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?

Summary: The McDonaldization of Society

Essay summary:
In this essay, the author argues that our society is undergoing the process of rationalization as is exemplified by the McDonaldization. There are five main characteristics of rationalization: 1. Efficiency: a great deal of emphasis is put on finding the best or optimum means to give any given end. 2. Predictability: it involves the effort to ensure predictability by emphasizing on discipline, order, systemization, formalization, routine, consistency, and methodical operation. 3. Calculability or quantity rather than quality: since quality is much more difficult to evaluate, the society emphasize more on quantifiable measures; calculability is the most defining characteristic of a rational society. 4. Substitution of nonhuman technology: people are now placing human labor with human robots, and so we can expect the human robots will be further replaced by mechanical robots in the future. 5. Control: at the most general level, rational systems are set up to allow for greater control over the uncertainties of life. The McDonaldization is a typical example of rationalization, since with McDonaldization, “speed, convenience, and standardization have replaced the flair of design and creation in cooking, the comfort relationships in serving and the variety available in choice” (Ritzer 2010 pp.406). In the end, the author also mentions that progressive rationalization has created a number of problems, the various irrationalities of rationality. He finally says that “what is needed is not a less rational society, but greater control over the process of rationalization involving, among other things, efforts to ameliorate its irrational consequences.
Personal responses:
The author argues that one “irrationality of rationality” is that people in the rationalization process tend to omit the joy of live. However, I do not agree with it. In my family, both my parents are busy working, and we almost always eat out. However, we feel such lifestyle brings us more joy: busy working makes us feel enriched, and eating out conforms that we are doing relatively well economically. Thus, to me, the joy of life could come from the rationalized life style, and I feel bored and less satisfied when holidays like the spring festival come and we have to stay and cook at home. (I cannot remember exactly, but there is a psychological team “flow” which describes the state of lost in the work but finding great joy at the same time. I think this applies to my family when we are busy working.)
Discussion questions:
Following my personal response, I feel that many people like my parents are currently “lost” in the rationalization process, but they are happy about their life style. I wonder if rationalization (e.g. busy working and eating out) is the joy of life for these people. In other words, if people find more joy eating out, which is interpreted as being wealthy by themselves, than cooking at home, then why do we assume the joy of cooking would be better for them? How can we assert that “rationalization tends to … [leave] much of our lives without any mystery or excitement” (pp. 413) if we find the rationalized society brings us more joy?

Summary: Mindless Eating

*This reading is not due until after the spring break, but since it’s relevant to the food lab, I will put the summary on the blog early partly for reference of others and myself.

In this essay, the author mainly talks about the “mindless eating”, its effects in our everyday life, and its potential application in helping people to lose weight. In the first part of the essay, the author argues that mindless eating is universal in our everyday life. One example is that we eat large amount of pop corns in movie theaters even though the pop corns used in the experiments had very low quality. Another example is that when the same wine is labeled differently, people perceive it differently, and they eat less food when they perceive they are given the wine with worse quality. Such discussion leads to the conclusion that mindless eating is universal in our everyday life, and “we overeat because there are signals and cues around us that tell us to eat [rather than because we feel we are full]” (Wansink 15). This conclusion then leads to the second part of the essay which discusses the issue of losing weight. The author argues that many dieters who put conscious effort into losing weight fail because “1) our body fights against them; 2) our brain fights against them; and 3) our day-to-day environment fights against them” (Wansink 25). In contrast, the author suggests that an unconscious way of losing weight is more effective. Just as people mindlessly gain weight by small amounts every day, they can do the same with losing weight. If they try to consume 100 calories rather than 1000 calories less every day, neither their body nor their brain would fight against their efforts, and they are more likely to succeed this way.

Questions to consider:
Since we read this essay before we participate in the lab, we are consciously aware of the mindlessness of eating. With such consciousness, would our lab results be biased?

Summary: Eating American

In this paper, the author discusses the typical American “cuisine”. The author first asserts that an American cuisine does not really exist. He then explains it in a historical approach: over the history since the US was founded, large amounts of immigrants came to the US, and the national population now consists people with a large variety of ethnic background. Such a variety of population resulted in a variety of regional cuisine, which reflects the different ethnic groups’ own traditional cuisine. Such regional cuisines are further combined in a way that reflects a universal theme in American eating habit: efficient, which means saving time. Therefore, the American cuisine is based on fast food, and a predominant way of eating is eating out, since it saves the time for cooking. The author thus argues that “I do not see how a cuisine can exist unless there is a community of people who eat it, cook it, have opinions about it, and engage in dialogue involving those opinions” (Mintz 29). Since the typical American eating is characterized by regionalization, fast food, and eating out, and more import, Americans do not take eating as important an event as people from other countries do, the author concludes that Americans do not have a cuisine.

Comments: I have a deep feeling about the point in the reading that the “regionalized cuisine”, when combined with the American fast food culture, changes dramatically and deviates largely from the original version. This is at least the case with American Chinese food. I can see some shadows of the real Chinese food in it, but they are mostly cooked in a way that is more time-efficient for both cookers and eaters such that I always miss the real Chinese food even though I can go to the Chinese restaurants here everyday.

Summary: Genetic Engineering in Agriculture (By Migeul A. Altieri)

In this book, the author discusses the “myths, environmental risk, and alternatives” to the “genetic engineering in agriculture” (Altieri 2004). Altieri’s main idea is that as an alternative to the chemical approach to the food shortage issue, the genetic engineering approach is currently highly advocated by the US government, but Altieri believes this approach is not the best solution to the problem, since there are many potential issues behind it. First, it does not really help to beat world hunger or bring welfare to the poor farmers in the developing countries. The main reason is that genetic engineering, while aiming at lowering the producing cost, does not directly point to the “real causes of hunger and poverty, inequality, and lack of access of food and land” (Altieri 2004). Second, genetically modified crops may not be good for human health, since the new technology may result in seriously undesired consequences that are highly unpredictable. An example of such consequence is the “small but real chance that genetic engineering may transfer new and unidentified proteins into food, triggering allergic reactions in millions of consumers who are sensitive to allergens and have no way of identifying or protecting themselves from offending foods” (Altieri 2004). Third, the author points out genetic engineering’s potential threats to the environment. One is that the herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops may bring about weed resistance and create “superweeds” (Altieri 2004). Another is that the Insect-resistant crops (Bt Crops) may bring about pest resistance and may also break the ecological balance. Finally, the author points out that a more sustainable alternative to biotechnology is the “agroecological model”. It emphasizes biodiversity, recycling of nutrients, synergy among crops, animal, soils and other biological components, as well s regeneration and conservation of resources” (Altieri 2004), and thus it is more sustainable and beneficial than the genetic engineering model.

Questions to consider:
1. Is the term “agroecological model” a good way to describe the type of farms like the Polyface Farm described by Michael Pollan?
2. The author offers the “agroecological model” as the solution to the public health and environmental issues raised by the “genetic engineering model”. However, as the author mentions, another important issue of the “genetic engineering model” is that it does not really help to beat world hunger or bring welfare to the poor farmers in the developing countries. Do you think the “agroecological model”, which inevitably raises the food price, would solve that problem as well? (If not, what do you think would be the solution to that problem?)

Summary: The swine flu crisis lays bare the meat industry's monstrous power

In this essay, the author talks about the Mexican Swine Flu as well as the fallacies in the world’s food safety protection system. The author first points out that the Mexican Swine Flu is a highly infective disease, and its harmfulness is comparable to SARS. Then the author says the propagation of Mexican Swine Flu reveals great fallacies in the world’s current food safety protection system. First, the swine flu “may prove that the WHO/Centres for Disease Control version of pandemic preparedness” (Davis 2009). The author gives an example to prove his argument: “the Mexico has world-famous disease experts, but it had to send swabs to a Winnipeg lab in order to ID the strain's genome[, and] lmost a week was lost as a consequence” (Davis 2009). Second, the high level of concentration in current animal farms is a highly dangerous practice. Davis (2009) says that “In 1965, for instance, there were 53m US hogs on more than 1m farms; today, 65m hogs are concentrated in 65,000 facilities.” With such a dense population, cross contamination of disease is highly possible. Third, the food production companies are powerful enough to obstruct supervision of food safety. For example, Davis (2009) says “the commission reported systemic obstruction of their investigation by corporations, including blatant threats to withhold funding from cooperative researchers.” All these factors resulted in the Mexican Swine Flu in 2009, and are continuing to threatening to cause new disease to rise from the food industry.
Comments and questions to consider:
1. As many Americans do not know, the SARS in 2003 mentioned above also resulted from food issues. People in Guangdong, China, consumed “roasted civet cat”, a local animal food, which carried the first virus. Besides, many less known diseases like the avian flu all rose from food-related issues.
2. The Swine Flu of 2009 has been mostly cured by now, but do you think the current food security system is good enough to prevent similar issues from rising?