GMOverdramatic

Its a common axiom among some people interested in food that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are a bad idea. This sentiment ranges in intensity from those who think organic food is simply more nutritious to people who believe GMOs are destined to destroy the human race. Much like Brittany’s post about local food, I think this opinion might need a closer look. The following is by no means the whole discussion on GMOs, but hopefully it will raise some questions and lead to some good discussion.

I think the biggest reason people mistakenly demonize GMOs has nothing to do with the crops themselves, but rather the companies that produce them. The predatory nature of companies like Monsanto has been lamented by farmers and activists around them globe. Perhaps these business practices could be a topic of another post (or five or six posts!), but they really have nothing to do with the product.

It is also likely that the incredible rise in the popularity organic foods might have led some to dislike or distrust genetically engineered (GE) foods. The logic here seems valid at first glance: organic food is better, so GE food must be worse! But a closer look reveals several inconsistencies. Consider the Bt pesticide. Bt is a bacterium that has insecticidal properties but is considered safe for humans. Because Bt is naturally occurring, it can be used on organic crops without risk of losing organic certification. Not long ago, scientist discovered a way to insert genetic information from Bt into the genome of certain crops like corn and cotton. These “Bt crops” produce the same insecticide as the Bt bacterium and have been very successful since becoming available in 1996. Bt crops cannot be considered organic because of this genetic modification. So which is really better? Humans are still ingesting the Bt byproducts that have been proven safe (even the Europeans use Bt as a pesticide!), but the Bt crops do not require the additional environmental burdens of using water and burning fossil fuels that are required for pesticide application.

Food For Freedom

The recent Occupy Wall Street protests got me thinking about the level of control major corporations have over our daily lives. A big part of this control has resulted from the public’s gradual shift from self-reliance to dependence on companies for everything from clothes to food to entertainment. For the most part, I’d say this is a good thing. I don’t want to spend all of my time sewing my own clothes or raising and killing my own chickens. This diffusion of responsibility gives people more time to do the things they want and advance society in their own way.

I think this position also has an inherent danger. People seem to be losing their ability to make or do anything for themselves. When you become dependent on corporations you become more susceptible to their influence. Pretty soon, you start thinking the only way to get your calcium is from dairy products. Save your bones, drink milk! Is this really freedom? Is this really Sovereignty?

When I hear discussions on food sovereignty, its generally in reference to some developing area of the word and groups like Via Campesina. I can’t help but picture resilient peasant farmers taking control of their land from evil, fat-cat landowners who have their pockets lined with corporate (or government) money. I seldom think of organizations like People’s Grocery in Oakland that echo the sentiments of food sovereignty in our own society.

Its easy to forget that self-reliance is an important part of freedom. Growing or raising your own food, even if its just a small vegetable garden or a couple of chickens in your backyard, is an expression of that freedom. Of course, this self-reliance comes with education and an understanding of what food means on a maco level. A population with a strong sense of self-reliance can keep large corporations honest by showing them that people have a choice whether or not to purchase their products. This could ultimately lead to a food system that works for the people’s benefit and does not profit at their expense. Perhaps this is what food sovereignty means for developed countries.

On Killing Chickens

After a 26-hour cross-country road trip from Texas to Virginia, my two friends and I arrived at our buddy’s farm in the early afternoon. He greeted us with a smile and asked if we were ready to slaughter some chickens. Over the next 2 hours we learned the entire process: catching the chickens, slitting their throats, plucking and dressing. I have to admit that it was difficult for me to make my first fatal cut (as they say, the first one really is the hardest), but, by chicken number 30, the killing wasn’t much different than any other job. We ate the birds two days later at my friends wedding reception (the reason for our road trip). It was the first time I had eaten an animal that I’d killed.

When I got back from my trip, I told several friends and family members about my chicken killing experience. I wasn’t surprised that many of them were uncomfortable with the idea of killing an animal, but what surprised me was their apparent disgust of my having eaten the very animals I had dispatched. The most resonating of these comments came from a friend of mine who said “I prefer not to think about the fact the the food I eat was killed.”

This experience caused me to think about how we view food in industrialized countries like America. Walking through the open markets SE Asia, I became acutely aware that many people in the world are much more familiar and comfortable with the knowledge that the seasoned chunks of protein on their plate came a living, breathing creature. Dead chickens and fish hung proudly in racks on the food stands, live animals paced about anxiously in their cages, turtles were being killed and de-shelled and there were even dogs for sale (although no one buying them was looking for a new pet). All of this was in stark contrast to the nice, neat meat display at my local grocery store where chicken breasts sit proudly in their Styrofoam containers alongside lean ground beef and trimmed steaks.

What does this separation from the source do to our society’s approach to food? Would you eat less beef if you knew the cow it came from? What if you had to kill that cow? How much of that leftover chicken would go to waste if you understood the work it took to catch, kill, pluck and dress? Perhaps a greater understanding of where our food comes from and how it got on our plate would help to cure some of our current food ills, or at least give us a new appreciation for the fact the we don’t have to kill our dinner. After all, the chicken may or may not have come before the egg, but it definitely beat the Styrofoam.

Decisions. Decisions?

Until recently, I have placed all of the blame on individuals for being overweight or obese. “Why don’t they just stop stuffing their faces with junk food!?” or, “Why don’t they just go for a run or something?” I have since come to realize that many of our decisions are not entirely our own, but are shaped by many different social, political and economic factors. Here is just one example:

Next time you’re in your local grocery store, try to count how many different areas of the store you have the opportunity to toss a Coke product into your basket. The soda isle is just the tip of the iceberg; there are also the mini-refrigerators at the end of every check-out line, the stands an the end of the isle, displays next to your favorite chips, vending machines at the entrance and there might even be a giant Coke pyramid offering a case of 20 cans at a price so low you’ll be worried that Coca-Cola might be going out of business! Now compare this to the number of places you can pick up some delicious carrots. Rice? Beans? Juice?

Photo Source: www.flickr.com/photos/91212572@N00/123463677

If this strikes you as odd, it shouldn’t. The grocery business is not a friendly one, especially of you’re competing with Wal-Mart. Shelf-space is a finite commodity and consumers are much more likely to purchase Coke than broccoli. Your grocer knows that having more Coke displays will ultimately increase his bottom line, but this is just the beginning of your ‘decision’ to go ahead and purchase that case of glorified sugar-wat…er… High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup-Water.

Seeing that familiar white, cursive writing against that deep-red background conjures up wonderful memories from your childhood. This is not an accident. The advertising industry calls this a ‘love-mark’ meaning that the vast majority of the public identifies with the image of Coca-Cola on a personal level. Advertising agencies spend millions upon millions of dollars to ensure their product’s symbol becomes a love-mark.

Photo Source: wwff.wordpress.com

You’re also more likely to buy that box of ‘childhood memories’ because your taste buds have already been purchased and perverted by Coke. If you’re like me, you had your first taste of Coke shortly after you could walk. Being exposed to such an unnaturally sweet beverage at an early age increases your tolerance for such drinks and decreases your sensitivity to subtler, more natural flavors; when was the last time you thought of carrots as sweet? The caffeine content of soft drinks is also dangerously addictive for children. Soft drink giants have given millions of dollars to public schools for the right to place vending machines in hallways, ensuring that America’s youth will stay hooked.

Enjoy.