Modified Food Articles

Slaughter, Louise. "What's in Your Christmas Ham?." Huffington Post. (2011): n. page. Web. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-louise-slaughter/whats-in-your-christmas-ham_b_1165298.html?view=print&comm_ref=false>.
 

LeVaux, Ari. "The Very Real Danger of Genetically Modified Foods." Atlantic. (2012): n. page. Web. <http://www.theatlantic.com/health/print/2012/01/the-very-real-danger-of-genetically-modified-foods/251051/>.
 

Malone, Andrew. "The GM Genocide." MailOnline. (2008): n. page. Web. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html>.

Summary:

In the first article, rep. Louise Slaughter talks about how our “Christmas ham” and other meat products we eat contained bacteria that is resistant to the common methods we use to fight them such as antibiotics. This is because animal farmers use these antibiotics not only on sick animals, but on healthy animals as well. As the bacteria get more exposed to antibiotics, it begins to adapt and change so that it can survive against the antibiotic we use to kill it, therefore becoming resistant. This poses a threat because if this resistant strain infects humans, then the traditional means used to fight the infection won’t work because of the immunity the bacteria has developed by being over-exposed to the antibiotic.

The second article talks about genetically modified (GM) crops that are being engineered in a way where they will combat natural predators such as the insects that feed on said plants. The benefit of this is that it will allow these GM crops to survive, but this has potential health risks as well.

The GM genocide tells the story of how GM seeds were introduced to the farmers in rural India and its relation to the rise in suicide rates due to increasing debt from purchasing GM seeds which then produced negligible yield.

Analysis:

For the first article, I can see the importance of making sure the animals are healthy, because it’s better for them and also makes sure the meat produced is bacteria free as well. The one farmer in the article realized the importance of not over-treating with antibiotics when he contracted the same disease as his pigs and the antibiotics typically used for treatment were ineffective. It is unfortunate in a way that he had to get the disease and find out the hard way about antibiotic resistant bacteria in order to change his ways and how others may not change their methods until they have a similar experience.

The way these GM crops kill the insects is by altering their genes in a way where it shuts down essential processes the insect’s need to survive. The problem is that there are genes that are similar in both insects and humans. If this modified MiRNA survives the insect’s digestive system and makes its way into a human host, then similar genes may be shut down in humans and could lead to the same detrimental effects that have been seen in insects. Monsanto also gives a lot of excuses as to why their products don’t need to be tested. If they didn’t have anything to hide then they shouldn’t mind testing on their products. This shows that they care more for their profits than for the health of their consumers. Advancements in this field would hopefully yield a way to enhance crops and ward of insects while not affecting humans in a negative way.

In the GM genocide, the providers of the GM seeds used aggressive marketing tactics and false advertising to convince farmers in rural India to use these significantly more expensive seeds when in fact this area was used as a testing ground to see how and if GM seeds would work. Farmers were promised much greater yields and that they would be saving on the cost of pesticides if they used these more expensive seeds. The GM seed producers only cared about their profits and did not consider that if their seeds failed, then these farmers would lose everything and be left with nothing but large debts. This testing area then became known as the ‘suicide belt’ because of the high rate of farmers who killed themselves after being victims of these GM seeds. It is nice to see that this has gotten the attention of such a prominent figure such as Prince Richard who sympathizes with these farmers and their plight and is trying to do something to help them and helping the movement to get back to using organic seeds.

Food, Inc.

Kenner, Robert, dir. Food, Inc.. Writ. Michael Pollan. 2008. Film.

Summary:

            This film gives the viewer a behind the scenes look at some of today’s major multinational food corporations and their food production facilities and practices. Food Inc. has many testimonies from farmers and others who compete with these large food chains and explain the differences in how they prepare food to be sold. The movie also gives an inside look into the conditions of how the people and animals in these large chains are being treated as well as the conditions they have to endure.

Analysis:

            I knew that the mass produced products made by the large chain companies most likely cut some corners when it came to health and safety in order to increase the productivity and profits, but this movie gave me a much better idea of what really goes on. It was not surprising that none of the large corporations would bother answering any questions for an interview and also that they did not want their consumers to see what happens behind closed doors before the food reaches the shelves of the supermarket. They would be right in thinking that if consumers knew this sort of information, then they would be less likely to by the products of these large companies. I also thought it was interesting how at the end, they state that the consumer is just buying whatever the companies produce, when really it can be thought of the other way around. A lot can also be said about how we can buy mass produced products that are unhealthy at a cheaper price than we can get whole natural foods that are healthy for us. And even if people are willing to produce healthier products, the bigger companies try to shut down any competitors, even if they have healthier products and will be more beneficial to people’s health just so they don’t take a loss to their profits. The bigger companies do produce and supply food at a lower financial cost, but then others have to pay for it usually by a health cost, human cost, environmental cost, or some other way that the big corporations don’t always see the direct effect of or they just don’t care.

A Modest Proposal

Swift, Jonathan. "A Modest Proposal." Victorian Web. (1729): n. page. <http://www.victorianweb.org/previctorian/swift/modest.html>.

Summary:

This article explains “A Modest Proposal” presented by Jonathan Swift to deal with the large number of people in Dublin that are unable to contribute to society and instead place a burden on the country. He tells of how while walking the streets, you will see a woman begging for alms in order to feed herself and her numerous children who are also on the street begging. Even when these kids grow up, they will most likely not be productive members of society and instead resort to thievery or selling themselves. Swift proposes that children of those who would not be able to provide for them be instead nourished until they are one year of age, and then sold to fortunate gentleman who would consume this one-year old as a delicacy of sorts.

 

Analysis:

It’s interesting to see all the different arguments in various texts that people use to justify cannibalism. In most cases, cannibalism is thought of being used as a last resort and as a means of survival, but it this case it is more of a means of disposal. Swift seems to have put a lot of thought into his proposal and thoroughly explains the rationale behind his decisions and the specifics in his proposal. He also does make a good point, that this surplus of unproductive citizens in the country will be more of a burden than a benefit in the long run. Allowing parents to sell their children at one year of age would be of minimal cost to the parents in terms of feeding and clothing and would yield a much larger profit than they and probably used to earning. This would indeed be a feasible source of income for lower class families and I could see how supplying the one-year-old infant could be a popular means of income, but I wonder how many people would actually be willing to purchase another human child for the sole purpose of consumption? If they are willing to eat someone else’s child, what is stopping them from having their own child and then eating it? Sure it would take more effort and be more time-consuming, but the end result may be a better “product” since they would be able to control all aspects of development. Swift also, very modestly I may add, suggests this proposal but also invites others to make their own suggestions on how to better this problem of the increasing number of people in the country that increase the burden on the country while providing minimal benefits. Finally, Swift talks about how his proposal is of no expense and little trouble. While this may be true in a financial sense, this proposal, although not mentioned in this article would most likely be paid through a moral expense, costing a person only the mere price of their soul in order to partake in this method of cannibalistic disposal. On a slightly different mindset, it would be interesting if this article was written not as an actual proposal to be put into practice, but as a what-if scenario to disgust the readers that such a practice could even be thought of as a solution. This would encourage readers to try to come up with their own more feasible, reasonable, and acceptable solutions to the same addressed problem.