protein, 67% of this from animal meat, double the amount consumed in other developed countries (34%).}

_{Industrialization contributed to the consumption of meat, no matter the preference. Just as the desire of industrialization fueled production of meats, movements against industrialization and a desire to revert back to the “natural” state of being equally favored beef eating. Rousseau would be proud of the birth of the Paleo diet and its recent boost in popularity. This lifestyle aims at reverting back to our ancestors’ (cavemen) way of eating and emphasizes heavily on the belief that men were meant to be carnivores.}  

_{The politics of meat eating is multi-faceted and depends largely on what context we choose to view the issue in. If causality follows the events, as Latour claims, these events and players: corn subsidization, industrialization, farmers, groceries, and consumer cultures from the industrial post-war era; leads to the current cause for grass fed meat needed in the context of today’s circumstances.}

_---

_{Resources
1- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/umami
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Pearl
3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyface_Farms
4 - http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/wheat/consumption.htm
5 - http://scienceblog.com/community/older/2002/D/20024844.html
6 - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100726221737.htm
7 - http://www.letsmove.gov/about
8 - http://www.preventobesity.net/connect/leaders?issue=All&state=MN
9 - http://www.hfhl.umn.edu/AboutHFHL/index.htm}

The 'Nads do GMO's: Background Report

We're talking a lot about food right now: where it's coming from, why, how, etc. etc. Something that we eat a lot of that we don't necessarily ever think about are GMOs: Genetically Modified Organisms. But what the hell are they?

WHAT IS A GMO?

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is a plant, animal or microorganism whose genetic code has been altered, subtracted, or added (either from the same species or a different species) in order to give it characteristics that it does not have naturally.

Scientists can now transfer genes between species that otherwise would be incapable of mating, for example, a goat and a spider. This is called transgenesis. Little is known about the long-term effects of such manipulations on both humans and the environment. And while some see GMOs as the way to the future, others believe that scientists have gone too far, tinkering with the essence of life.
In terms of agriculture, a big contender for scrutiny is the company Monsanto. The Monsanto company is using GMO research and technology to modify plants, like corn, to be more able to handle weather problems, grow in high concentrations, etc, and it initially seems like a good idea- until the long term effects are analyzed.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

This is a serious issue because the natural foods that our ancestors lived on are being manipulated and changed... and this could be for the better. But it could also be for the worse. Besides our health, we also have to take into account the effects that GMOs have on the environment and on the economic/political situation today.

Potential negative effects on the environment:

Genes can end up in unexpected places: Through "gene escape" they can pass on to other members of the same species and perhaps other species. Genes introduced in GMOs are no exception, and interactions might occur at gene, cell, plant and ecosystem level. Problems could result if, for example, herbicide-resistance genes got into weeds. So far, research on this is inconclusive, with scientists divided - often bitterly. But there is scientific consensus that once widely released, recalling transgenes or foreign DNA sequences, whose safety is still subject to scientific debate, will not be feasible.

Genes can mutate with harmful effect: It is not yet known whether artificial insertion of genes could destabilize an organism, encouraging mutations, or whether the inserted gene itself will keep stable in the plant over generations. There is no conclusive data on this issue.

"Sleeper" genes could be accidentally switched on and active genes could become "silent": Organisms contain genes that are activated under certain conditions -- for example, under attack from pathogens or severe weather. When a new gene is inserted, a "promoter" gene is also inserted to switch it on. This could activate a "sleeper" gene in inappropriate circumstances. This is especially relevant in long-lived organisms - such as trees. Sometimes the expression of genes is even "silenced" as a result of unknown interactions with the inserted gene.

Impact on birds, insects and soil biota: Potential risks to non-target species, such as birds, pollinators and micro-organisms, is another important issue. Nobody quite knows the impact of horizontal flow of GM pollen to bees' gut or of novel gene sequences in plants to fungi and soil and rumen bacteria. Besides, it is feared that widespread use of GM crops could lead to the development of resistance in insect populations exposed to the GM crops. Planting "refuge" areas with insect-susceptible varieties is advised to reduce the risk of insect populations evolving resistance due to the widespread growing of GMO Bt-crops.

Potential negative effects on human health

Transfer of allergenic genes: These could be accidentally transferred to other species, causing dangerous reactions in people with allergies. For example, an allergenic Brazil-nut gene was transferred into a transgenic soybean variety. Its presence was discovered during the testing phase, however, and the soybean was not released.

Mixing of GM products in the food chain: Unauthorized GM products have appeared in the food chain. For example, the GM maize variety Starlink, intended only for animal feed, was accidentally used in products for human consumption. Although there was no evidence that Starlink maize was dangerous to humans, strict processing controls may be required to avoid similar cases in the future.

Transfer of antibiotic resistance: Genes that confer antibiotic resistance are inserted into GMOs as "markers" to indicate that the process of gene transfer has succeeded. Concerns have been expressed about the possibility that these "marker genes" could confer resistance to antibiotics. This approach is now being replaced with the use of marker genes that avoid medical or environmental hazards.

Potential benefits for the environment

More food from less land: Improved productivity from GMOs might mean that farmers in the next century won't have to bring so much marginal land into cultivation.

GMOs might reduce the environmental impact of food production and industrial processes:Genetically engineered resistance to pests and diseases could greatly reduce the chemicals needed for crop protection, and it is already happening. Farmers are growing maize, cotton and potatoes that no longer have to be sprayed with the bacterial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis- because they produce its insecticidal agent themselves. Scientists are developing trees that have a lower content of lignin, a structuring constituent of woody plant cells. This could reduce the need for noxious chemicals in pulp and paper production. These developments could not only reduce environmental impact - they could also improve the health of farm and industrial workers.

Bioremediation: Rehabilitation of damaged land may also become possible through organisms bred to restore nutrients and soil structure.

Biofuels: Organic matter could be bred to provide energy. Plant material fuel, or biomass, has enormous energy potential. For example, the waste from sugar cane or sorghum can provide energy, especially in rural areas. It may be possible to breed plants specifically for this purpose. And other unexpected, useful products could prove of huge value.

Potential benefits for human health

Investigation of diseases with genetic fingerprinting: "Fingerprinting" of animal and plant diseases is already possible. This technique allows researchers to know exactly what an organism is by looking at its genetic blueprint. One benefit may be that veterinary staff can know whether an animal is carrying a disease or has simply been vaccinated - preventing the need to kill healthy animals.

Vaccines and medicines: Similar to the long-established development of biotechnological vaccines for humans, the use of molecular biology to develop vaccines and medicines for farm animals is proving quite successful and holds great promise for the future. Plants are being engineered to produce vaccines, proteins and other pharmaceutical products. This process is called "pharming".

Identification of allergenic genes: Although some are worried about the transfer of allergenic genes (see Brazil nut example under arguments against GMOs), molecular biology could also be used to characterize allergens and remove them. Indeed, the Brazil nut incident actually led to identification of the allergenic protein.

WHAT IS YOUR CONCLUSION, 'NADS?

So there are good things about GMOs and there are bad things. So what's the conclusion? The 'Nads say, especially in terms of agriculture, that GMO's need to GTFO. There is no denying that there are some great possible outcomes of embracing genetically modified stuff,  but one also can't deny that there are proven (not possible... proven) negative outcomes to switching over to GMO-land. In terms of our health, genetically engineered foods have not been shown to be safe to eat and may have unpredictable consequences. When trans-fats were first introduced, corporations battled to get them onto your grocery shelves – and it is only decades later that this once novel food has been proven to be extremely unhealthful. Many scientists are worried that the genetically altered foods, once consumed, may pass on their mutant genes to bacterium in the digestive system, just like the canola plants on the roadsides of North Dakota. How these new strains of bacteria may affect our body systems’ balance is anybody’s guess. PLUS, the U.S. doesn't label GMO foods... which should lead you to question the sanctity of that food... why can't it be labeled? What's wrong with it that it needs to remain unlabeled?

In terms of the science behind genetically modifying foods, there are proven bad outcomes from that as well. Genetic engineering reduces genetic diversity. When genes are more diverse, they are more robust; this is why a pure bred dog tends to have greater health problems than the dear old mutt. Plants with reduced genetic diversity cannot handle drought, fungus invasions or insects nearly as well as natural plants, which could have dire consequences for farmers and communities dependent on GMO crops for survival. Due to that, GMO crops require massive amounts of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides... which will later find their way into your food, your stream, your air... etc. Plus, once the mutant genes are out of the bag, there is no going back. Genetically modified organisms contaminate existing seeds with their altered material, passing on modified traits to non-target species. This creates a new strain of plant that was never intended in the laboratory. In North Dakota, recent studies show that 80% of wild canola plants tested contained at least one transgene.

Finally, one of the greatest arguments PRO GMO is that of "ending global starvation." GMO crops are literally made to grow in great numbers in less space and withstand greater conditions that normal crops. However, it's now been proven that GMOs are not the answer for global food security:

Genetically engineered crops have shown no increase in yield and no decrease in pesticide use and in many cases other farm technology has proven much more successful, and even Monsanto agrees that its genetically engineered crops yield less than conventional farming.

The Debate on Veganism

Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace.
—Albert Schweitzer, French philosopher, physician, and musician (Nobel 1952)

Vegan (pronounced VEE-gan):

1. (n) A vegetarian who does not consume eggs or dairy

2. (n) A person who does not use or consume animals or animal products for any purpose

3. (adj) Containing no animal flesh or products (used to describe a food item or other object)

4. (adj) Produced without the use of animals or animal products.

Like everything else, veganism was first conceptualized in Ancient Greece – by Pythagoras,

who believed that an animal-free diet would help support the idea that humans and animals were

more equal and had similar souls. Jump forward to the early 19th century in England, where

the Alcott Society, a vegetarian club led by James Greaves, who were fighting the idea that

vegetarians were “outsiders” of the wealthy class (though most people of the Third Estate had

mostly vegetarian diets for hundreds of years). It was in these vegetarian groups where Henry

Salt pled for a paradigm shift in the way we think about food – to think about the rights and

welfare of the animals one eat, and to act in their, and our, best interest, similar to the idea most

Native Americans had implemented for hundreds if not thousands of years. His ideas of "anti-

speciesism" and species equality inspired world leaders – such as Gandhi and his subsequent followers.

The term vegan was finally coined in 1944 by Donald Watson, which was taken from the first

and last syllables (or letters) of “vegetarian.”  Viewed by many vegans as the "natural extension of vegetarianism," veganism as a sociocultural phenomenon has emerged all over the world, with vegan societies in places as far apart as Japan, Brazil, India, Ireland, and Uruguay.

Disputed Definitions

The criteria for being considered truly vegan are still hotly disputed in vegan circles.  While all vegans agree that veganism rules out consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs, some vegans still eat honey, while others abhor this practice on the basis of exploitation of bees.  Many vegans also reject the practice of using animal products such as pearls, coral, ivory, or leather, and some additionally reject the practice of keeping carnivorous animals such as cats as pets, because they require food containing animal products.  As we will discuss, these disputes in definition stem from vegans' differing rationales behind their practice.

The Reasoning

The reasons for veganism can be divided into three major interrelated categories: ethical, health-related, and environmental.  Vegans usually ground their practice in some combination of these different types of reasoning. 

1. Ethical Vegans

Ethical vegans come in many subtle and nuanced varieties. 

Check out the quotes on this website to get an idea of some of the ways ethical vegans think: www.veganoutreach.org/advocacy/quotes.html.

Some ethical vegans take a moral, anthropocentric stance, arguing that humans must refrain from harming animals because of our superior capability to reason, which puts the burden of ethical action upon us.  Responding to the popular argument that humans should eat meat because it is "natural" - we evolved to be omnivores after all - ethical vegans argue that just because we can eat meat doesn't mean we should.  As the creatures most capable of ethical reasoning, humans have the responsibility to prevent pain whenever possible.

Peter Singer justifies this lifestyle with his “utilitarian” philosophy that there is no moral or

logical justification for refusing to count animal suffering as a consequence when making ethical

decisions, and that the limit of sentience of animals is "the only defensible boundary of concern

for the interests of others." (Singer does not contend that killing animals is wrong conceptually,

but that from a consequentialist standpoint it should be rejected unless necessary for survival).

Gary Francione, a law professor and rights-theorist, believes that all sentient beings have the

right to not be property to another. Carol Adam’s book The Sexual Politics of Meat (otherwise

known as the vegan bible) says that all meat-eaters are absent from the idea they are eating

another animal and have lost touch with their inner-animal.

Ethical vegans frequently run into moral dilemmas in daily life, like this puzzled individual writing on an internet forum:

"I have been vegetarian for many years and try to eat organic produce, if possible. I am grappling with the issue that many organic fertilisers are of animal origin and wondering if the animals that the fertilisers are derived from are of organic origin, too? Where does it start or end? I don’t really want to eat food that has been grown in a way that causes harm to animals, but I realise that chemical fertilisers and pesticides are potentially damaging to me and to the environment. Help. Are fish, blood and bone fertilisers the most commonly used for growing organic vegetables, or are there other sources? (A local organic farmer tells me that she uses only horse manure and I try to buy as much veg as possible from her … we live in France.)"

In addition to worrying about dead animals being used as fertilizer, ethical vegans worry about insects being crushed to make red dyes, oysters being exploited in the production of pearls, silkworms being exploited to make silk, and how to feed their housecat without purchasing any animal products: http://www.vegancats.com/pages/1007/FAQ.htm#1179

Ethical vegans are often quite serious about considering veganism to be a moral imperative, and are easy to make fun of for the examples listed above.  To get a more in-depth look at how ethical vegans think and communicate, check out this thread on a vegan forum, debating whether adopting a vegan lifestyle should be considered a "moral virtue" or a "moral obligation":

http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?28840-Moral-virtue-vs-moral-obligation-and-other-arguments-that-have-me-stumped

2. Health-conscious Vegans

Although they are disdained by ethical vegans who consider an animal-rights based ethical standpoint to be essential to "true veganism," some people adhere to a vegan diet on the basis that it is healthier.  However, the jury is still out on whether or not a vegan diet can be safe and healthy for all individuals.

A popular argument against veganism is that it is simply unnatural. Humans are omnivores: a fact made evident every time we smile. We come equipped with big, thin, sharp teeth in the front of our faces that were put there to cut and tear through meat. We also require vitamin B12, which is only naturally-occurring in animal cells. For this reason, people on a vegan diet must be incredibly diligent about getting enough of this essential vitamin and often take dietary supplements or eat fortified foods to avoid falling victim to malnutrition.

This author thinks veganism is great: http://sugarrocket.com/vegan/vegan-myths.php

The scientists and health officials can't agree: while the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada state that veganism can be a healthy choice for individuals at all stages of life, the Swiss Federal Nutrition Commission and the German Society for Nutrition caution against veganism as an unhealthy choice for children, the pregnant, and the elderly.

3. Environmental Vegans

Environmental vegans abstain from eating meat on the basis that meat production, in light of a growing human population, is environmentally unsustainable.  Vegans argue that the overproduction and overconsumption of meat and dairy products in Western society has created a food production system that uses land and resources in inefficient ways, and that abstaining from this system is a means of protest and a move toward a more sustainable future food system. However, much of the world doesn’t have access to vitamin B12 supplements or fortified almond milk. Is a family in a small village that raises goats and chickens for meat, eggs and milk really partaking in “animal cruelty?”

Check out this website for further explanation of the rationale behind environmental veganism:

http://www.vegansociety.com/resources/environment.aspx

So what's our argument?  In class, Triforce will make the argument that militant ethical vegans are not only naive idealists, but are totally missing the point.  See you tomorrow!

The 'Nads do GMO's: Background Report

We're talking a lot about food right now: where it's coming from, why, how, etc. etc. Something that we eat a lot of that we don't necessarily ever think about are GMOs: Genetically Modified Organisms. But what the hell are they?

WHAT IS A GMO?

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is a plant, animal or microorganism whose genetic code has been altered, subtracted, or added (either from the same species or a different species) in order to give it characteristics that it does not have naturally.

Scientists can now transfer genes between species that otherwise would be incapable of mating, for example, a goat and a spider. This is called transgenesis. Little is known about the long-term effects of such manipulations on both humans and the environment. And while some see GMOs as the way to the future, others believe that scientists have gone too far, tinkering with the essence of life.
In terms of agriculture, a big contender for scrutiny is the company Monsanto. The Monsanto company is using GMO research and technology to modify plants, like corn, to be more able to handle weather problems, grow in high concentrations, etc, and it initially seems like a good idea- until the long term effects are analyzed.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

This is a serious issue because the natural foods that our ancestors lived on are being manipulated and changed... and this could be for the better. But it could also be for the worse. Besides our health, we also have to take into account the effects that GMOs have on the environment and on the economic/political situation today.

Potential negative effects on the environment:

Genes can end up in unexpected places: Through "gene escape" they can pass on to other members of the same species and perhaps other species. Genes introduced in GMOs are no exception, and interactions might occur at gene, cell, plant and ecosystem level. Problems could result if, for example, herbicide-resistance genes got into weeds. So far, research on this is inconclusive, with scientists divided - often bitterly. But there is scientific consensus that once widely released, recalling transgenes or foreign DNA sequences, whose safety is still subject to scientific debate, will not be feasible.

Genes can mutate with harmful effect: It is not yet known whether artificial insertion of genes could destabilize an organism, encouraging mutations, or whether the inserted gene itself will keep stable in the plant over generations. There is no conclusive data on this issue.

"Sleeper" genes could be accidentally switched on and active genes could become "silent": Organisms contain genes that are activated under certain conditions -- for example, under attack from pathogens or severe weather. When a new gene is inserted, a "promoter" gene is also inserted to switch it on. This could activate a "sleeper" gene in inappropriate circumstances. This is especially relevant in long-lived organisms - such as trees. Sometimes the expression of genes is even "silenced" as a result of unknown interactions with the inserted gene.

Impact on birds, insects and soil biota: Potential risks to non-target species, such as birds, pollinators and micro-organisms, is another important issue. Nobody quite knows the impact of horizontal flow of GM pollen to bees' gut or of novel gene sequences in plants to fungi and soil and rumen bacteria. Besides, it is feared that widespread use of GM crops could lead to the development of resistance in insect populations exposed to the GM crops. Planting "refuge" areas with insect-susceptible varieties is advised to reduce the risk of insect populations evolving resistance due to the widespread growing of GMO Bt-crops.

Potential negative effects on human health

Transfer of allergenic genes: These could be accidentally transferred to other species, causing dangerous reactions in people with allergies. For example, an allergenic Brazil-nut gene was transferred into a transgenic soybean variety. Its presence was discovered during the testing phase, however, and the soybean was not released.

Mixing of GM products in the food chain: Unauthorized GM products have appeared in the food chain. For example, the GM maize variety Starlink, intended only for animal feed, was accidentally used in products for human consumption. Although there was no evidence that Starlink maize was dangerous to humans, strict processing controls may be required to avoid similar cases in the future.

Transfer of antibiotic resistance: Genes that confer antibiotic resistance are inserted into GMOs as "markers" to indicate that the process of gene transfer has succeeded. Concerns have been expressed about the possibility that these "marker genes" could confer resistance to antibiotics. This approach is now being replaced with the use of marker genes that avoid medical or environmental hazards.

Potential benefits for the environment

More food from less land: Improved productivity from GMOs might mean that farmers in the next century won't have to bring so much marginal land into cultivation.

GMOs might reduce the environmental impact of food production and industrial processes:Genetically engineered resistance to pests and diseases could greatly reduce the chemicals needed for crop protection, and it is already happening. Farmers are growing maize, cotton and potatoes that no longer have to be sprayed with the bacterial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis- because they produce its insecticidal agent themselves. Scientists are developing trees that have a lower content of lignin, a structuring constituent of woody plant cells. This could reduce the need for noxious chemicals in pulp and paper production. These developments could not only reduce environmental impact - they could also improve the health of farm and industrial workers.

Bioremediation: Rehabilitation of damaged land may also become possible through organisms bred to restore nutrients and soil structure.

Biofuels: Organic matter could be bred to provide energy. Plant material fuel, or biomass, has enormous energy potential. For example, the waste from sugar cane or sorghum can provide energy, especially in rural areas. It may be possible to breed plants specifically for this purpose. And other unexpected, useful products could prove of huge value.

Potential benefits for human health

Investigation of diseases with genetic fingerprinting: "Fingerprinting" of animal and plant diseases is already possible. This technique allows researchers to know exactly what an organism is by looking at its genetic blueprint. One benefit may be that veterinary staff can know whether an animal is carrying a disease or has simply been vaccinated - preventing the need to kill healthy animals.

Vaccines and medicines: Similar to the long-established development of biotechnological vaccines for humans, the use of molecular biology to develop vaccines and medicines for farm animals is proving quite successful and holds great promise for the future. Plants are being engineered to produce vaccines, proteins and other pharmaceutical products. This process is called "pharming".

Identification of allergenic genes: Although some are worried about the transfer of allergenic genes (see Brazil nut example under arguments against GMOs), molecular biology could also be used to characterize allergens and remove them. Indeed, the Brazil nut incident actually led to identification of the allergenic protein.

WHAT IS YOUR CONCLUSION, 'NADS?

So there are good things about GMOs and there are bad things. So what's the conclusion? The 'Nads say, especially in terms of agriculture, that GMO's need to GTFO. There is no denying that there are some great possible outcomes of embracing genetically modified stuff,  but one also can't deny that there are proven (not possible... proven) negative outcomes to switching over to GMO-land. In terms of our health, genetically engineered foods have not been shown to be safe to eat and may have unpredictable consequences. When trans-fats were first introduced, corporations battled to get them onto your grocery shelves – and it is only decades later that this once novel food has been proven to be extremely unhealthful. Many scientists are worried that the genetically altered foods, once consumed, may pass on their mutant genes to bacterium in the digestive system, just like the canola plants on the roadsides of North Dakota. How these new strains of bacteria may affect our body systems’ balance is anybody’s guess. PLUS, the U.S. doesn't label GMO foods... which should lead you to question the sanctity of that food... why can't it be labeled? What's wrong with it that it needs to remain unlabeled?

In terms of the science behind genetically modifying foods, there are proven bad outcomes from that as well. Genetic engineering reduces genetic diversity. When genes are more diverse, they are more robust; this is why a pure bred dog tends to have greater health problems than the dear old mutt. Plants with reduced genetic diversity cannot handle drought, fungus invasions or insects nearly as well as natural plants, which could have dire consequences for farmers and communities dependent on GMO crops for survival. Due to that, GMO crops require massive amounts of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides... which will later find their way into your food, your stream, your air... etc. Plus, once the mutant genes are out of the bag, there is no going back. Genetically modified organisms contaminate existing seeds with their altered material, passing on modified traits to non-target species. This creates a new strain of plant that was never intended in the laboratory. In North Dakota, recent studies show that 80% of wild canola plants tested contained at least one transgene.

Finally, one of the greatest arguments PRO GMO is that of "ending global starvation." GMO crops are literally made to grow in great numbers in less space and withstand greater conditions that normal crops. However, it's now been proven that GMOs are not the answer for global food security:

Genetically engineered crops have shown no increase in yield and no decrease in pesticide use and in many cases other farm technology has proven much more successful, and even Monsanto agrees that its genetically engineered crops yield less than conventional farming.

US reality = Keynesian

An economic theory where the government intervenes in the market place as well as the monetary policies with the idea of ensuring economical growth and stability is a Keynesian economic theory. The U.S. industrial food economy has a lot of government intervention in various parts that labels is keynesian. For example, the FSIS is a branch of the U.S. government that overseas the safety of food delivered to consumers ensuring that people don't get sick and when people get sick, the source of the problem is identified and eliminated. The government also ensures in keeping the price of food produce stable in the market place which would be otherwise affected by external factors such as excessive production of such or underproduction of it due to biological factors. The government does this by paying of the farmers which also helps keeping farmers income stable and keeping consumers happy and the prices in the markets stable. With every looks of it, i would strong hold the ground that the U.S. reality is a keynesian one.

A Kernel of Knowledge

I really do mean "a kernel of knowledge" as I fall in to the group of people that don't have a firm grasp on economics. From my experience with economics (a one trimester class my senior year of high school) and the readings I've had in various classes concerning economic practices, my understanding of economics is all over the place. Supply and demand come to mind... that's about it. But after reading Friedman, Keynes, and Posner on Keynes my understanding is even more skewed. Regardless, I did find a stronger connection between Keynesian economics and the way Pollan exposes the food and agriculture industry in The Omnivore's Dilemma. Government and companies such as Cargill and ADM hold the most control over farmers and their crops. Their control over corn is a system designed to keep production high and prices low (Pollan 62). With low prices we are able to consume more for less, an important factor in the functioning of our economy. As Keynes claims, consumption is the sole end and object of all economic activity. Thus farmers are getting paid little for their production, and Americans are consuming highly processed foods without much consideration for its moral implications.

The word "rational" being used in the world of economics interests me, as it is not what our standard definition of rational may be. As far as I understand what is considered rational are the choices we as humans are going to make, and those choices are based off of how advertisements and propaganda shape our supposed needs. Again the government seems to be prevalent in this discussion of what is rational. As we discussed in class, neoliberal/neoclassical economists--those who would be in favor of Friedman's beliefs--aren't concerned with rational behavior. They, instead, stick to hard, cold facts concerning supply and demand.

Freedom vs. Security

Milton Friedman's worldview revolves around his belief in the possibility and desirability of a "free society" in which all activity is conducted through a voluntary exchange between individuals (Friedman 120).  Friedman views the unregulated market as the fairest possible mechanism for distributing goods and ills, keeping the individual as free as it is possible for a human to be, constrained only by the limitations of nature, supply and demand.  For Friedman, individual liberty is the highest good, which must be maintained by preventing any consolidation of power ("monopoly") whether in the hands of corporations, governments, or labor unions. 

Friedman asserts that monopolies are problematic in two ways.  First, they reduce human freedom by reducing the number of alternatives available to individuals.  Second, they provide justification for certain individuals or corporations to "discharge [their] power not solely to further [their] own interests, but to further socially desirable ends," which, in practice, would "destroy a free society" (Friedman 120).

In addition to his primary goal of maintaining a free society, Friedman aims to "invigorate capital markets, to stimulate enterprise, and to promote effective competition" (Friedman 132).  For Friedman, the political goal of individual liberty and the economic goal of maximum economic growth are inseparable: he believes neither can exist without the other.

As it is depicted by Michael Pollan, current U.S. agricultural policy operates according to a very different set of beliefs from Friedman's, instead rooted in the ideas of centralized government control promoted by John Maynard Keynes.  The federal agricultural policy of subsidizing corn production follows Keynes's belief that the desirable political configuration for economic growth is not a free society, but a stable one.  By providing subsidies to corn farmers, the U.S. government ensures a stable, federally-controlled overproduction of field corn, whose prices and levels of production are largely unaffected by Friedman's natural forces of supply and demand.  This corn can be purchased at low cost by corporations like ADM and Cargill, who then sell it to consumers in the form of "affordable" processed foods, subsidized by taxes taken from consumers' incomes.  Using their economic power to effect legislation, these food corporations have secured a system by which they can utilize public funds for private gain, producing the kind of centralized power viewed by Keynes as necessary and by Friedman as tyrannical (Pollan 52-53).

Opposing Friedman's belief in humans as rational actors who make decisions based on their own economic interests, Keynes asserts that human economic behavior is an irrational phenomenon that can be changed by propaganda, advertising, and fluctuating national moods.  The current U.S. food system described by Pollan utilizes all of these behavior-changing devices, leaving nothing up to Friedman's market forces created by the interaction of free individuals.  In fact, federal consolidation of power lies at the root of today's agricultural system: Earl Butz's efforts to maintain corn at low prices were motivated by Nixon's desire to quell political unrest during the 1973 spike in food prices (Pollan 51-52).  U.S. agricultural policy is Keynesian not only in its reliance on government control of production and prices, but in its unspoken assumption that social stability - freedom from political-economic instability - is preferable to maintaining the citizen's freedom to enter voluntarily into exchanges with other individuals.