RESPONSES #1-5

 

Article #1

 

Trends are part of everyday life for the majority people in this country. Through our lives peer groups in school and work, and more recently social media and attention to celebrity lifestyles help to dictate many of the choices we make individually about the clothing we wear, music we listen to, and food that we eat. Perhaps trends can also be environmentally friendly when they are examined scientifically.

Kathy Freston appeals to the fashion consciousness in all of us in her Huffington Post article, “Vegetarian Is the New Prius”. The author unpacks the popular and trendy choice by many to drive hybrid electric cars, and argues that while that decision does make a positive dent in emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases, there is a dietary decision one could have a much greater positive effect on the environment. Freston dissects what raising animals for slaughter actually looks like on our planet, in terms of the land mass it takes up, the cleaning forests wiped out in order to produce this land for raising the meat, and harmful gasses emitted into the atmosphere as a direct result of farming meat.

According to this article going vegetarian is a good environmental deed and makes a bigger difference to Mother Earth than driving a Prius. All the celebs are doing it and it’s easier than ever.

Freston does not address the claim that a meat free or vegan lifestyle is absolutely healthy for anyone, which is a claim often heard by popular advocates for vegetarian or vegan lifestyles. While it’s not hard to recognize how over-consuming Americans are in terms of meat, it would certainly be interesting to examine what homeopathic medicine might say on the issue, especially in terms of the health benefits of a meat free diet versus a diet which includes eating wild game, organic and local meat products.

 

Reference

Freston, Kathy. (2007). Vegetarian is the New Prius. Huffpost Healthy Living

Website

 

Article #2

 

Mother Jones published an inspiring article in 1998 by Alan Weisman entitled “Nothing wasted, everything gained”. Weisman describes a potential for sustainable community that most of us would rarely consider possible by illustrating an exemplary one.

He tells of a small village in Columbia, surrounded in that part of the world by warfare and political unrest, that functions as an environmentalists utopia. The Gaviotans, led and inspired by a visionary named Paolo Lugari were initially a group of scientists, their goal was to make what the article describes as making an unlivable place livable. Being scientists, the group engineered methods to create energy and purify water in an uninhabited place. These experiments resulted in successful efforts that have provided many outside of their community clean drinking water, and even reforested their part of the world. The trees nurtured by the Gaviotans have served the earth by re-created habitats for native animals, and through harvesting a renewable part of the plant produced an ingredient in common household items that can replace petroleum based ingredients in the same items.

Weisman’s message to his reader seems to be certainly from an environmentalist’s persuasive point of view, showing the reader what is possible when a group of people is dedicated to sustainable and clean living. Most of who make attempts to buy local, recycle what we can and buy the most fuel efficient vehicles tend to check those things off our to do lists and feel as though we’ve done our part. The question left after this reading is what would need to happen for culture to shift in such a way to show us how to live in a more sustainable way. Perhaps this article suggests that while we aren’t all soil chemists, there are extremely productive things we can do in our lives to help our home planet. If this small community can be one hundred percent green, maybe we can all do a little or much more.

 

Reference
Weisman, A., & Kratochvil, A. (1998). Nothing wasted, everything gained. Mother Jones, 23(2), 56.
Website

 

 

Article #3

 

Peter McLean identifies himself as a biology teacher in his call to action article, “The Need for Sustainability”. He also seems to be reaching out to fellow teachers in this writing, asking that it is more important than ever before for students to reach nature through their educations in science. The planet has undergone so much damage in the last century, and maybe if all people are gifted by education a more personal connection to the natural world there will exist a greater dedication to right some of these wrongs.

McLean links the need for sustainable living as a value to be taught by defining sustainability in terms of responsibility. He claims, “Sustainability can be defined as responsible use of resources over an indefinite period of time…”. It’s significant for an educator to be making this claim, as it recovers memories of curriculums focused on values in primary school. It seems obvious that part of public or private k-12 education would include lessons in some sorts of right and wrong, compassion, citizenship and the like. Maybe this is missing much of the time, but responsibility would fit in to some ideal primary values alongside math and geography. Reading a biology teacher’s plea to other educators to make an effort to educate their students in this specific type of responsibility, to live in the world with forethought, is powerful.

It’s easy to link the smell of dogwoods or the sound of a rushing stream with good or comfortable feelings. The author’s effort to link this sensation with the commitment to live sustainably is an honorable one and could unlock curiosity about weather or not this is being included in twenty first century science curriculums at any or all levels.

 

 

References

McLean, P. (2009). The Need for Sustainability. American Biology Teacher, 71(5), 267-268.

Video

King Corn initially takes the viewer on a bit of a road trip. Recent college graduates Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney dive into the world of modern day midwestern agriculture in this documentary directed by Aaron Woolf. The two friends coincidently hail from similar ancestry as both had great grandparents who had farms in the same rural Iowan county. After a startling lab work up involving pieces of their hair validates what is suspected they already knew, which is that they are basically made out of corn the two set their stage.

Hooking their audience with the familiar and concerning news about the average American’s physical health, the documentarians give us the more unfortunate news that in fact we are what we eat, and we eat too much corn. In fact, we eat so much corn that we are eating corn even when we are not eating corn. Ellis and Cheney head out from their Boston community to Iowa in an attempt to farm an acre of corn.

They succeed with their crop and give small glimpses into many of the social and scientific issues that can be tied to this seemingly simple food. The audience receives a brief look into the disappearing family farm and how that has dissolved into the huge operations that they are now, the intersection of corn farming and modern livestock feed, and finally the disastrous impact of corn syrup on our bodies. There are so many political implications to the claims that the film makers make. The film suggests that the corn industry has done so much to have their product utilized, resulting in horrible effects to people’s physical well being. They turn up so many astounding discoveries it could leave viewers wishing that the film had focused more heavily on one or two of them as to have a better understanding of the financial incentives behind the creation of corn syrup, or the tragedy of the disappeared family farm. The film did not really have time for all of it.

Website

www.kleenkanteen.com

Thank goodness for this product. This website is for conscientious consumers and all people who drink water. That includes conscientious consumers who drink water and are concerned and broken hearted about the bottled water consumption in recent history. While this website aims to sell the company’s products, whether it be the standard canteen or sippy cups or to go mugs, it also aims to educate and inspire. The website is as attractive as the company’s product or it’s logo. Attractiveness alone can make a website effective to it’s user but it also goes extra miles by inciting viewers in any area to link to an explanation of why their product is great. The viewer can easily and in many locations find definitions for BPAs, why plastics are so harmful to our planet, and why the kleenkanteen is healthy and responsible. Many of us love to shop, especially from the comfort of our homes and eco friendly products are becoming trendier and more accessible on the internet. Many camps for kids and teenagers are now adding steel or aluminum canteens to their requirements on packing lists, taking the place of nalgene bottles, thermoses or even bottled water. The website definitely fills the niche for eco conscious consumers, but most likely those with means to shop online or at higher end sports or outdoor equipment stores. The downside of this product or it’s beautiful website is that poor people deserve to not be poisoned by plastics too. Poor people also deserve to enjoy the satisfaction of being conscientious consumers, so hopefully this company can support cheaper versions of their product being available to the masses, and hopefully the education that accompanies it so nicely is this website.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reading Response 2: No more Livestock, Only Hybrids?

The article, Vegetarian is the New Prius, written by Kathy Freston, gives some scary statistics due to the growing demand for meat, eggs, and dairy and the harmful effects producing the goods is doing to our planet. This article was written for everyone to put an awareness out that we’ve started to do better for our planet by driving Toyota Prius cars with low emissions but the next step is to cut out poultry and other meats. Livestock is the highest contributing factor to harming our environment with both air and water pollution, poisoning land and worst, gases aiding in Global Warming.

Now we’ve started to reduce emissions by converting cars to hybrids such as the Prius. This article is suggesting our next step is to go vegetarian, start eating veggie burgers, soy based dairy, and tofu. Some restaurants are even helping move forward by serving veggie-based meals. Adding to helping our environment, this article demonstrates that going vegetarian will help our bodies as well.

This all sounds like a good thing but opposing this subject, not everyone wants to cut out meats all together. The pollution leading to global warming can be reduced without halting production on livestock. A lot of the farms can be more efficient in their waste disposal and growing of the animals. Reducing the steroids and chemicals used to grow the livestock would be a good start as well. What happened hundreds of years ago when all the extra chemicals weren’t used? Just raising the animals isn’t the only problem, the energy and gasses it takes to transport and slaughter the animals is harmful too. People need to be more inventive and find ways to do those jobs instead of just giving up and turning vegetarian.

This is a serious concern any way you look at it, but the way it can be handled could make the difference in eating meat or going for the veggie burger. Make a wise choice in a balanced meal, trying veggie meals more often. More responsible production, eating a salad, and driving a Pruis, every little bit helps keep our world in better shape.

Reading Response #1: Are Those Juicy Burgers Worth It?

The article written by Bryan Walsh, “Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food” is a big eye opener for the consequences of farming animals for low cost, unhealthy food being served to millions of Americans a day. The dirty details are reveled in this article about the tons of fertilizer and antibiotics given to the pigs through food that is eroding our farmland as we speak. Not only are the lands of America deteriorating, our bodies are as well, due to the fried and greasy bacon, hamburgers, and other meats we eat regularly and the deadly diseases spoiling the meats.

The process of farming is getting out of hand. Farmers are trying to produce more meat, due to the high demand, and in a way cutting corners for cheaper output that is harming land. The animals being kept in too tight of containment are producing waste full of nasty chemicals that flow down the river and contaminate waters killing fish and corrode the future farm land. As well as being harmful, food production is becoming over the limit expensive, using more resources, such as Fossil Fuels, than other systems in the US.

This is a scary thought that if we don’t act now and start to farm more organically we will all be dying of obesity or diseases contracted from the meats eaten. Eating healthy and organically can be expensive though, resulting to the convenience of buying cheap, easy food that is killing us. Some companies and role models are trying to be safer with producing food but with the economy at a low, substantial foods may be not so substantial.

This growing concern is overwhelming. Where to start? Americans need to really think about what they are eating, where its coming from and make better choices about what they consume. This article and many others alike should be spread around, putting the word out that decisions need to be made and current actions changed to save our farmlands and our bodies.

Essay 1:Cause/Effect Essay – Genetically Modified Crops: Our Biodiversity May Never be the Same Again

Genetically Modified Crops: Our Biodiversity May Never be the Same Again

The world we live in is getting smaller and smaller; our food production has gone from a regional and local affair to a world scale, homogenized, industrial business that seeks out the cheapest goods and fastest production. Farmers are still ground level support staff in this global production and they operate as independent contractors inside the machine that turns out our food. In response to ever increasing demand for high yielding, homogenized food crops, many farmers have turned to genetically modified seed as a way to maintain increased production.  This change has resulted in a huge loss of local and regional biodiversity and an increased susceptibility to disease and disaster.

Biodiversity is the loose measure of the variety of plants and animal species that are living in an area. Generally speaking, farms in the United States are not very biodiverse, but there is still significant interaction between species going on at the ground level. While commercial farming has little in common with permaculture, where companion plants are grown together to benefit each other, there is still a connection between the earth, the plant being grown for production and plants and animals that live in and around the farm. The animals that live in the area are feeding on the crops growing, and on the weed and pest plants that grow alongside the target crop. This can also provide habitat for insects and organisms that both help and harm the crop being grown for production. At its very least, this is a slightly biodiverse ecosystem that has positive and negative interactions between the elements. Use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers help to reduce this biodiversity even more, but its existence is still very present.

When genetically modified crops enter the biodiversity equation, all sorts of different interactions spring up. These interactions that are generated by genetically modified crops infiltrating an ecosystem can affect all of the surrounding species. All sorts of things can go on at levels that we have never considered when designing these crops. When genetically modified crops are engineered with resistance to pesticides or herbicides, they “can influence biodiversity because it may not only affect the target insect. Instead, it could be harmful to insects that are not targets but still consume the crop.” (Genetically Modified Foods) Genetically modified crops have also been known to cross with naturally occurring strains of similar plants or other conventional seed varieties and create plants that hold a completely altered ecological role, which can have far reaching effects across an ecosystem that is not immediately seen.

Genetically modified crops have also had a negative impact on farmers ability to save seeds from their own crops. In the past, a farmer has had the option to purchase seed for planting or to save a portion of the previous years crop to plant the following year. This system allowed the farmer to control their own destiny to a certain degree and to refine specific varieties of crops that were better suited to an area than others. This created what is referred to as regional diversity amongst crops. This system of saving seeds for future plantings and carrying on good genetic traits while letting others go is beginning to see its demise with genetically modified seeds.

An example of this demise can be seen in the agreement between farmers purchasing seeds and the Monsanto Corporation, which is a multi-national company creating and selling patented, genetically engineered seeds. In this technology agreement as its known, the farmer agrees that they can “use the seed only for a single season and could not save any seed produced from this crop for replanting.” (Liptak, 2003) This can either be a written agreement or be engineered directly into the seeds with a single use gene that makes the plant produce sterile or non-viable seeds in its second generation. When you consider what this means for farmers and their ability to make decisions regarding what they grow, the results are staggering.

Organic farmers who have land that borders on farms growing genetically modified crops have historically had a hard time maintaining their status of organic certification when wind blown pollen and seed from other farms blows in and mixes its genetics with the organic varieties.  This unpredictable outpouring of bad genetic material blowing across our countrysides can and has had devastating effects on its organic counterparts. Just try to imagine what happens to the farmer growing organic corn who is saving seeds for next years crop, when the neighboring genetically modified corn unloads its pollen into the air and subsequently pollinates some of the organic variety. If the genetically modified corn is only “enhanced” to produce Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), a naturally occurring pesticide not found in corn, the damage may be slight (but still unmarketable as certified organic), but if that corn was modified to have a one generation kill gene in place, the organic farmers livelihood could be ruined by what blew in on the wind from the neighbor’s poison crops.

When we loose our ability to save seeds, we lose our ability to produce our own food from our own hands alone. When we decide to put multi national companies with their own bottom lines in charge of our food supply,  we take a risk that carries a heavy burden.  If all crops of the future must be bought and sold, and nothing can be grown from saved seeds, we threaten our national farming biodiversity, our regional biodiversity and ultimately our ability to make decisions about how we grow what we grow.

Works Cited

Genetically Modified Foods. (2009). Are Genetically Modified Foods Destroying Diversity?. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from http://www.geneticallymodifiedfoods.co.uk/are-gm-foods-destroying-biodiversity.html

Liptak, Adam, (2003, November 2). Saving Seeds Subjects Farmers to Suits Over Patent. The New York Times, pp. A1, A12.

My jump off article was
Walsh, Bryan. (2009, August 21). Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food. Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458-1,00.html

Justin Maple

English 211X

M. Sullivan