It is much easier to address these issues with nourishing food in hand and mouth.
Our International Division of Greener Reader gave us intriguing talking points to start off our discussion of Silent Spring this month. Most of the group was so flabbergasted by the profound implications of raising such issues, only Marguerite and myself had the strength to respond to the questions she posed. It is much easier to address these issues with nourishing food in hand and mouth.
0 Comments
Syngenta moving seed research facility to Kauai Thanks to the more than 30,000 CFS members like you who signed our petition and to the good work of our allies like Consumers Union, Food and Water Watch, and others, we convinced the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to not extend the allowance of the antibiotic tetracycline beyond 2014 for organic apple and pear production! It's good to hear that the integrity of the organic standard is being protected. Why would an antibiotic be allowed in some organic products but banned from others?
USDA Consumer Brochure: Organic Food Standards and Labels: The Facts “What is organic food? Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled ‘organic,’ a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too.” Consumer Brochure,USDA National Organic Program,http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Consumers/brochure.html Published on Dec 8, By Damien Cave from the New York Times. It would be great to hear our politicians see agriculture in the way Castro describes it in this quote! But even declaring food production as such an important priority, current structures and policies have actually increased the money going to importing food, decreased production effeciency, and still leaves farmers skeptical of the government's programs. There have been failures on the part of government's mismangement and poor guidence, like on price setting for particular crops or lack of access to capable vehicles for effecient transportation. The government gives acres of land free of rent to farmers on ten year leases, and it just became permissible for farmers to live on the land, but they are looking for indefinite or 99 year leases and fear at any minute the government will take the land back if they need it f President Raúl Castro has made agriculture priority No. 1 By Matthew Perrone in the Star Advertiser.
"Aquabounty is the only U.S. company publicly seeking approval for a genetically modified animal that's raised to be eaten by humans. And scientists worry that its experience with the FDA's lengthy review process could discourage other U.S. companies from investing in animal biotechnology, or the science of manipulating animal DNA to produce a desirable trait. That would put the U.S. at a disadvantage at a time when China, India and other foreign governments are pouring millions of dollars each year into the potentially lucrative field that could help reduce food costs and improve food safety. Already, biotech scientists are changing their plans to avoid getting stuck in FDA-related regulatory limbo. Researchers at the University of California, Davis have transferred an experimental herd of genetically engineered goats that produce protein-enriched milk to Brazil, due to concerns about delays at the FDA. And after investors raised concerns about the slow pace of the FDA's Aquabounty review, Canadian researchers in April pulled their FDA application for a biotech pig that would produce environmentally friendly waste. "The story of Aquabounty is disappointing because everyone was hoping the company would be a clear signal that genetic modification in animals is now acceptable in the U.S.," said Professor Helen Sang, a geneticist at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland who is working to develop genetically modified chickens that are resistant to bird flu. "Because it's gotten so bogged down — and presumably cost AquaBounty a huge amount of money — I think people will be put off." The science behind genetic modification is not new. Biotech scientists say that genetic manipulation is a proven way to reduce disease and enrich plants and animals, raising productivity and increasing the global food supply. Genetically modified corn, cotton and soybeans account for more than four-fifths of those crops grown in the U.S., according to the National Academies of Sciences. (No mention of the the scientists and research that refutes biotech assertions about genetic modification?) Using gene-manipulating technology, Aquabounty adds a growth hormone to the Atlantic salmon from another type of salmon called the Chinook. The process, company executives say, causes its salmon to reach maturity in about two years, compared with three to four years for a conventional salmon. (Thinking of beef and chicken, I feel that growth hormones in animals seem more popular with food producers than food consumers...) This article below is from October 2 2010 by Ira Zunin in the Star Advertiser Approval of GM salmon for eating is premature The Food and Drug Administration is about to grant approval for salmon to be the first genetically engineered animal available for human consumption. Why not? Knowingly or unknowingly, we already consume multiple GM plants. GM salmon, which contain a gene from the pout fish, grow at twice the size. That sounds good. Farmed salmon, not wild, already comprise more than 90 percent of all salmon eaten. Genetically modified salmon, according to the American Medical Association, are "substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts and no long-term side effects have yet been detected." The AMA statement is not only supportive of the pending FDA decision; it further indicates that there is no duty to inform consumers when the salmon they eat is genetically modified. Anyone who has taken a science course in middle school can tell you about natural selection, the balance of nature and how little it takes to upset an ecosystem. The first salmon ancestors lived in the primeval lakes of Canada 40 to 50 million years ago. The truth is we have no idea how a genetically modified salmon, with a pout gene that makes it grow twice as fast, will affect human health or the environment. AquaBounty, the small biotech company that developed the GM salmon, assures us that 98 percent of its eggs produce fish that cannot reproduce. Still, if GM salmon escape as farmed fish have in the past, those 2 percent fertile supersalmon could out-compete our wild salmon populations in no time. It would be recklessly premature to approve genetically engineered salmon for human consumption. To open a Pandora's box to GM animals, especially one prized for its health benefits, would begin a slippery slope for which the FDA is unprepared. For now, we should continue efforts to: » Monitor GM plant foods and study both health and environmental impacts. » Monitor health impacts of existing non-GM farmed salmon. » Effectively protect and preserve our wild fisheries. » Address world hunger with known, safe food products. If GM salmon do slip through the FDA's net, they should at the least be labeled as such in the marketplace. If not, those averse to GM foods would have to give up this fish altogether. By PETER SUR in Hawaii Tribune Hearld
Tribune-Herald staff writer A proposed bill that would mandate the labeling of transgenic food in Hawaii could die in Honolulu Hale without reaching the state Legislature. By a 9-0 vote on Sept. 5, the Hawaii County Council passed a resolution asking the Hawaii State Association of Counties to include in its 2013 legislative package a proposal requiring consumers to be notified that a food product or a raw agricultural commodity contains material from genetically engineered organisms, or GMOs. If approved by the Legislature and the state, the law would go into effect Jan. 1, 2014. But before HSAC can include the language in its legislative package, it has to be approved by all four county councils. The councils of Kauai and Maui County have both passed resolutions in favor of GMO labeling, but the Honolulu City Council has not. Last Wednesday afternoon, minutes before the close of the business for the Thanksgiving weekend, five Honolulu council members introduced a resolution for the HSAC that omits requests to introduce both a GMO labeling bill and a proposed repeal of the Public Lands Development Corp. The passage of the resolution without a floor amendment would mean that the Hawaii County Council’s votes requesting HSAC to introduce legislation abolishing the PLDC and mandating GMO labeling would be nullified. GMO opponents could still get the Legislature to pass a bill requiring transgenic labeling, but that was tried through several bills in the 2012 session without success. Given that record, it’s unclear whether lawmakers would support an HSAC-sponsored bill establishing GMO labeling requirements. But at minimum, the support of all four counties’ legislative bodies would be seen as a significant advance for the organic foods movement. The resolution will be discussed this afternoon in a Honolulu council committee and again at a meeting of the full council on Dec. 5. HSAC President Mel Rapozo, a Kauai councilman, has set Dec. 6 as the final deadline for the acceptance of legislative proposals. The omissions were noticed by Naomi Carmona, executive secretary to Honolulu Councilman Tom Berg. Carmona, the founder of the anti-GMO organization Babes Against Biotech, said the council’s practice of unilaterally removing proposals that had been circulated statewide was of questionable legality, and she added that Berg introduced an amended resolution that restores the GMO labeling requirements. The Honolulu council members’ removal of the PLDC resolution, however, was not discovered quickly enough for Berg’s staff to place an amendment on the agenda, meaning that proposals to abolish the agency could face another hurdle absent a floor amendment. “It’s going to be crazy at Honolulu Hale tomorrow,” Carmona said, with expected testimony from people opposed to both GMOs and the PLDC. Mark Phillipson, the lead of corporate affairs for Syngenta Hawaii, takes a different approach. “I don’t think anybody’s opposed to the right to know what’s in people’s food. I think it’s more of the framework of the laws or the labeling requirements that need to be done.” Syngenta is a multinational corporation based in 90 countries. It grows transgenic corn and soybeans on Oahu and Kauai. “Our industry, we hope that food labeling would be based on facts and science,” Phillipson said. He cited the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s position that “they don’t deem it necessary to label” the foods and concurrence by the American Medical Association. “Anything that’s GMO, we’d certainly want it to be thoroughly tested and go through the rigors of science and scientific review, but the mandatory labeling is something that is not necessary,” Phillipson said. Genetically modified foods include a majority of papayas being grown in Hawaii, 95 percent of soybeans in America and 88 percent of corn. Passage of a GMO labeling bill, then, could prevent any item containing corn from being sold in Hawaii without a label. That includes soft drinks and other processed foods that use high fructose corn syrup, corn starch and popcorn. The labeling requirements also apply to food products “derived from an animal that has been fed” transgenic food, which would include most meats. “If you do require this mandatory labeling, there are going to be costs associated with it,” Phillipson said. That was also an issue for Hawaii County Councilman Dennis Onishi, even though he voted in favor of including the bill in the HSAC package. “My only concern would be the cost (of relabeling),” Onishi said. “If there are added costs, it’s going to be put onto the consumer.” Two grocery store chains that make up 80% of grocery store sales in Austraila are phasing out factory farmed animal products. From Common Dreams. "Meanwhile, in the United States, egg factory farms cram Another example of the lax regulations in the US compared to elsewhere. Blegegggghh.
Part II..."Slavoj Zizek: Far Right and Anti-Immigrant Politicians on the Rise in Europe" 'You know, let me conclude with another thing that may interest you. People tell me, "What you are saying is impossible." Did you notice how strange the word "impossible" functions today? When you talk about private pleasures and technology, everything is possible, you know, like we will live forever, everything will be downloaded, we can do whatever we want. We say impossible is happening everywhere in technology. But, the moment you go to social changes, ah, ah, ah, the idea is—we learned the lesson from the fall of socialism—practically everything that disturbs the market is impossible. So what they ruling ideology is telling us, maybe we will live forever, maybe we will become omnipotent, whatever you want, all these new—we will all travel to moon—that’s all possible. But a small social change of more healthcare is not possible. Maybe the time has come to change this and to less dream about these gnostic possibilities we will all turn into digital entities and more about quite modest social changes.' When I read what Slavoj says, I'm inspired by how easy it is for him to recognize the discrepencies in our conventional norm: the fact that we see infinite possibility for the impossible with technology but we limit the possibilites for social change. And it makes me wonder if this is a strategic paradigm, is it nique to our society/country, who benefits from it and what enables it to stay in place, who is capable of dismantling it, how, and what could replace it? Critics of Žižek's style include Harpham (2003) and O'Neill (2001) Both
agree that Žižek flouts standards of reasoned argument. Harpham calls Žižek's style "a stream of nonconsecutive units arranged in arbitrary sequences that solicit a sporadic and discontinuous attention." O'Neill concurs: "a dizzying array of wildly entertaining and often quite maddening rhetorical strategies are deployed in order to beguile, browbeat, dumbfound, dazzle, confuse, mislead, overwhelm, and generally subdue the reader into acceptance." While criticizing Žižek's style in general, David Bordwell criticizes his humor as an "academic humor" and in Bordwell's words academic humor is to humor what "military intelligence is to intelligence." Supporters such as R. Butler argue that such critiques miss the point and instead support Žižek's thinking: "As Žižek says, it is our very desire to look for mistakes and inconsistencies in the Other that testifies to the fact that we still transfer on to them...." Žižek's supporters praise his "irrepressible urge and inexhaustible ability to articulate theory at length, in depth, and with manifold entertaining examples" but his critics complain of a theoretical chaos in which questions and answers are confused, and in which Žižek constantly recycles old ideas which were scientifically refuted long ago (or which in reality have quite a different meaning than Žižek gives to them). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj Haters. |
Archives
April 2014
Categories
All
|