Cons about the GE modified papaya

In class, we talked about GE modified foods in general. In my biog1110 class, we are also talking about GE in food industry, and we are focusing on the GE modified papaya in specific. The following is an abstract from an article that discusses the cons about the GE modified papaya. Many of the points made here are in accord with what we learned in class. You may also click on the link to read the full article.
Contamination by Genetically Engineered Papaya in Thailand
It has been two years since facts were made public that a research station under the Thai Government had illegally sold and distributed genetically engineered(GE) contaminated papaya seeds to farmers. Subsequent investigations by an independent constitutional body and by NGOs found GE contamination in the environment. These revelations compelled the government to admit the contamination of papaya farms, after which it ordered the destruction of GE papaya trees in the experimental plots.
Unfortunately, necessary steps to decontaminate Thailand’s environment have not been taken. The Department of Agriculture (DOA), which started the controversial genetic engineering research in question is ironically the same agency mandated to enforce the quarantine on GE papaya. The DOA claims that it has completely destroyed all GE papaya that has spread outside of the research station. However, later investigations by Greenpeace as well as by other independent organizations like the National Human Rights Commission, of papaya plots on farms that received suspected GE contaminated seeds proved otherwise. Over the past few years, GE papaya contamination has been discovered in several provinces.
Despite this, the DOA still refuses to deal with the ongoing contamination of Thai papaya farms. Instead, the agency is seeking a reversal of an earlier cabinet resolution banning all GE field trials in an effort to cover up for its sins and legitimize the spread of GE papaya to the environment.
GE papaya has never undergone proper assessments for either human food safety or environmental risks. As such, the Thai people run the risk of eating GE papaya without their knowledge and consent, thereby serving as guinea pigs for an experiment that is spiraling out of control.

Summary: Sweet Charity? (Ch. 2-3)

In these two chapters, Janet Poppendieck discusses the issues around the emergency food. In chapter two, she focuses on the issue of “who uses the emergency food program”. According to Poppendieck (1998), “the answer to our question is almost too simple for words. Who eats emergency food? Poor people, and people very much like them” (p. 51). These “poor people” are further divided into four categories: 1) some people are poor because employment-related factors, including recent unemployment, long-term unemployment, and seasonal unemployment. 2) Some people are poor because of the high shelter costs and “once a person becomes homeless, he or she almost automatically joins the ranks of the hungry” (Poppendieck 1998, p. 63). 3) Some people are poor because of the inadequate public assistance, including the inadequate government welfare programs. 4) Some people are poor and they do not have access to food stamps. These people include those wrongly denied stamps, those who are in need but not technically eligible, and those who are receiving stamps but cannot make ends meet. In chapter 3, Poppendieck focuses on the issues of “how did the emergency food program rise” and the “social constructionists’ perspective on hungry”. According the Poppendieck, the emergency food programs rose in the early 1980s, primarily as a response to both the economic recession and the “long, slow erosion of public assistance benefits … overshadowed by a major assault on domestic social spending [by the Reagan administration]” (Poppendieck 1998, p. 82). She also says that according to social constructionists, hunger is actually a label used to describe the problem of poverty. “Hunger” is preferred as the label because people in poverty are likely to experience hunger prior to other consequences like homeless.

Personal Response:
In the DSOC 1101 class that I’m taking, we also talked about the issue of poverty, especially the inner city poverty of African American people. The conclusion from that class is also that the poverty is mostly resulted from the social structure, and only social structural reforms could essentially solve the problem. Another issue addressed in that class is that American people tend to blame the inner city poverty on the poor themselves. (E.g. in a survey, people listed the poor people’s laziness as the primary source of their poverty.) The generally public’s inability of realizing the social structure as the ultimate cause of poverty is a big obstacle for effective governmental welfare programs to be implemented.

Questions to consider:
In the book, the economic recession and the assault on domestic social spending by Reagan administration are listed as two primary causes of poverty. My questions are:
1) Was the problem of poverty alleviated by the Clinton administration (with the economic prosperity)?
2) Will the Obama administration, dominated by the Democratic Party, further alleviate poverty issues?