The Death Penalty = Enviro Activism

"If you oppose the death penalty, does it also mean you are in favor of doing nothing at all about crime?"

This, I think, was my favorite passage in the book, though it specifically says nothing about "climate change." I think that it was great analogy to draw that can be used in many cases. It also did a lot to help Kenner become my favorite character in the book.

That said, I'll back track a little. I set out to read Crichton's book with an open mind and vowed to not look up anything about Crichton or the book because I knew it would bias my opinion. I still haven't researched it at all, but am planning to immediately after I finish writing this post. Anyway, I set out to keep track of how I "felt" about the book. About 100 pages in, after I abandoned the initial thought that it was going to be an "apocalypse"book about how we're going to die from global warming (I WAS SO WRONG WRONG WRONG), I felt entirely uncomfortable. My thoughts mirrored Evans' exclamations and snarky roll of the eyes. Everyone knows global warming is real. I've known it since I was a pre teen. I've been walking around in my I Am A Liberal Granola shoes telling everyone they should bike instead of drive.
For the next 50 pages or so I continued with this discomfort until I looked at the facts objectively and realized that maybe... I was wrong. And that I've been influenced by big media campaigns whose intentions are probably good... but that they, too, are generating millions of dollars by perhaps exaggerating the "dire" conditions that we as a global community are faced with.

SO, it was the analogy (quoted above) that Kenner said (calmly) to Ted Bradley (who, let's be honest, no one missed after he died- least favorite character right there, not gonna feel bad about it) in one of the many plane rides. The conversation that led to it was also, I think, an extremely important part of the book. Kenner lays down hard, proven facts about the climate and the environment. Facts that should lead any self respecting human being to question their beliefs. Am I saying I've been wrong to tell people about global warming? No. I still might believe it. But only after I look into some more facts about it. What Kenner was getting at was that all the "facts" that are coming from Envir-O-rganizations are JUST AS BIASED as the ones coming from the Industry. YES, maybe the Envir-O ones are biased in a way that makes people pick up their damn trash instead of leaving it on the sidewalk, but you (and I) have to remember that these organizations ARE MAKING MONEY from these facts, too. My liberal background is screaming at me right now to justify it by saying that the Enviro-O's are non-profit and their money goes to helping animals and ecosystems, but the truth is that I don't really know that. And I don't really know how much the founder and organizer of the World Wildlife Fund makes a year. I don't know.

This is what Crichton was trying to get at, I think. I think his book was partly an effort to make people look at what they "know" and realize that they actually... don't. That my information is coming from somewhere and it's biased beyond belief. He wants me to see that and take it into account. He doesn't want me to just accept the circulating references that are happening in the Enviro Arena right now.
All in all I think I enjoyed it. I enjoyed this book (exception: ending. Terrible. Hated it. Stupid.). I like science. And that's news to me.

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 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.

greed for lack of a better word is good

I cant really say which one of the two systems is more real. On one hand we have the presence of subsidies which are meant to smooth consumption and represent "positive" government intervention which could be considered fairly Keynesian, on the other we have the whole discussion of over production, high prices and other market failures such as monopolies which really come from a very Friedman standpoint as they are the result of not allowing the free market to find its equilibrium. I would take the more Latour friendly way out here and say that since we have named both systems they are both present. They are both our reality because really they are just ways of discussing our economy and provide terms and ideologies for those who would seek to impact the current status quo. For those who seek less government intervention and less subsidies they neoclassical school is their friend and has been ever since it was defined. For those that would preserve government intervention in our agricultural world such as price floors subsidies and other intervention, Keynsian ideas offer a school of thought and ideologies that offer support to their side. Since we do have government intervention and don't have perfectly competitive and free markets we could say that Keynsian ideas have in certain ways won, however we do have calls to decrease government intervention and have critiques of this government we could say that it is a neoclassical agenda  that is shaping our reality.

The industrial Food economy is Keynesian

It would be nice to think that one, as an individual, always decides what one consumes from a certain company. Unfortunately we so not always have this power, but capitalism may allow you to think you do. Yes, corporations do compete, however it is not as simple as supplying what is in demand and the better product 'winning' or making sure the a product is at best quality, but still at a reasonable price. 

Instead, the largest of corporations have the power to dictate what goes on the shelves at a store as well as what is going to be best for their company, and not necessarily for the consumer or even those who are actually producing their product (and by that I mean the employees of a corporation in production as well as selling). Corporations decide what is in demand because of the supply that they decide they will have.

For example when it comes to food production, corn is being farmed more than ever because it's a cheap commodity and modified to fit the product they would like to sell. In this way, the contemporary industrial food economy is keynesian. Certain demands are high because the corporations have manipulated it to be the demand. There is never a reason for high fructose corn syrup to be used in real food (which excludes chips, ice cream, soda, crackers, candy, chocolate, other junk food) but it is in order for products to be made cheaply and sold 'cheaply' with a large profit in the end. Therefore the demand for food with HFCS has been created for the sake of the corporation, individuals have not created this demand. There is also no way for a small business to ever be able to compete with a corporation unless their products are similar, and that is if they can make it to the point of competition without being bought out first.

There is a reason why grocery stores like Cub, Rainbow and Target sell mostly food that is produced by major corporations and a very small quantity of smaller and perhaps organic brands. Affordability for the customer perhaps, but more so, like I said before, the corporations have the power to put as much of their product on the shelf and the area of the shelf that it's on (top, middle/eye level, or bottom). As far as supply goes, plenty of smaller natural/co-op grocery stores are able to supply their customers with other products that are not filled with artificial sweetners and chemicals, but the demand that Cub or Target has is not there because the other corporations have already made it impossible for more small farms to develop in order to make a larger supply and to be as affordable.

Keynesian Efforts

     Being from a very non-economical background and having little understanding of these two very different paradigms, this blog challenged me. After doing some research on my own, I was still very perplexed but came to a decision. I think that when dealing with the current agribusiness, agricultural condition, and general economical state of the nation we live in, the Keynesian economic paradigm better describes the "reality" in which the contemporary U.S. industrial food economy resides in currently. The United States is taking leaps and bounds to try to reach a better economical and financial condition. The Keynesian paradigm better fits the current industry than the Neoliberal because of its ability to stimulate the economy and its ability to provide the consumers of America and other countries with reliable regulations and necessary taxation. This approach also stimulates business productivity and growth. In the inauguration speech given by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, the ideals of Keynesianism were laid out as the answer to getting out of the Great Depression. 

     I think that the past few years have been based on a Neoliberal approach and that has not gotten us to a good place. The economy is still very poor and the unemployment rate is sky high.I think the Neoliberal approach is far too dependent on supply and demand to be beneficial to the economy we live in today. Although the United States already is recognized as having a fairly laissez-faire rule over the economy, I think that the use of Neoliberalism would only push the given freedoms to the extremes. There would be no regulations and no standards for the safety and well being of the consumer and producing companies would find ways to drastically increase profits by lowering quality. Neoliberalism also enhances the role of private sector, where goods are not controlled by the government in anyway. 

Gods/Giants/Depression

Friedman it is.

Friedman advocates that supply creates its own demand (Say's Law which Keynes' coined). Hence, looking at our modern day supply corn, we have so much corn we don't even know what to do with all of it. Nor the capacity to store all of it so some of it lays out in the mud by the grain elevators. Currently, we believe that if we keep corn prices low enough and supply incredibly high, businesses and industries will find something to do with it thus creating a demand for it. Corn, as the Omnivore's Dilemma has showed us, is in or used to make so much food made by the industry.

Who makes up the industry? Well a few massive corporations - monopolies. Monopolies Mr. Friedman likes, but more on that in a second. Cargill and ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) buy nearly one third of the corn produced in America (Omnivore's Dilemma 63) meanwhile there are only 4 giant meatpacking companies, who use corn to feed their cows, Tyson, Cargill subsidiary Excell, Swift & Company, and National (these companies slaughter and market 4 out of 5 beef cattle in the US) (Omnivore's Dilemma 69). These are a just few of the countless examples of how monopolies run the food economy. Agriculture is also the product of government policies through subsidizing corn for example (Omnivore's Dilemma 61). Thus the government runs a monopoly on the food economy also.

Friedman sticks up for monopolies in Capitalism and Freedom: Monopoly and Social Responsibility. He talks about the economic theory of competition and how it is an ideal construct "designed to analyze particular problems rather than to describe existing situations. As a result, there can be no clear-cut determination of whether a particular enterprise or industry is to be regarded as monopolistic or competitive" (121). He goes on to say that enterprise (business) monopolies have a "relative unimportance from the point of view of the economy as a whole" (121). He completely writes off monopolies as something relativistic and unimportant. He goes on more to defend and write off the stigmatism's of monopolies but I'll spare the details for the sake of brevity. Which reaffirms the seemingly rationale/attitude of our current government (and public) favoring and allowing for the existence of so many monopolies today.

The economy of agriculture has turned into the free market system thanks to Mr. Butz. And Friedman argues for the inherent morality of free markets where they will self correct themselves. The notion of social responsibility does not apply to entrepreneurs because their only responsibility, he claims of course, to make a profit. In turn, the demands and needs of everyone will be fulfilled via the free market.

Keynes argues for active investment. Instead, modern corn production is a passive investment just hoping that someone or some business will buy the massive reserves/excess.

It's only fitting that I wrote this during a thunderstorm. The gods are clashing over their paradigms while the lay people on earth are effected by their destructive disagreements and lack of understanding.

None other than Keynesian

The Keynesian economic paradigm is a much better example of the world we live in with regards to the current U.S. agriculture industry as what is more “real”.  As opposed to the neoclassical school of thought, the contemporary agriculture economy is more real in a Keynesian way because the government or public sector helps stimulate the economy when times are tough.

Currently, the U.S. food industry is dominated by large corporations like Nestle, McDonalds (I gave you up for lent you temptress), and Kraft. These large corporations pay the farming to produce their ingredients to make their products. Ultimately, the large corporations make more money because they are at the top of the food chain, determining a price that will make them the maximum amount of profit. The large corporations undergo many regulations and larger taxes in order to control the food industry. Without these restrictions, the economy would get out of control because the product would be of low quality in order to save the large corporations money. The government regulates the quality of the products and gives bigger taxes to more wealthy corporations. This type of government influence in the economy is indicative of Keynesian economics where the public sector assists in the economy to help maintain order. It is not uncommon to read in the news about how a state or the Federal legislature is giving tax breaks to community farmers. For example, one article I found in the Salt Lake Tribune, talked about how in Utah, the state legislature wanted to reduce property taxes for urban farms. This is to help them survive in the volatile contemporary market. It is clear that there is government control in the agricultural food industry. It is not a completely laissez-faire economy.

The neoclassical approach to this industry is not real because it relies solely on supply and demand. Sure, food companies are going to be adapting to supply and demand, but neoclassicism does not factor in societal issues. It is very theoretical. If the food industry were run on a maximum profit based economy without regulation, corporations would just make the worst food possible. People need to eat, so the people would continue to buy it. The gluttonous corporations would become filthy rich. This is clearly, not the case in the U.S. food economy. There are certain standards all corporations have to adhere to for the welfare of society and the protection of the common man. The neoclassical paradigm fails to factor in public health and possible revolts if it gets too out of control.

Keynesian economics is more of the reality that we live in if we are talking about the agriculture economy. There is government or public interaction to police the distribution of wealth.  Welcome back to homework everyone…