This post has been moved to the Projects section. Check it out!
Controversies Surrounding the Health, Labeling, and Economics of Genetically Modified Organisms1/7/2015 Amanda Adams
Mae DesTroismaisons Naomi Koliba Controversies in Modern Genomics November 10, 2013 Professor Tamara Williams EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SAFETY
LABELING
ECONOMY
INTRODUCTION 60-70% of America’s processed food contains at least one genetically engineered ingredient. “The most common GE crops in the US are soybean, corn, cotton, and canola.” (Byrne, 2012) The reason why this percentage is so high is because processed foods contain GE ingredients like high fructose corn syrup and soy protein. Essentially, GMOs are microorganisms, plants, or animals that have their genomes spliced with other species’ genes in order to create a specific characteristic that the parent species never had. Humans have been manipulating crops since prehistoric times. However, since James Watson and Francis Crick’s 1953 discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, we have been able to develop gene-splicing technology. In the 1980 US Supreme Court case, Diamond v. Chakrabarty it was ruled that GMOs could be patented. Calgenes Flavr Savr tomato was the first USDA approved commercial GM food product in 1992. That same year, the FDA deemed GMOs “not inherently dangerous” and declared that special regulation for them is not required. (Biewen, 2000) GMO technology today extends beyond the realm of food into that of medicine and even art, when a glowing jellyfish’s genes were inserted into a rabbits for an art piece. (Cak, 2000) However, the scope of this report is focusing mainly on GM crops. The purpose of GM crops is to produce a higher crop yield, create foods with longer shelf life, reduce amount of pesticide use, develop plant made pharmaceuticals, and to potentially help feed people with vitamin deficiencies. Although it would appear that GM crops are completely useful, there are many controversies that surround this technology that will be discussed in this report. These include: safety concerns (health, environmental, and global,) labeling policy, and the economic effects in the US and internationally. Works Cited (Introduction) Black RE et al. “Maternal and child under-nutrition: Global and Regional Exposures and Health Consequences.” The Lancet. (2008) p.253 Carman, J. Vlieger, H. Ver Steeg, L. Sneller, V. Robinson, G. Clinch-Jones, C. Haynes, J. & Edwards, J. “A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet.”Journal of Organic Systems. 8.1 (2013): n. page. Print. <http://www.organicsystems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf>. Dale, Philip, Belinda Clarke , and Eliana Fontes. “Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops.”Nature Biotechnology . (2002): n. page. Print. <http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v20/n6/full/nbt0602-567.html>. Dill, John. “The Dangers of GMOs: Know the Environmental Hazards.”NaturalNews (2010) <http://www.naturalnews.com/029869_GMOs_dangers.html> Ewen, Stanley. FRCPath, Arpad, Pusztai. “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.” The Lancet, Volume 354, Issue 9187, (1999), Pages 1353–1354 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7> FDA. “Statement of policy: foods derived from new plant varieties.” Federal Register 57 (1992). pp. 22984±23005. http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/bio1992.html. Gillam, Carey. “Scientists say new study shows pig health hurt by GMO feed.” Reuters. (2013): n. page. Print. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/us-gmo-pigs-study-idUSBRE95A14K20130611>. Sheffler, J.A. & Dale, P.J. “Opportunities for gene transfer from transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus) to related species.” (1994) Trans. Res. 3, 263–278. WebMD. “Are Biotech Foods Safe to Eat?.” WebMd.com. (2013): n. page. Print. <http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/are-biotech-foods-safe-to-eat>. König, A. Cockburn, R.W.R. Crevel, E. Debruyne, R. Grafstroem, U. Hammerling, I. Kimber, I. Knudsen, H.A. Kuiper, A.A.C.M. Peijnenburg, A.H. Penninks, M. Poulsen, M. Schauzu, J.M. Wal “Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops” Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 42, Issue 7, (2004), Pages 1047–1088. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691504000432> Whitman, Deborah. “Are Biotech Foods Safe to Eat?.” CSA Discovery Guides. (2000): n. page. Web. 3 Oct. 2013. <Whitman, Deborah. “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? .” CSA Discovery Guides. (2000): n. page. Print. .>. HEALTH AND SAFETY Naomi Koliba Are GM crops safe to eat? Are they safe to grow or are they detrimental to ecosystems? What about the global implications of GM crops and how they can be created to feed malnourished people? By all standards set by the EPA, USDA and FDA, GM crops are completely safe to grow and eat. (Whitman, 2000) The problems surrounding GM crops lie in the fact that they are consumed unknowingly by Americans and are created through what some people consider “unnatural processes” that they may or may not be educated about. HEALTH SAFETY Determining the safety of GM foods on a national level is based solely on how they are regulated. GM foods are regulated no differently than non-GM foods. (US FDA, 1992) If the safety tests pass four areas of regulation, they are deemed safe. These four include: understanding the Parent Crop in terms of background knowledge and it’s safety, then comparing that with the genetically modified crop to understand any differences. It is also important to test for the potential transfer of DNA between the GM food and the human tissue that is absorbing it. DNA is designed to replicate and mix with other DNA. If the GM food DNA and human DNA were to mix, this could cause mutations in human DNA that could be detrimental. DNA transfer is tested for by looking at the amino acid sequences and proteins that relate to GM foods and how these may negatively interact with human DNA. Similar to testing for regularly grown crops, GM foods are tested for allergenic and toxic reactions. For example, if a shellfish gene was used to create insecticide resistance in crops, people who are allergic to shellfish may react to the new crop. Based on the strict regulation of these four areas of interest, it would make sense for the FDA to deem them safe for human consumption. Much research has been performed outside of the FDA’s reign to support and refute the safety of GM foods. One concern of GM foods has to do with the fact that they have contained antibiotic-resistant markers that are used in order to verify the presence of the altered gene. The issue has to do with the fact that people may build up antibiotic resistance and therefore may not be able to properly fight off bacterial infections with antibiotics. However, they were found to have no transfer effects on mammalian cells, but were found to have some small transfer effects with bacteria. This implies that the transfer effects are so small that they are not cause for antibiotic resistance in humans. (Goldstien et al. 2005) Many scientists are also testing whole-genetically modified foods and their affect on animals. Croplife International reported that there have been about 150 studies involving animals fed biotech foods, and all of these studies have either initially supported the safety of GM foods, or were refuted later on. (Gillam, 2013) A study performed in June of 2013 concluded that pigs that had only eaten GM grains showed greater stomach inflammation and heavier uteri than the pigs that hadn’t eaten the GM foods. However, there were extraneous variables that were not accounted for such as the fact that the GM and non-GM grains had not been grown in a controlled environment, therefore the quality could differ between them. (Andrews, 2013) Also, the study mentioned a better way to test for the effects of GM crops would have been to take blood samples in order to measure anemia from possible blood loss, as well as white blood cell count in order to measure inflammation. (Carman, et sal. 2013) Many studies like this one have been discredited due to confounding variables. What about the cold, hard evidence that proves GMOs are safe? Mycotoxins are essentially a type of fungus that builds up in scars on plants that are caused by insects. If ingested by humans, mycotoxins are known to have carcinogenic effects. According to Felicia Wu (2004), mycotoxin levels are reduced in bt corn crops, which are a type of GM corn that creates its own insecticide. This is an example of an added benefit of GM crops. There have been many experiments that study the whole genetically modified food as well as the individual proteins that are expressed by GM crops. One such experiment led to the conclusion that chickens that were fed GM food pellets didn’t show any difference in body weight or health changes over a 38 day period. (Brake, 1998) Many of the studies like this compared the body weight of animals between the independent variables. The longest industry- study that was performed on GM foods lasted 90 days. This is long enough to account for acute effects of GM foods, but chronic effects have yet to be found. ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY The next issue with GM foods lies in how they are grown and what effects they have on the environment. GM crops are designed to lessen the effects of pesticides due to the fact that they create their own pesticides. Because GM crops are designed to be resistant to herbicide, farmers are able to spray crops without having to worry about them dying, meaning herbicide use has increased. (Dill, 2010) There is also the concern of gene transfer between plants. If plants were to become insect-resistant by hybridizing with GM crops, they could become invasive. It is important to understand how far pollen will move from the GM crop and if pollination will properly occur between the two plants in order to determine the probability of whether this would be possible and/or detrimental (Dale et al. 2002) A study performed by Scheffler et al, found that GM rapeseed could breed with hoary mustard and wild radish. However, there were no effects of the hybridized plants to become invasive. This problem is solved be creating terminator seeds (seeds that cannot be reproduced.) Another potential issue lies in the fact that weeds could become resistant to herbicides through natural selection because of how much farmers spray their crops. However, even with non-GM crops, there has always been a struggle for farmers to keep up with the new growth of weeds. Concern has arisen in the past based on the effects GM crops have on insects in the wild. One such study examined the effects of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterflies and found that after two years of studying, the pollen had negligible effects on the butterflies. (Sears, 2001) GLOBAL HEALTH The global implications of GM crops seem to be some of the most promising. Engineering crops to produce a type of vitamin that is not normally present in the crop may help many malnourished people. So far, the only people who have benefitted from GM crops are farmers and Biotech seed companies. Many people in third world countries have yet to eat GM foods. This will hopefully change soon. Vitamin A deficiencies have been reported to be the cause of death of 670,000 children in the time span of five years. (Black, 2008) Golden rice is a GM crop that has undergone a few refinements in order to allow the most efficient vitamin A absorption in humans. However, there are many political and social boundaries that must be crossed before this rice is used widely. Many people in third world countries fear GMOs because they don’t understand them. Also, growing rice requires a large amount of water, for which many third world countries are lacking. Currently, research is being performed to understand the limitations of engineering foods high in iron, Vitamin B, and Zinc. (Årgång, 2008) This implies that these GM crops are created completely to benefit the consumer and that the innovation doesn’t end at fortifying foods. What if it were possible to grow plants in the arctic or in very dry conditions? In terms of considering the safety of these genetically fortified foods, it seems obvious that GM foods are better than no food at all. In conclusion, GM crops are completely safe to consume and grow by all standards researched so far. As GM crops continue to flourish and grow in terms of new gene splicing techniques and added benefits, there must be further testing of GM crops for their safety. There shouldn’t be more testing per-say, but longer-term testing in order to determine the chronic effects of GM foods on humans. The effects of GM crops on the environment in the future have yet to be concluded, for the issues surrounding GM crops on the surrounding ecosystems and animals may be determined by years of use. It is also recommended that research be published from the contributing industrial companies supporting the evidence for the safety of GM crops, for it is important to inform consumers on the evidence supporting such claims. Works Cited Andrews, J. (2013) “Scientists Debate New Study on GMO-Fed Pigs” Food Safety. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/06/study-says-gmo-feed-may-harm-pigs/#.Un_SKJSxNV4 Brake, J. Vlachos, D. “Evaluation of transgenic event 176 “Bt” corn in broiler chickens.” (1998) Poultry Science. Volume. 77 Issue. 5, Pages 648-653 <http://ps.fass.org/content/77/5/648.short# Carman, J. Vlieger, H. Ver Steeg, L. Sneller, V. Robinson, G. Clinch-Jones, C. Haynes, J.& Edwards, J. “A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet.”Journal of Organic Systems. 8.1 (2013): n. page. Print. <http://www.organicsystems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf>. Dale, Philip, Belinda Clarke , and Eliana Fontes. “Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops.”Nature Biotechnology . (2002): n. page. Print. <http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v20/n6/full/nbt0602-567.html>. Dill, John. “The Dangers of GMOs: Know the Environmental Hazards.” NaturalNews (2010) <http://www.naturalnews.com/029869_GMOs_dangers.html> Gillam, Carey. “Scientists say new study shows pig health hurt by GMO feed.” Reuters. (2013): n. page. Print. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/us-gmo-pigs-study-idUSBRE95A14K20130611>. Goldstein, D. Tinland, B. Gilbertson, L.A. Staub, J.M. Bannon G.A. Goodman, L. McCoy, R.L.Silvanovich, A. (2005) “Human safety and genetically modified plants: a review of antibiotic resistance markers and future transformation selection technologies.” Journal of Applied Microbiology. Vol. 99. Issue. 1. Pages: 7-23 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02595.x/full Sears, M. Hellmich, R. Stanley-Horn, D. Oberhauser, K. Pleasants, J. Mattila, H. Siegfried, B. Dively, G. “Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment.” (2001) PNAS. Vol.98, no. 21 http://www.pnas.org/content/98/21/11937 Wu, F. “Mycotoxin Risk Assessment for the Purpose of Setting International Regulatory Standards.” (2004) Environ. Sci. Technol. 38(15) Pages:4049-4055 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es035353n Whitman, Deborah. “Are Biotech Foods Safe to Eat?.” CSA Discovery Guides. (2000): n. page. Web. 3 Oct. 2013. <Whitman, Deborah. “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? .” CSA Discovery Guides. (2000): n. page. Print. .>. Argang, N. “Golden Rice.” (2008) Åke Barklund http://www.goldenrice.org/PDFs/Bertebos_Conference_2008.pdf LABELING OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS Mae DesTroismaisons INTRODUCTION The significance of food differs throughout many cultures around the world, and often possesses societal, historical, and/or religious meaning. Because of the cultural importance of food, technological modification of it, specifically via genetic engineering, can evoke negative responses from consumers (World Health Organization). Many people argue that labeling of food produced using genetic modification should be mandatory, claiming that consumers have the right to know how the food they eat and feed to their families is produced. Others believe that genetically modified, or GM (AKA genetically engineered, or GE) food should not require an indication label because it has not been shown to cause adverse health effects, and labeling could potentially reduce sales to consumers who do not have much knowledge about genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Pro-labeling grassroots groups are fighting to get GM labeling laws passed, while anti-labeling organizations are doing all they can to prevent them. The subject of GM food labeling is a controversial one that is too complicated to be solved with simple compromises. The majority of U.S. consumers do want to know if food products contain GMOs, according to opinion polls from the early 2000s (Camille). Two states, Connecticut and Maine, have passed GM labeling laws; however, they will not go into effect until other states follow suit. Labeling initiatives in more than 25 states, including Washington and California, have been defeated (Center for Food Safety). There is no way to truly tell whether these types of laws would prove beneficial or harmful; although outside of the United States, where labeling laws are currently in effect, there have had both positive and negative outcomes. CURRENT LABELING POLICIES FOR GE FOODS IN THE UNITED STATES The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently requires genetically engineered foods to be labeled only if they are significantly different from non-GE foods—i.e. if they contain unexpected allergens such as a peanut protein in a soy product (Byrne). None of these types of foods are on the market at this time; therefore, no GE foods on the U.S. market must be labeled (Tegene, Huffman, Rousu, & Shogren). GE food labeling bills have been introduced in at least 26 states; at present, two states have enacted legislation that requires labels to be placed on foods that contain GMOs (Center for Food Safety). The most widely publicized defeated bills of this kind are Washington’s Initiative-522 and California’s Proposition-37. Vermont’s labeling bill, H-722, presently awaits a Senate vote. Connecticut became the first state to enact such a law on June 3 of this year (Artz). Nine days later, Maine’s Senate passed LD 718 “An Act To Protect Maine Food Consumers’ Right To Know about Genetically Engineered Food and Seed Stock.” Neither of these laws can go into effect until four other states, including one border state, enact similar laws. If labeling does become mandatory, foods containing GMOs will longer be allowed to advertise their being “natural” (Coalition of States for GMO Labeling). The “naturalness” of GE foods is an extremely controversial topic. According to Monsanto, GMOs are “plants and animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs” (Monsanto). The World Health Organization defines them as “organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally” (World Health Organization) In a Scientific Americanarticle, “Labels for GMOs Are A Bad Idea,” it is stated: “We have been tinkering with our food’s DNA since the dawn of agriculture. By selectively breeding plants and animals with the most desirable traits, our predecessors transformed organisms’ genomes, turning a scraggly grass into a plump-kerneled corn, for example” (Scientific American). On November 5, Washington’s Initiative-522 was defeated, and the state failed to become the first to require genetically engineered foods to be labeled. If passed, I-522 would not have allowed GE products to be labeled “natural.” Unlike the laws in Connecticut and Maine, Washington would not have had to wait for other states to enact similar laws in order for I-522 to take effect. The vote was 54.8% opposed to and 45.2% in favor of labeling. Corporations that utilize GM products like corn syrup were largely against I-522, while organizations like the Center for Food Safety in Washington D.C. supported it (Smith). The No on 522 campaign raised $22 million, only $550 of which came from Washington residents. The remaining amount was donated by Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences, Bayer CropScience, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association. The GMA represents a number of food companies, including Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Kraft, and General Mills (Weise). The GMA had donated $7.2 million to the anti-labeling campaign as of October 3 (Cummins). The companies that had their donations funneled through the GMA did so after enduring negative publicity when they publicly donated to defeat California’s similar labeling bill, Proposition 37, or the “Right to Know” initiative last year (Cummins). Opponents of Prop 37, who were mainly from industry and agriculture, raised upwards of $45 million dollars, while the organic industry and consumer group-backed Vote Yes campaign raised approximately $6.7 million (Sifferlin). Washington’s I-522 received about 30% of its funding from Washington state residents. However, the largest pro-labeling donations came from the Center for Food Safety and a California-based company, Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps (Weise). In Vermont, there is an ongoing political battle regarding H-722, the “VT Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” and Monsanto has threatened to sue the State of Vermont if the bill passes the House and Senate (Russia Today). H-722 would make it so that Monsanto could no longer label their products as “all natural,” “natural,” “naturally grown,” or “naturally made.” The bill passed the House on May 10, with 99 representatives in favor of and 42 opposed to it. H-722 has much public support, as one-third of Vermont’s legislators are cosponsors of the bill. The legislature will reconvene in January, when a Senate vote will take place. Although the Vermont Grocers’ Association has not released a formal opinion on H-722, president Jim Harrison is reportedly, “concerned that it could adversely impact state retailers” (Seven Days), stating: “We believe that such labeling should be on a national, uniform basis, not based on a state-by-state labeling system. If other states adopt different standards, it gets very complicated for both food producers and retailers” (Seven Days). Alison Weinhagan of Burlington’s City Market relayed the Co-op’s views on labeling GE foods: “City Market fundamentally believes in our member’s right to make educated choices about what they put into their bodies and into their children’s bodies. We share information about a variety of topics at the Co-op, including our dairy products, meat products, and bulk items. We’re not able to offer an appropriate level of information on GMO in foods because these products are currently not labeled. As a Co-op, we operate to serve the needs of our members; in a recent survey of our members and customers, an overwhelming 95% favored GMO labeling” (VPIRG). Other groups in favor of the labeling of genetically engineered foods include Whole Foods, which has announced that it will require GE foods in its stores to be labeled within five years (Whole Foods), and Ben and Jerry’s, which is currently transitioning packaging so that by the end of 2014, “all of its products will be labeled with respect to GMO” (Ben & Jerry’s). INTERNATIONAL LABELING POLICIES FOR GE FOODS In 2000, at the Convention on Biological Diversity in Montreal, 130 countries approved the International Biosafety Protocol, which mandates labeling of GE crops. However, 50 countries still need to ratify the protocol before it can go into effect (American RadioWorks). Many nations have already established some form of mandatory labeling of GE foods. These include the European Union and at least 21 countries outside of it (Byrne). Different countries have different stipulations for labeling. Usually, a minimum threshold is established as a part of GMO labeling laws. This threshold is the percentage of DNA of protein in a product that results from genetic engineering, below which labeling is not legally mandatory (World Health Organization). For example, the EU countries were the first to adopt labeling laws in 1998, and they introduced a .9% minimum threshold, meaning that companies must label all food products and animal feed that have over .9% of ingredients derived by genetic engineering (Green America). In 2001, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan also introduced labeling laws for GMOs. Australia and New Zealand use a 1% threshold, while Japan’s threshold is 5%. Japan’s laws are less comprehensive than other countries’, and only apply to a specific list of ingredients and foods that are known to sometimes contain GMOs. China, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea’s labeling laws took effect in 2002. At first, China’s laws were similar to Japan’s in that only certain foods were subject to labeling. In 2007, though, they were revised to include all GE foods, with no minimum threshold. Saudi Arabia uses the 1% threshold, but only for legally specified items. Additionally, restaurants are exempted from labeling practices. South Korea follows a 3% threshold, but for soy and corn products only. Thailand and Indonesia both have a minimum threshold of 5%, which they adopted in 2003. Thailand’s laws, however, only apply if one or more of the first three ingredients on a product have been genetically engineered. In both countries, animal feed is not subject to labeling. In 2004, Venezuela and Brazil both decided that all food for people and animals alike must be labeled. These two nations use a 1% threshold. A year later, Taiwan enacted a much more lax law, which only applies to corn and soy products and uses a 5% threshold. Russia adopted labeling laws in 2006, which, like those of the EU, have a .9% threshold. However, Russia exempts animal feed, whereas the EU does not allow GE animal feed to be sold without a label. In 2011, South Africa introduced labeling of all GE products, and uses a threshold of 5%. India’s “Draft Rule” is one of the world’s most stringent GMO labeling proposals, which if codified into law, will mandate labeling for all “primary or processed food, food ingredients, or food additives.” The “Draft Rule” was published in 2006, but the controversy surrounding it continues to delay its being passed (Green America). LABELING METHODS As is described in the previous section, regulations differ among countries with mandatory labeling in terms of coverage (which foods and ingredients require labels) and threshold level. Some countries such as the United States and Canada have what is called “voluntary labeling,” which means that manufacturers can voluntarily label foods to indicate whether or not bioengineered ingredients are present within them. In 2001, a document entitled, Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering was published by the Food and Drug Administration. The main purpose of this publication is to provide suggestions for labeling that is informative and that is not misleading (Camille). Voluntary labeling does not require manufacturers to label bioengineered products, and so few companies choose to do so. Included in the FDA’s guidelines for voluntary labeling, are some recommendations for wording on labels. Phrases such as “GMO free,” “Does not contain genetically modified organisms,” and “Not genetically modified” are not recommended because the word “free” implies absolutely zero content, which is practically impossible to verify, and “genetically modified” is not an appropriate term, for plant breeders have modified all varieties of crops over thousands of years of agricultural practice. Additionally, statements like, “This apple was not genetically engineered,” are somewhat misleading, for no apples are currently genetically engineered, and that statement implies that some are. Contrarily, statements and phrases such as, “This item does/does not contain ingredients that were produced using biotechnology,” and “Genetically engineered” are acceptable (Byrne). Foods that are labeled “ USDA 100% Organic” cannot be produced via genetic engineering (USDA), although not all non-GE foods can be considered organic. Some companies like Annie’s, Blue Diamond, and Cedar’s Mediterranean Foods Inc., choose to place the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal on their on their products (The NonGMO Project). There is some confusion regarding use of the term, “non-GMO,” and so, many foods remain unlabeled. For example, the grocery store chain Trader Joe’s states on their website: “We have yet to take the approach of labeling products as non-GMO because there are no guidelines from the U.S. governmental agencies covering food and beverage labeling.” Furthermore, they are “unable to confirm that animal products (meat, dairy and some farmed fish) sold under the Trader Joe’s label are raised on only non-GMO feed, due to the prevalence of GMOs in the commodity grain market, and the limited availability of non-GMO feed” (Trader Joe’s). The Label It Yourself campaign is a guerilla labeling movement in which activists print their own GMO “warning” labels or order them online. They then place the labels on products that line the shelves of supermarkets. This labeling tactic misinforms customers and violates federal law; however, no labeling vigilantes have been prosecuted thus far (Miller). ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF LABELING GE FOOD IN THE U.S. Consumers’ willingness to pay for GM labeled food decreased by approximately 14 percent, according to one study in the United States in which after being given one of six different information packets about biotechnology, subjects bid on food labeled “GM” at an auction. Of the six packets, one contained only anti-biotech statements from Greenpeace; one contained only pro-biotech statements from leading biotech companies; one contained scientific statements from professionals with no financial stake in agricultural biotechnology as well as the anti-biotech statements; one contained the scientific statements as well as the pro-biotech statements; one contained the scientific statements, the anti-biotech statements, and the pro-biotech statements; one contained both anti- and pro-biotech statements with no scientific statements. All sources of information were included in the packets. The information provided to participants was found to have a strong impact on their bidding (Tegene et al.). In Washington, the GMO labeling initiative, I-522, if passed, would have cost the average family of four an additional $490 per year in groceries, according to a news article in the Washington State Wire. Because I-522 would have made Washington the first state to require labeling, special packaging would be necessary for the Washington market, and regulation would cost the state tens of millions of dollars (Smith). Market data would provide the best indication of the attitudes of consumers regarding labeled GM foods. Unfortunately, information on price and actual quantities purchased does not exist because no (or very few) biotech foods are labeled in the U.S. At this point in time, analysts must rely on surveys and experimental market studies, as well as information from other countries in which genetically engineered foods are labeled as such (Tegene et al.). ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF GE FOOD LABELING IN THE EU, JAPAN, AND NEW ZEALAND Genetically modified seeds result in larger yields than non-GM seeds. This should consequently lower food prices. However, the first GM foods introduced to the European market were not cheaper, had no increased shelf life, and were had no better taste than non-GM products (World Health Organization). In order to give consumers the knowledge of what was in the food being sold, the EU, Japan, and New Zealand instated mandatory labeling laws. Rather than improving consumer choice, though, retailers have responded by ceasing to carry genetically engineered products (Byrne). This is not beneficial for farmers who grow GM crops, but it is certainly a positive thing for organic farmers. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS Food is an important aspect of many cultures worldwide, and the use of biotechnology in food production goes against some people’s ethics. In the United States, the majority of people think that GE foods should be labeled (Camille). Those in favor of the labeling of GE foods are primarily concerned with consumers’ right to know how the food that they buy is produced. Those in opposition to GE food labeling are mainly concerned with loss of profit due to the public assuming that a label signifies danger. In order to give consumers the right to know whether or not their food is produced by means of genetic engineering, foods containing genetically engineered ingredients must be labeled as such. Because of the limits dictated by the term “organic,” and the confusion regarding the term “non-GMO,” people cannot depend upon these labels to determine what foods have been produced via genetic engineering. Biotech companies can combat loss of sales by educating the public about their products, as it has been shown that access to information influences decision-making. The United States should implement national, uniform laws that require GE food and animal feed to be labeled as “genetically engineered” with a minimum threshold of 1%. In the meantime, corporations who are opposed to these laws should redirect their money from anti-labeling campaigns to education about biotechnology. Works Cited “20 questions on genetically modified foods.” WHO. World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/>. “A Collaborative Initiative Working to Ensure the Sustained Availability of Non-GMO Options.” The NonGMO Project . N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/browse-products-by-brand/>. Artz, Kenneth. “Connecticut, Maine Pass GMO Labeling Laws.”Heartlander Magazine. N.p., 12 July 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://news.heartland.org/newspaperarticle/2013/07/12/connecticut-maine-pass-gmo-labeling-laws>. Byrne, P. “Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods.” Colorado State University Extension. Colorado State University, 19 Apr. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html>. “GMO: Your Right to Know.” Whole Foods Market. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/gmo-your-right-know>. “Glossary.” Monsanto. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/glossary.aspx#g>. Camille, Emma. “The Role of Government in the Labeling of GM Food.”Cornell. Cornell, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://cip.cornell.edu/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminateview=body&id=pdf_1&handle=dns.gfs/1284648729>. Cummins, Ronnie & the Organic Consumers Association “$17.1 Million Worth of Lies.” Message to the author. 3 Oct. 2013. Cummins, Ronnie & the Organic Consumers Association. “Moms Get Slapped, Monsanto Minions Get Awards.” Message to the author. 10 Oct. 2013. Hirsch, Corin. “Vermont GMO-Labeling Bill Passes the House.” Seven Days: Vermont’s Independent Voice. N.p., 15 May 2013. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://www.7dvt.com/2013vermont-gmo-labeling-bill-passes-house>. “History of GMOS.” American RadioWorks. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/gmos_india/history.html>. “Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea.” Scientific American. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea>. “Labeling Organic Products.” United States Department of Agriculture. USDA, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446&acct=nopgeninfo>. “Maine.” Coalition of States for GMO Labeling. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://www.righttoknow-gmo.org/states/maine>. Miller, Henry. “Vigilante “Label It Yourself” activists violate federal law.”Genetic Literacy Project. N.p., 3 Jan. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/01/03/vigilante-label-it-yourself-activists-violate-federal-law/#.Um120L-TOKs>. “Our Position on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO).” Ben & Jerry’s. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://www.benjerry.com/activism/gmo>. Reuters, Jason Lee. “Monsanto threatens to sue the entire state of Vermont .” RT. Russia Today, 6 Apr. 2012. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-sue-gmo-vermont-478/>. Sifferlin, Alexandra. “California fails to pass genetically modified foods labeling initiative.” CNN. Cable News Network, 8 Nov. 2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/08/health/california-gm-foods/index.html>. Smith, Erik. “Won’t Cost a Dime? Average Family Food Bill Would Rise $490 a Year Under I-522, Says Opposition Report.” Washington State Wire – News of Capitol Importance. N.p., 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/wont-cost-a-dime-average-family-food-bill-would-rise-490-a-year-under-i-522-says-opposition-report/>. “State Labeling Initiatives.” Center for Food Safety. Center for Food Safety, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/state-labeling-initiatives>. Tegene, Abebayehu, Wallace E. Huffman, Matthew Rousu, and Jason F. Shogren. “Consumers React to Biotech Food Information.” ERS Research Briefs. United States Department of Agriculture, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/33577/1/tb031903.pdf>. “Trader Joe’s Products are Sourced from Non-GMO Ingredients.” Trader Joe’s. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.traderjoes.com/about/customer-updates-responses.asp?i=4>. “Vermont Co-ops Unanimously Support GMO Labeling Legislation.”Vermont Right to Know GMOs. Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG), 16 Apr. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.vpirg.org/news/vermont-co-ops-unanimously-support-gmo-labeling-legislation/>. Weise, Elizabeth . “Washington state voters reject labeling of GMO foods.” USA Today. Gannett, 6 Nov. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/06/washington-state-voters-reject-gmo-labeing/3450705/>. “Who Requires Labels?.” Green America. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.greenamerica.org/pubs/greenamerican/articles/AprilMay2012/Who-requires-GMO-labels.cfm>. ECONOMICS OF GMOS Amanda Adams To the public the controversies of genetically modified foods lie in the safety of the product. To those in the agricultural sector, economic factors are in the middle of the GM crop debate. There are risks and benefits for farmers who use GM crops and others in the industry. Some benefits are obvious but some risks may not be apparent until years of plantings. Large biotech companies like Monsanto control most of the GM seed sales. They are an innovator in this field but also cause grief when farmers breach contracts. The production of food is a major part of any economy and GM crops can drastically change the profit both negatively and positively on a global scale. BENEFITS FOR FARMERS Genetically modified crops have benefits for farmers. They can increase a field’s harvest, reduce the amount of pesticide used and can increase profits. The seed companies advertise these benefits when selling genetically modified seeds. There is an expectation that genetically modified crops produce higher yields. There is scientific data to back this up, although there have been limited studies done to test this. According to a report by PSU, a study by Iowa State University found that in a sample of 377 fields, GM seed of fields yielded 160.4 bushels of Bt corn per field while non-GM seed fields yielded 147.7 per field (Kruft 2001). Pesticide and herbicide resistance can also reduce the amount of chemicals used on crops. Studies have found that chemical use decreased, but not significantly. In the case of the herbicide glysophate (Roundup), studies have found a significant increase in use (Kruft 2001). Currently research seems to indicate that there are increased profits overall. This could be due to increased yields, reduction of chemical use or a number of other factors. In a 1997 study, the Economic Research Service (ERS) found that in most instances there is a statistically significant increase in net profits from using GM seeds. (Kruft 2001). They found that GM soybeans received 17 more dollars on average per acre than non-GM seeds (Kruft 2001). These benefits are factors that farmers can measure on a yearly basis to see if they want to continue to use genetically modified seeds. However, some of the risks are not quantifiable so that farmers may not understand the impact of their choice to use GM seeds. RISKS FOR FARMERS Genetically modified plants have only been around for a few decades with few long-term studies done. This could be a cause for concern, as farmers do not know what negative effects GM crops could have on their fields. There is the possibility that the combination of herbicide resistant plants and increased use of Roundup could lead to the development of super weeds that are resistant to all agricultural chemicals. There is also the risk that GM crops could contaminate conventional non-GMO crops. Farmers who do not have or want GM crops could possibly have crops cross-pollinated by GM crops, thus transferring some of the modified genes. This can be a major problem for farmers who have organic or non-GM plants and who want to stay that way. The risks to farmers carry into the business world as they deal with monster seed companies that control the GM seed market. There are also economic risks to farmers. Genetically modified seeds are not like other seeds. The major seed companies patent their designed genetic makeup. Genetic patents prevent others from using their genes without payment or consent on the company. In 1980, the US Supreme Court made its first ruling allowing patents on living things and ruled that organisms not found in nature that are “manufactured” and useful could be patented (Diamond V. Chakrabarty). This was the first court case that supported genetic patents. From here on the number of genetic patents has skyrocketed, although in the past year the US Supreme Court ruled that human genes could not be patented and rendered all previous patents void. The major biotech companies like Monsanto and more recently DuPont are major stakeholders in GM plant patents, but other groups are affected by GM plant patents in the industry. Investors could be less likely to invest if farmers planted previous generations of Monsanto’s seeds because there would be a smaller margin for profit in innovation. It also may slow the development of university research, laboratory instruments and crop improvements (Pollack 2013). Patents may help spur innovation in larger biotech companies but may hinder progress in smaller places that do not have the resources to pay large biotech companies for genetic licenses. There are groups out there that protest this patent ruling. It comes both from other seed companies and from farmers alike. GENETIC PATENTS Monsanto is the leading biotech company for GM seeds. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a division of DuPont started developing herbicide resistant plant seeds. The rivalry between the two companies has led to a string of lawsuits against each other. In 2009, Monsanto sued DuPont for copyright infringement of an herbicide resistant gene that DuPont combined with another resistant gene to a different chemical (Kilman 2009). The courts ruled in Monsanto’s favor saying that DuPont could not produce seeds with both genes (Neuman 2010). DuPont also made antitrust claims against Monsanto that the government is still investigating (Neuman 2010). DuPont fought back with a lawsuit against Monsanto claiming that Monsanto is using a patented process developed by 3 scientists from DuPont (DuPont sues Monsanto over Patents 2013). There is also backlash from the organic farmers who want nothing to do with GM crops. Organic farmers sued Monsanto over the validity of some patents and for protection from Monsanto for trace amounts of GM crops in their organic crops (Four Maine farmers head to D.C. to challenge Monsanto in court on patents 2013). Monsanto claims that the company would not sue for this reason and that the claims should be dismissed. The courts ruled in favor of Monsanto and dismissed the case (For Supreme Court, Monsanto’s Win Was More About Patents Than Seeds 2013). This ruling affected farmers everywhere who deal with the biotech companies for all of their seed needs. These plant patents affect the farmers financially. There are extra expenses associated with GM seeds. The seed companies own the rights to the seeds so the farmers are unable to plant the seeds after harvest, and must buy new seeds each year. If they want to save seeds from year to year, they must pay a technology fee so that they are not liable for patent infringement (Kruft 2001). Because there are few GM seed companies, they control the price. Monsanto distributes most of the GM seeds with the largest variety so that they have little competition to bring the prices of seeds down (Neuman 2010). In 2010 alone, the price of corn seed increased by 32 percent while soybeans increased by 24 percent (Neuman 2010). The USDA found that since 2001 the price of corn seed has increased by 135 percent and soybeans by 108 percent. Claims of monopoly were serious enough that they warranted an investigation of the Obama administration into antitrust claims against Monsanto (Neuman 2010). However, there is hope for the price of GM seeds. Monsanto’s patent of Roundup ready soybeans expires in 2014 (Neuman 2010). This opens the door for generic seeds that would be cheaper and could be saved from year to year. Monsanto is trying to block this by releasing a second-generation Roundup ready resistant soybean that would block generic GM soybean seeds from being used. If smaller companies had access to the gene, more progress could come out of the field. When farmers plant seeds harvested from these patented plants, biotech seed companies, primarily Monsanto take action against the farmers. Monsanto is very protective of its intellectual rights to its GM plants. According to the Center for Food Safety, Monsanto has brought 140 patent infringement lawsuits against 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses (Pollack 2013). On Monsanto’s website, they detail the investigation procedure for patent infringement. Monsanto contracts investigative firms to look into possible patent infringements (Monsanto 2013). They work off tips from sales centers and other farmers. They set up surveillance to see if farmers are replanting seeds. If they are, they then investigate them further by interviewing the farming, pulling seed records, and touring the farm (Monsanto 2013). If they find sufficient evidence, they then sue the farmer, co-op or business. They are willing to do this for every farmer who infringes upon their patents, no matter how small the damages. RECOMMENDATIONS National news covered a major lawsuit from Monsanto against a small Indiana farmer. He owns 300 acres of soybean fields and regularly bought and planted Monsanto’s Roundup ready soybeans. For second and third plantings in a small section of his field, he bought seeds from a grain elevator that were most likely Monsanto’s brand (For Supreme Court, Monsanto’s Win Was More About Patents Than Seeds 2013). Monsanto was only suing for 84,000 dollars in damages but the Indiana farmer appealed his case to the US Supreme Court (Bravin 2013). The farmer argued that the seeds were protected under patent exhaustion that allows the purchaser to do what they please with the product. (Bravin 2013). Monsanto still argued that it was patent infringement because he knowingly planted seeds that were Monsanto’s Roundup ready soybeans. This was an important case because it looked at the rights of the farmer to plant seeds they harvest after purchase and the rights of the patent holder. The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Monsanto’s favor finding that the farmer did violate patent law by knowingly planting seeds that contained Monsanto’s genes and replanted them (Bravin 2013). This is one of many yearly cases Monsanto brings against farmers, but unlike most, the farmer appealed to case up to the US Supreme Court. Monsanto shows it stronghold on the industry each time it sues a farmer, and it appears that they will continue to sue as long as their patents are valid. After careful review of the economic impacts of genetically modified crops, I have several recommendations. First, a regulation needs to be put in place to protect small farmers from the large biotech companies. There needs to be safeguards that protect them financially so that they are able to afford the seeds that are increasing in price yearly. I also recommend a group of lawyers that can explain patent law to farmers and help prevent and defend plant patent infringement with biotech companies. They also need to form a national group where farmers can discuss issues with GM crops where they can then make recommendations to congress. I also recommend that biotech companies like Monsanto be further investigated for controlling genetically modified seed prices and antitrust claims so that farmers are able to pay a fair price for the seed. Lastly, I strongly recommend that farmers and seed companies talk calmly about the patent issues. It may be possible to reach ground where Monsanto reduces the amount of lawsuits so that farmers do not have to fear being sued. I recommend revisiting this issue in the near future as the first GM crop patent is about to expire in less than a year. Works Cited Bravin, Jess. “Indiana Farmer Loses Fight Over Monsanto Seed Patent.” Wall Street Journal 14 May 2013. ProQuest Central. Web. “BRIEF: Dupont sues Monsanto over patents.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, MO) 18 Oct. 2011. General OneFile. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. “Diamond V. Chakrabarty | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.” Web. 5 Nov. 2013. “For Supreme Court, Monsanto’s Win Was More About Patents Than Seeds.” All Things Considered (2013): n. pag. ProQuest Central. Web. “Four Maine farmers head to D.C. to challenge Monsanto in court on patents.” Bangor Daily News (Bangor, ME) 9 Jan. 2013. General OneFile. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. Kilman, Scott. “Corporate News: Monsanto Sues DuPont Over Biotech Patents.” Wall Street Journal 6 May 2009. ProQuest Central. Web. Kruft, David. Impacts of Genetically-Modified Crops and Seeds on Farmers. Carlisle, PA: The Dickinson School of Law and the Pennsylvania State University, 2001. Print. Monsanto. “2014 Technology Use Guide.” Monsanto. 2013. Print. Neuman, William. “Rapid Rise in Seed Prices Draws U.S. Scrutiny.” The New York Times 11 Mar. 2010. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. Pollack, Andrew. “Farmer’s Supreme Court Challenge Puts Monsanto Patents at Risk.” The New York Times 16 Feb. 2013 : B1(L). Print. CONCLUSIONS Issues regarding the health, labeling and economics of GM crops are complex issues that require deep consideration. We conclude that the current state of GM food production needs further improvement. In terms of safety, we believe that GM foods are safe to eat for now, for there has been no evidence of negative health effects. GM crop research must continue to be studied, for chronic health effects are certainly a relevant issue in the future. We recommend long-term human trials lasting a minimum of a year to be performed in order to determine any negative effects on over-all health and potential gene transfer in human gut linings. Engineering plants to have higher vitamin content is a technology that should be expanded upon, for this could be helpful in treating malnutrition in third world countries. In regards to the labeling controversy, we feel that laws should be enacted requiring mandatory labeling of genetically modified food products. These laws should be uniform, and should take effect on the national level rather than on a state-by-state basis. Within these laws, a minimum threshold of 1 percent for DNA or protein resulting from genetic modification should be introduced, below which labeling should not be mandatory. Labels that indicate that a product does not contain genetically modified ingredients should be worded in a way that does not imply zero content, or implies that other similar products contain genetically modified ingredients when they do not. Furthermore, labels on products that do contain genetically modified ingredients should be phrased in a way that accurately describes the technology used, such as “genetically engineered.” In order to combat loss of sales due to labeling, we suggest that biotech companies spend money on educating the public about GMOs rather than on anti-labeling campaigns. For the economic sector of GM crops there needs to be regulations that protect small farmers from the large biotech companies like Monsanto. The government should also further investigate Monsanto for their antitrust claims so that farmers can pay a fair non-inflated price for seeds. We recommend visiting this issue in the near future as the first GM crop gene patent is about to expire. Mae DesTroismaisons
World Regional Geography October 17, 2013 Professor Harlan Morehouse On the evening of October 9, I attended a talk in Lafayette 210 called “What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism.” The speaker was former UVM Plant and Soil Science professor Fred Magdoff, who is the author of a book of the same title. The talk was sponsored by System Change Not Climate Change: The Ecosocialist Coalition and endorsed by The Monthly Review and the International Socialist Organization. The purpose of Magdoff’s presentation was to inform the audience about issues (mainly environmental) that come along with capitalism, and how we should be using a system that is motivated not by profit, but rather, by the needs of the people. *** A student named Alex from UVM Socialists introduced Magdoff after giving a short speech of his own, which was extremely effective in getting the audience riled up about some of the social and environmental problems of capitalism (e.g. fracking, mountain top removal, asthma rates, cheap energy, and cheap labor) and how socialism seeks to solve some of them. Alex’s opening speech was certainly relevant, as his examples were applicable to the ideas presented by the featured speaker. By the time Magdoff was behind the podium, the entire audience was enthused and attentive. As the author of a book (or perhaps multiple books) on the subject, and as a former PSS professor at the University of Vermont, Fred Magdoff was a very credible choice for a guest speaker on the topic of capitalism and the environment. The central point of Magdoff’s presentation was that the United States should switch from our current profit-driven political and economic system (capitalism) to a need-driven (non-capitalist) system that could be called socialism, and is described as follows:
Several conclusions were arrived at during this presentation. The first one was that in capitalism, “there is no such thing as enough, and there is no such thing as too much.” (That quote was my favorite thing that Magdoff said during his speech.) Since natural resources are limited, this is not a practical way to live. The second conclusion was that there are too many people in the world, the wealthiest ten percent of which use sixty percent of the resources. This led to the third conclusion, which was that poor people are not the problem—rich people are! By the time Magdoff finished speaking, the presentation felt complete, though some audience members did have remaining questions that were left unanswered in the speech. Luckily, there was a period of time allotted for a post-speech question and answer session and discussion. *** I left after the presentation feeling a little angry about our current political and economic system, yet motivated to change it. I even bought a newspaper, The Socialist Worker, for one dollar from Alex (the introductory speaker) before leaving. In addition to the newspapers, there were a variety of books and pamphlets arranged on a table for audience members to look at and/or purchase at the end of the event. Included among these materials was Fred Magdoff’s book, What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism, as well as a few different issues of The Monthly Review, which is an independent socialist magazine. Unfortunately, I was not able to stay for long after the presentation, so I did not get a good look at the visual aids. Students comprised the majority of the audience, but there were also faculty/staff in attendance and there might also have been some Burlington area community members present. The speaker seemed aware of this make-up, and I would guess that it was what he expected because his speech was well tailored for the group that came to see him. We all laughed at his jokes about BP, but we also took the points he was making with them. Personally, I found the speech quite interesting, for although I cannot label myself as a socialist, I can say that my political ideologies absolutely are anti-capitalist, so this was right up my alley. I would highly recommend that GEOG 050 students (and everyone) to go to a similar talk. Mae DesTroismaisons
Race & Culture in Natural Resources November 6, 2012 Professor Clare Ginger Patricia Allen, Golden Cage & Jessie Mazar This week’s readings and speaker centered on the topic of social justice in food systems, or rather the lack thereof. We learned that both hunger and obesity are most prevalent in low-income populations because families either cannot afford to buy enough food or they can only afford the cheapest, poorest-quality foods. The reason that social justice is such a huge problem is obvious: people have to eat to stay alive. But as is described in Patricia Allen’s Mining for justice in the food system: Perceptions, practices, and possibilities and as Jessie Mazar said: “social justice [is] a much bigger and systemic issue.” Due to enormous factory farms, small farmers have been exploited. In order to cut labor costs, they have had to employ migrant workers who then live on the farms in poverty. I had no idea that in Vermont there are about 1,500 refugees working on farms. What really inspired me about Jessie Mazar’s presentation was that she was not merely talking about things people should do to help fix issues regarding justice in the food system. She spoke of things she had actually done to make an impact, both in the United States and abroad. Through her work with at-risk youth and the Huertas Migrant Farm Worker Garden Project, Jessie helped improve the lives of people of all ages suffering from injustice in the food system. I think that one of main reasons why this week’s presentation was so engaging to so many students had to do with Jessie’s age. She was so young, yet she had accomplished so much. What was even better was that she was informing us how to get involved now. For me, this was a really positive experience, because now instead of feeling depressed and helpless when it comes to socio-environmental problems, I now feel as though I can take part in making changes for the good. Jessie Mazar is an extremely positive role model, for she showed that it is possible for young people like me to make a difference. Despite the fact that I am from a relatively low-income household, I am lucky in that I have always been able to eat foods that are fresh, healthy, and wholesome. Since the beginning of Natural Resources 006, I have been wondering how I can share some of my privilege with others. Because of Jessie’s presentation, I now realize that there are ways for me to do that right here in Vermont. Mae DesTroismaisons
Nature and Culture February 20, 2014 Professor Walter Kuentzel The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) contains 20 million acres of land in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho (Montana Office of Tourism). It is comprised of two national parks and seven forests, as well as public and private land. The GYE is managed by a variety of groups including private landowners, nongovernmental organizations, private corporations, and over 25 state and federal agencies. In the mid-1920s, the gray wolf, a top predator, was eradicated from the region (Cain, Bowman, & Hacker, 501). At the time, this event was something to be celebrated because wolves were considered an undesirable species, mainly due to their depredation on livestock. In the early years of Yellowstone National Park, there were no restrictions on hunting in the park. Hunters, poachers, administrators, tourists, and basically anyone could legally shoot any predator or game animal they desired (“The Wolves of Yellowstone: A Great Ecological History”). Because wolves were so intensely feared and disliked by the majority of people at the time, the wolf population was especially stressed by the lack of wildlife protection. By 1883, laws protecting park animals were finally passed; however, they did not apply to most predators, so the wolf population continued to decline. In 1907, the Animal Damage Control program was introduced. This program was supported primarily by the cattle and livestock industries of the western United States and it led to the killing of approximately 2,000 wolves, despite the fact that they were already on the brink of extinction. About ten years later, when the National Park Service was formed, legislation that encouraged “the destruction of potentially dangerous species” was enacted, and the last of Yellowstone’s once abundant gray wolves were extinguished (“The Wolves of Yellowstone: A Great Ecological History”). The ecological consequences of the gray wolf extinction in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem were profound. Once the wolves were gone, it became apparent that the elk population was largely overgrazing meadows. In an attempt to resolve this issue, elk were exported to special elk farms. Another attempt to control elk numbers began in 1968 upon the implementation of a “natural regulation” policy, under which the elk population grew four times its size in 30 years. Because elk became so overpopulated in the 1950s and 60s, the plant species they consume became scarce as a result. Beavers prefer to eat many of the same plants as elk (e.g. aspen and willow), and since the two species’ shared food sources were less abundant, beaver populations dwindled. In turn, many other organisms that rely on the pond ecosystems created by beavers also were negatively affected. The culture of the 1920s simply did not understand predator-prey relationships well enough to predict that the removal of a keystone species would cause such a serious domino effect in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Cain, et al. 502). After 70 years of wolf absence, much research, and conflagrant debate, wolves were reintroduced into the GYE in 1995 and 1996. Now, almost 20 years later, the region has undergone another set of drastic environmental changes (Cain, et al. 501). In some areas of the GYE, stream flow decreased and sedimentation increased as a result of rising willow populations, which also create cool, shaded waters for birds and trout. Beaver dams have altered water flow patterns, which have made marshlands that may provide habitats for scarce species like otters, mink, muskrats, and ducks in the future (Cain, et al. 502). In 2011, wolves were removed from the endangered species lists of both Idaho and Montana, but not Wyoming. This is mainly because Wyoming’s environmentalists have been the most adamant about not killing wolves (“As Gray Wolves Return, So Does Debate Over Hunting”). However, Wyoming has now compromised with the Federal Government, and is allowing wolf hunting in certain “trophy areas” of the state during a particular season, but hunting is still forbidden in Yellowstone. This has proven to be an extremely controversial move. Because wolves do not adhere to geographic boundaries implemented by humans, pro-hunting organizations like The Wyoming Game and Fish Department and hunting advocacy groups hope to maintain the wolf population (causing it to neither rise nor drop) by only allowing wolf-hunts to take place in designated areas outside of Yellowstone. Only two wolf-hunts have occurred since reintroduction in the mid-1990s, and the quota for 2013 was only 26, half of the previous year’s number (Neary). The main initiative for legalizing the hunting of wolves in this area is because wolves do kill game and livestock. Joe Tilden, a county commissioner in Wyoming and founder of a hunting advocacy group told the hosts of NPR’s All Things Considered, “My personal opinion is they need to be hunted wherever and whenever they occur, because wolves are extremely secretive creatures; they’re extremely intelligent…When you’re hunting a predator, you’re not only out to enjoy the sport, but you’re out to control the number of predators” (“As Gray Wolves Return, So Does Debate Over Hunting”). Environmentalists are disapproving of the wolf-hunt, though. They argue that wolf hunting will negatively affect the connections between the Yellowstone wolf population and other wolf populations of the northern Rockies (Neary). If one wolf population becomes too isolated, there will be a loss of genetic diversity, a phenomenon that leads to a plethora of health problems for animals. Additionally, conservationists fear that hunting will soon be allowed on the John D. Rockefeller Parkway, which connects Yellowstone National Park to Grand Teton National Park. “Wolves use that area extensively traveling through the two parks, and it’s a very wild area,” said Sharon Mader, representing the National Parks Conservation Association on All Things Considered. According to NPR, she says this corridor is essential for maintaining viable populations. The National Parks Service is also against hunting on the parkway. Herbert Frost, associate director of the Park Service told the radio hosts, “Visitors come to Yellowstone, they come to Tetons, they come to the parkway just to see wolves, so we want to manage the park so that people can enjoy wildlife viewing” (“As Gray Wolves Return, So Does Debate Over Hunting”). The pro-wolf hunting standpoint possessed by hunting advocacy groups is compatible with the Arcadian Vision, which emphasizes “the economy of nature.” People like Joe Tilden see hunting in terms of its benefit for humans, but do not ignore the idea that the earth is an “inter-related whole.” The anti-hunting position taken by environmentalists like Herbert Frost represents the idea of nature as beneficial to humans too, but in a more Romantic way, focusing on biocentrism and a “fascination with natural history” (Kuentzel). The subject of hunting is what causes the Rewilding Movement to lie somewhere between the lines of Romanticism and the Arcadian Vision, unable to be adequately defined by either view of nature. Works Cited “As Gray Wolves Return, So Does Debate Over Hunting.” Shogren, Elizabeth. All Things Considered. NPR. 10 Feb. 2012. Web. Transcript. Kuentzel, Walter. “Commonalities and differences between the Arcadian Vision, Romanticism, and Transcendentalism.” NR 002: Nature and Culture. The University of Vermont. Ira Allen/Billings Lecture Hall, Burlington. 18 Feb. 2014. Class lecture. Montana Office of Tourism. “Greater Yellowstone Region.” Montana Official State Travel Site. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. <http://visitmt.com/national_parks/greater_yellowstone_region/>. Neary, Ben. “Wyoming kicks off downsized wolf-hunting season.” Casper Star-Tribune Online. N.p., 3 Oct. 2013. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. <http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming-kicks-off-downsized-wolf-hunting-season/article_f9823f62-c83c-5434-8488-8f05efb034e1.html>. “The Wolves of Yellowstone: A Great Ecological History.” Vertebrate Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. <http://www.vertebratejournal.org/609/the-wolves-of-yellowstone-a-great-ecological-history/>. Mae DesTroismaisons
Nature and Culture February 6, 2014 Professor Walter Kuentzel Background Before colonial settlers arrived in New York State, the Mohawk Native Americans thrived there, hunting, fishing, and gathering in order to subsist on what is now protected land. The Mohawk way of life was changed drastically after the War of 1812. In less than a century, the Americans’ repressive legislation like the 1876 Indian Act attempted to assimilate the native people’s once self-sustaining and independent society into “civilized” western culture by means of prohibiting the use of the Mohawk language and “diminishing [their] land base” (Mohawk Council of Kahnawá:ke, 2013). Although most of the Mohawk tribe eventually migrated north to Canada, New York is still home to some Mohawk people today (Native Languages of the Americas, 2013). In 1892, when the State of New York created the Adirondack Park, the land had already been subject to deforestation by clear-cutting. In order to preserve the natural beauty of this mountain landscape, including its forests and waterways, the Adirondack Forest Preserve was established in 1894 and was recognized as a protected “Forever Wild” area. Today, the Adirondack Park is a popular place for locals as well as tourists to canoe, hike, and cross-country ski. 2.6 million of the park’s 6 million acres are by the state, while the rest is privately owned. Often misconceived as a state or national park, the Adirondack Park is a unique place where public and private properties come together, allowing civilization and conservation to coexist (Adirondack Regional Tourism Council, 2014). Controversy Surrounding Land Use and Ownership If the Mohawk tribe in upstate New York were to sue the government to claim a variety of off-reservation hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on lands throughout the Adirondack park as well as to seek to take back possession of a 12,000-acre tract of land in the “Forever Wild” region of the park, it would be a controversial social and environmental issue. In the following sections, multiple sides of this hypothetical conflict will be explored objectively while the views of the Mohawks, the government, and private landowners will be projected. Furthermore, recommendations will be made on how to diffuse the situation. Mohawk Position English settlers and Native Americans formed numerous treaties with one another. Both sides entered some of these treaties willingly, but the colonists forced many others onto native peoples only after brutal battles had ensued (Friends Committee on National Legislation, 2008). Many tribes were virtually extinguished during the time of western colonization, and those that persisted may now only claim land “given” to them by the government in the form of reservations, which make up a small fraction of the United States’ area. Because of the atrocities committed by settlers to native tribes, including the Mohawks, Native American people today should have the right to practice traditional subsistence practices like hunting, fishing, and gathering, even on protected land and in conservation areas like the Adirondack Park. Government Position Because the treaties entered into by English settlers and Native Americans are legally binding, the Mohawk tribe in upstate New York does not have the right to take back land in the Adirondack Park or to use that land in ways that are illegal. Despite the importance of cultural traditions to the Mohawk people, hunting, fishing, and gathering in protected areas are prohibited. The environmental effects of the aforementioned activities would degrade the land and its species richness. Private Landowner Position Allowing recreational activities like hunting, fishing, and gathering in this area for Native Americans and for no one else would be unfair to other citizens. Additionally, the Mohawk community should not be permitted to reclaim property that has been bought and paid for by other people. It would be unethical for the government to take private land through eminent domain for the purpose of restoring Native American hunting grounds, as the Mohawks no longer need to hunt, fish, or gather food in order to survive. Recommendations Although there is no obvious compromise for this conflict, one way to diffuse the issue could be to allow hunting, fishing, and gathering by Mohawk people only on state-owned land in the Adirondack Park. These activities would need to have strict limitations for environmental reasons, however. Because the Mohawk population is small in size, it seems possible to allow them to engage in traditional subsistence exercises without harming species richness. Works Cited Redish, Laura, and Orrin Lewis. “Mohawk Indian Fact Sheet.” Native Languages of the Americas. N.p., 1998. Web. 6 Feb. 2014. <http://www.bigorrin.org/mohawk_kids.htm>. “The Adirondack Park.” Adirondacks, NY. Adirondack Regional Tourism Council, n.d. Web. 6 Feb. 2014. <http://visitadirondacks.com/about/mountains/adirondack-park>. “Treaty Rights and Responsibilities Basics.” FCNL. Friends Committee on National Legislation: A Quaker Lobby in the Public Interest, 17 Mar. 2008. Web. 6 Feb. 2014. <http://fcnl.org/issues/nativeam/treaty_rights_and_responsibilities_basics/>. “Tsi Nitiohtón:ne Oká:ra (History of Kahnawá:ke).” Mohawk Council of Kahnawá:ke. Mohawk Council of Kahnawá:ke, 2013. Web. 6 Feb. 2014. <http://www.kahnawake.com/community/history.asp>. Mae DesTroismaisons
NR 002: Nature and Culture March 15, 2014 Professor Walter Kuentzel The world’s largest mining company, Britain’s Rio Tinto Zinc (RTZ), began developing Panguna Mine in the 1960s on the island of Bougainville, Papua New Guinea (PNG). Unbeknownst to the indigenous people of Bougainville, the mine would grow to be extremely large and destructive. Five-hundred and fifty acres of jungle that once served as a hunting ground for locals of the area was cleared for mining by Bougainville Copper Limited (BCL), an Australian subsidiary of RTZ. Meanwhile, the residents of the area were relocated to a makeshift resettlement or “shanty town”, but no financial support was given by the PNG government or by RTZ to help build a school. In 1967, BCL began excavating what was at the time the biggest open-cast copper mine on earth—nearly five hundred meters deep and covering about seven square kilometers—in the fertile heart of Bougainville (The Coconut Revolution, 1999). Before it was closed in 1989, the mine produced three million tons of copper, seven hundred and eighty-four tons of silver, and three hundred and six tons of gold, accounting for approximately forty-four percent of PNG’s gross domestic product in that seventeen-year timespan (“Panguna-Bougainville”, 2013). Copper, silver, and gold are all “currency metals,” meaning that they are used to make monetary coins. These metals are also used to produce first-world luxuries like computers, cellphones, and jewelry. Additionally, copper is used for piping and for electrical conductors, silver is used for tableware and in non-digital photography, and gold is used in microelectronics and for dental work (Calvert, 2002). The current prices of copper, silver, and gold are approximately $0.20, $21.46, and $1382.00 per troy ounce, respectively (“Coin and Bullion Melt Value Calculators”, 2014). One troy ounce is about thirty-one grams. Soon after its opening, Panguna Mine proved extremely polluting, and approximately one billion tons of industrial waste including copper, mercury, arsenic, and lead was deposited into the Jaba River, killing wildlife and transforming whole forests and forests into dusty “moonscape” or desolate land. The river system was virtually destroyed by mine pollution; to this day, there are no fish to be found living in the waters, which are undrinkable and unsafe for people to swim in. When locals protested the digging, their land was taken by force. Of the three billion U.S. dollars in profit that Panguna Mine made, only one one-thousandth (about $3 million) was given back to the people of Bougainville (The Coconut Revolution, 1999). Although not directly stated, historical literature about Panguna Mine implies that most of the mineworkers were from the PNG mainland, not Bougainville (“The Bougainville Crisis”, 1990). In 1988, the Young Land Owners Association (YLO) led by Francis Ona demanded closure of Panguna Mine, as well as ten billion dollars in damages. Ten billion was more than the mine was worth, and the YLO was granted nothing. Shortly after, Ona broke into the mine at night and stole fifty kilos of high explosives. He and his rebel friends closed the mine themselves via sabotage. Panicking about losing almost half of their export earnings, Papua New Guinea deployed the riot police, who then stormed Bougainville, burning homes down and beating, raping, and murdering civilians. This event only strengthened the resistance, as it enraged the local community and so provided Ona’s guerilla force with all the recruits it needed (The Coconut Revolution, 1999). Now that the Bougainvillians had closed down the mine themselves and RTZ had abandoned it, the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BVA) was formed, and it raised the stakes of the conflict, plugging for independence from Papua New Guinea. The riot police could not handle the rebel uprising, so PNG’s Army, the Papua New Guinea Defense Force (PNGDF), was sent in. The PNGDF blockaded the island and were given shoot-to-kill orders so that Bougainville was completely cut off from outside resources like petrol, diesel, food products, medicine, and weaponry. Australia, with ex-colonial interests, provided PNG with helicopters that were soon turned to gunships and trained primarily on the unarmed population of Bougainville (The Coconut Revolution, 1999). The PNGDF drove much of Bougainville’s population into the jungle, where many people began dying from things such as unsanitized childbirth, preventable illnesses like malaria, pneumonia, and tetanus, as well as from asbestos from the mine. The Bougainvillians, cut off from all trade, were forced to innovate, employing their ancestors’ ancient medicinal techniques involving herbs found growing on the island. Francis Ona’s Presidential Headquarters doubled as a surgery, where both rebel soldiers and civilians would go for unprofessional help with serious injuries. More than 15,000 Bougainvillians (approximately one-tenth of the island’s population) died during the conflict, which was possibly the bloodiest in the Pacific since World War II (The Coconut Revolution, 1999). The BVA had to be creative, too. They salvaged leftover materials and machine parts from the abandoned mine to make homemade weapons. They literally fought the battle against the PNGDF and their advanced weaponry with sticks, stones, and scraps, using slingshot guns and bows and poisonous arrows that the soldiers made themselves. The construction of weaponry also helped build confidence in the force. They eventually gained two-to-three hundred powerful modern weapons from the opposition as they won more and more battles. Another tactic the rebels used was the creation of booby-traps that involved planting island herbs on the tracks on which the enemy moved along, When the PNGDF soldiers passed by these particular herbs, they would experience allergic reactions far worse than those caused by poison ivy as their testicles and penises would become swollen and painful (The Coconut Revolution, 1999). “Shopping” in Bougainville in this time of conflict meant bringing back anything you could out of successful operations from weapons and medicine to kickballs for children to play with. It also meant salvaging materials from the abandoned Panguna Mine including switchboxes, piping, and parts that could be reused for improvisational repairs to the island’s collapsing infrastructure. The “primitive” people even made gravity-fed hydroelectric generators out of rubbish, pipes, and spare parts from old cars. There are now between fifty and sixty small hydros lighting up certain parts of the island that can provide power twenty-four hours a day (The Coconut Revolution, 1999). Since no food was being imported to the island, the people had to increase their level of gardening and land cultivation. Every family had to be self-sufficient in order to survive. Bouganvillians grew potatoes, peanuts, corn yams, tomatoes, onions, sweet potatoes, cassava, sugar cane, taros, and pawpaw in the rich island soil. The coconut, however, was by far their most valuable resource (The Coconut Revolution, 1999). The people of Bougainville used each and every part of the coconut, which grows abundantly in the area. It had long been known that coconut trees provided food and shelter, but many more uses were discovered for it as a result of the blockade. The skin could be heated in a fire and squeezed onto sores for healing. The husk could be burned to repel malaria-transmitting mosquitos. The leaves could be used to weave baskets. The oil could be used for lamps, for cooking, and to make soap. Refined, grade A coconut oil could be used to clean guns. Most impressively, through a process involving scraping, squeezing, fermenting, and cooking, coconuts could be used to produce fuel for vehicles. This is how the people of Bougainville were able to continue driving cars and abandoned mine vehicles despite the lack of petrol and diesel. From fifteen coconuts, one liter of fuel can be made. Coconut fuel is also less polluting than diesel, and gets double the mileage (The Coconut Revolution, 1999). By 1996, the Bougainville Revolutionary Army was winning the war, and held about eighty percent of the island’s territory. Note that no other countries came to aid them against Papua New Guinea and Australia’s forces. In 1997, PNG hired a London-based mercenary company called Sandline International in an attempt to wipe out Bougainville’s rebel leadership at a cost of forty-six million dollars (The Coconut Revolution, 1999). Sandline International is a Private (“private” meaning privately owned independent business) Military Company (PMC) established in the early 1990s. Today, it is incorporated in the Bahamas, but maintains representative offices in both England and the United States (“Overview of the company”, 2004). Embarrassed about needing foreign assistance, and infuriated by the cost of it, the underpaid PNGDF arrested the mercenaries and threw them out, thus indirectly helping the BVA (The Coconut Revolution, 1999). In 2001, an agreement was reached between PNG and Bougainville that gave the island a referendum on independence (“History of Bougainville”, 2004). On July 25, 2005, rebel leader Francis Ona passed away from malaria (The World Today, 2005). Bougainville is currently listed as an “autonomous region” on the website:http://www.papuanewguinea.travel/bougainville (“Autonomous Region of Bougainville”, 2008), but there is a “lack of real democracy in Bougainville” (Loewenstein, 2013) as it tries to gain true independence. Recently, there has been discussion of reopening Panguna Mine by BCL, who claims, “the Autonomous Region is ready for economic development” (“About the Company BCL”, 2012). However, the people of Bougainville have met the proposal with harsh resistance. As one Bougainvillian woman, Theonila Roka said, “In many ways we’re already independent. Most people are self-sufficient, growing their own food on their land” (Loewenstein, 2013). The extractive activity of mining on the island of Bougainville helped the region develop sustainability in an unexpected way. That is, the resistance of the indigenous population to Rio Tinto Zinc’s Panguna Mine and Papua New Guinea inspired a revolution of self-sufficiency. Interestingly, if it had not been for the environmental destruction caused by the Panguna Mine, and the resulting violent conflict, Bougainvillians would probably still be relying on fossil fuels. Instead, they have developed their own green energy sources: hydro-electricity produced using reused mine materials, and fuel for vehicles produced from coconuts! It appears that the push for the reopening of Panguna Mine comes primarily from profit-seeking corporations like RTZ and from first-world product demands. In the multi-award winning documentary film, The Coconut Revolution, most of the people of Bougainville were barefoot and wearing tattered clothing that certainly did not have flashy brands and logos all over it, but they seemed happy. Perhaps first-world nations like the United States can learn a lesson about sustainability and self-reliance from the Bougainville community. We can start by resisting the designed obsolescence of our technology—which is produced via extractive mining activities—by living without constantly disposing of perfectly functional cellphones and computers in favor of “new and improved” upgrades. It is consumers like us that comprise the driving force behind environmental destruction and pollution. By demanding technological advancement, we are in turn demanding that colossal corporations take advantage of undeveloped areas like Bougainville, forcibly taking land from indigenous people, and raping that land of its natural resources and wild beauty. Works Cited “About the Company BCL.” BCL Home Comments. Bougainville Copper Limited, 2012. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. <http://www.bcl.com.pg>. “Autonomous Region of Bougainville.” Papua New Guinea Tourism Promotions Authority | Autonomous Region of Bougainville. 2008. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. <http://www.papuanewguinea.travel/bougainville> Calvert, J.B. “Copper, Silver and Gold.” Copper, Silver and Gold. 24 Nov. 2002. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. <http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/copper.htm#Roya>. “Coin & Bullion Melt Value Calculators.” Coin & Bullion Melt Value Calculators. 2014. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. <http://coinapps.com>. The Coconut Revolution. Dir. Dom Rotheroe. 1999. Film. <http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-coconut-revolution> “Panguna – Bougainville.” PNG Mining Legacies. Mineral Policy Institute, 2013. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. <http://www.pngmininglegacies.org/mining-projects/panguna/>. The World Today. ABC Local Radio. 25 July 2005. Web. Transcript. “Panguna – Bougainville.” PNG Mining Legacies. Mineral Policy Institute, n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. <http://www.pngmininglegacies.org/mining-projects/panguna/>. “The Bougainville Crisis.” ANU Press. Australian National University, 1990. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. <http://press.anu.edu.au/sspng/mobile_device/ch13.html> Loewenstein, Antony. “Bougainville mine: locals who oppose its re-opening must have a voice.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 19 Dec. 2013. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/19/bougainville-mine-locals-who-oppose-its-re-opening-must-have-a-voice>. “Overview of the company.” Sandline International. 16 Apr. 2004. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. <http://www.sandline.com/site/index.html>. Mae DesTroismaisons
Nature and Culture April 17, 2014 Professor Walter Kuentzel Throughout the United States, protestors are picketing to stop the Keystone XL Pipeline, a proposed 1,179-mile crude oil pipeline that would extend from Alberta, Canada all the way to Nebraska, and would carry up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day to refineries in the Midwest. Supporters of the pipeline claim it will be the safest operation of its kind in North America and will create jobs, boost the economy, and prove “long-term energy independence” (“About The Project”, 2014). They also argue that the Canadian oil sands project is “ethical oil,” which minimizes environmental impact and will potentially reduce the Unites States’ reliance on foreign oil (Levant, 2010). Opposers of oil sands development disagree, arguing that any type of fossil fuel is only a short-term energy solution that is not environmentally friendly and that ignores the rights of the indigenous population, namely the First Nations people living in Fort Chipewyan. The debate among pro-pipeliners and anti-oil sands activists is heated, and compromises will not be easy to arrive at, but are possible. Anti-Oil Sands Arguments The majority of protesters against Alberta’s oils sands development are against it for environmental reasons. Fossil fuels are pollutive, and sands oil is no exception. They are quick to point out the hypocrisy of the Canadian government: how can a country that has taken a stand against climate change support a process that produces greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide? Additionally, they are concerned about the effects of oil sands surface mining on water sources, particularly the Athabasca River. Not only is the oil sands operation allowed to divert water from the river to use for oil extraction, which could lead to habitat loss for fish and waterfowl, but also toxic matter leaks into the river from tailings ponds, which hold the toxic sludge produced at the plant. Additionally, clearing of Canada’s boreal forest for road construction, mining pits, and tailing ponds for oil sands development fragments the forest, causing habitat loss for many species, including threatened ones like caribou. Air pollution is another worry, as oil sands operations emit Criteria Air Contaminants including nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, which also contribute to acid rain (Woynillowicz, Baker, Raynolds, 2005; p. 25-51). Less common, but quite powerful, is the argument against oil sands that relies on native land rights. Clayton Thomas-Muller, in a guest lecture at the University of Vermont, described the indigenous resistance to Alberta’s oil sands development. He focused primarily on the work of Idle No More, a grassroots organization that protects the land and water that the First Nations people living in Fort Chipewyan have utilized for hunting and fishing for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. According to Thomas-Muller, the Canadian government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a former employee of Imperial Oil, is ignoring treaty rights included in Canada’s Constitution, and if First Nations win their case against the government, some 17,000 leases on their land will become illegal. He insists that although the environmental movement against the oil sands is helpful and important, native rights issues are what pose the real risk to oil sands development. Pro-Oil Sands Arguments Supporters of Alberta’s oil sands development argue that although fossil fuels are indeed pollutive, operations in Canada are much better regulated than in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Russia, Venezuela, and Nigeria, where the United States currently buys its oil (Levant, 2010; p. 23). They point out that people are not going to stop consuming oil overnight, and so it is better to import it from Canada then from overseas. It takes far less fossil fuel to transport the oil, not to mention we are not in political conflict with Canada. Clayton Thomas-Muller makes some valid points regarding the Canadian government’s disregard of his people’s rights. The indigenous resistance to oil sands development in Canada is by no means unfounded, but it cannot be compared to the human rights atrocities committed by governments in the Middle East, according to Ezra Levant, where millions of laborers are brutally abused, homosexuals are beheaded for simply being gay, and women can be whipped or stoned for wearing pants. Additionally, by buying oil from Nigeria, the United States is funding genocide in Darfur. We buy the oil, they buy the guns (Levant, 2010; p. 17-25). Labor unions are taken for granted in the U.S. and Canada, but organizing a union is a crime in Iran (Levant, 2010; p. 18). Pro-pipeliners ask: Isn’t it better to create jobs on our own continent? Seeking Compromise Just because Canadian oil sands are more ethical than foreign oil doesn’t make them truly ethical. There are still problems with oil sands development that must be paid attention to. The ecological threat is real, as are the native land rights issues. If the Alberta oil sands are here to stay, it is imperative that both sides of the debate work toward finding ways to alleviate the controversy. The extractive process involved in oil sands development is damaging to the environment. Perhaps if more taxes were put upon Big Oil, a larger portion of that money could be used to ensure that habitat protection is taking place in the areas surrounding the operation. Additionally, some of the tax money could be used to educate the public about the importance of conserving finite natural resources like oil. Finally, a portion could be used to research energy alternatives like solar and wind power, so that we will be prepared when we finally do run out of oil, or simply meet the pollution threshold. As far as the native land rights issues go, at his lecture, I asked Clayton Thomas-Muller if he thought a compromise could be reached, assuming Big Oil is here to stay. He responded, “There is no compromise, scientifically or morally.” However, perhaps if stricter environmental regulations were introduced, it could be ensured that the hunting and fishing grounds of the First Nations people will remain intact. Concluding Thoughts I think that the aforementioned strategies for easing the oil sands controversy are possible, but will take time to be achieved. Both sides of the debate will have to make sacrifices, but neither seems willing to budge yet. It is unlikely that higher taxes will be put upon oil sands development in Alberta while Stephen Harper is in power, but that could change in 2015 if a new prime minister is elected. As public awareness about environmental ethics spreads, it is likely that more and more grassroots organizations will crop up, demanding better regulation. Eventually, we will either run out of oil or reach the pollution threshold, but perhaps making use of Alberta’s oil sands can buy us a bit more time to develop the alternative energy sources that we will eventually become dependent upon. Works Cited “About The Project.” Keystone XL Pipeline. TransCanada, 2014. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.<http://keystone-xl.com/about/the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-project/>. Levant, Ezra. Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada’s Oil Sands. Toronto, Ont.: McClelland & Stewart, 2010. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. <https://bb.uvm.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1305466-dt-content-rid-4808258_1/courses/201401-10475/Levant%20Ethical%20Oil%281%29.pdf> Thomas-Muller, Clayton. “Native Rights and the Struggle Against the Tar Sands .” Native Rights and the Struggle Against the Tar Sands . UVM’s ALANA program, English Department, Environmental Program, Student Climate Culture, and the International Socialist Organization; Global Justice Ecology Project and the Will Miller Green Mountain Veterans for Peace Chapter; St. Michael’s College Environmental Studies Program and Political Science Department. UVM Davis Center Silver Maple Ballroom, Burlington. 10 Apr. 2014. Speech. Woynillowicz, Dan, Chris Baker, and Marlo Raynolds. Oil Sands Fever: The Environmental Implications of Canada’s Oil Sands Rush. Drayton Valley, Alta.: Pembina Institute, 2005. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. <https://bb.uvm.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1305466-dt-content-rid-4808259_1/courses/20140110475/Oil%20Sands%20Fever%20The%20Environmental %20Implications%20of%20Canadas%20Oil%20Sands%20Rush%281%29.pdf> Mae DesTroismaisons
Nature & Culture January 26, 2014 Professor Walter Kuentzel The closest I will ever come to Heaven is the tops of the mountains. When I’m on a summit, I feel invigorated, yet tranquil. The air always seems fresher, the sun brighter, and the sky bluer. I live near the Green Mountains of Vermont now, but the White Mountains of New Hampshire will always be my home. I feel a strong sense of place there, and a desire to protect and preserve the land on which I was raised, as well as all of its peaks, lakes, rivers, waterfalls, and biota. When I see a wildflower, I don’t pick it. When I catch a fish, I release it, unless it’s from a stocked fishing area. When I find a special rock, I find a special place to put it, but that is not on my shelf. It’s sometimes difficult for me to leave what I find in nature, but I remind myself that the act of discovering natural beauty—like a rushing waterfall, a hatching of butterflies, or a tiny mushroom that could so easily be overlooked—is its own reward. The only things I take from the places I go are photos and memories. I do not own the land; rather, the land owns me. After all, “we are all compost in training” (Ramshackle Glory). As a result of being born and raised in northern New Hampshire, I’ve learned to respect natural areas, and to appreciate how lucky I am to have so much grace right at my fingertips. There is a certain tragic beauty in the development of the land, too. Seeing the highway running through Franconia Notch from atop Indian Head in Lincoln demonstrates the power and progress of humans. The cutting of trails on Cannon Mountain has given me the opportunity to recreate; snowboarding and hiking have been two of my passions since childhood. I once found section of a stream at The Basin that oil had been spilled into. It sparkled and shone gold, magenta, and cyan as the light hits the water. As I gazed into the oily water and listened to the sound of its motion, I let my mind drift off. *** In the foreword to A Sand County Almanac Aldo Leopold describes the society of 1948 as “a hypochondriac, so obsessed with its own economic health as to have lost the capacity to remain healthy…Perhaps such a shift of values can be achieved by reappraising things unnatural, tame, and confined in terms of things natural, wild, and free” (xix). I most definitely agree with this statement. I feel guilty every day for being a privileged, white, American. I am but a cog in this consumerist machine. When I actually have money to spend, I often use it to buy things I don’t need. I stopped being a vegetarian when I came to college and now eat extremely unethically at Sodexo dining halls. I participate in protests now and then and sign the occasional petition, but I know that there is much more I could be doing to spread environmental awareness. As a society, we can all begin to “reappraise” our commodities by becoming more informed about how, where, and with what resources they are produced. Throughout the book, but especially in “March” and “April,” Leopold describes the birds of his land in great detail. He chronicles the way they look, sound, and fly. The author is pensive in his writing, and his account of the “sky dance” is greatly romanticized. He clearly values fowl like geese, bluebirds, and woodcocks for their lissomness, and game birds like pheasants for the food they provide him as well as for the thrill of the hunt. Like Aldo Leopold, I like to watch the birds. I don’t hunt them, though, simply because I don’t need to. I like to watch the herons fly over the glassy surface of Echo Lake and the bluebirds flit around the lilacs that my grandfather planted, or hear the “Old Sam, Peabody-Peabody-Peabody” of a white-throated sparrow from my kayak in Moore Reservoir. I even like the crows that live in our apple tree. I see two perched on a low branch: an attempted murder. In “June,” Leopold gives an account of his experience fishing in a stream near his home. Although we differ from each other in that he fly-fished while I fish with hooks and worms, I certainly think that I know how he felt during his pursuit of that colossal trout. I especially liked how he said, “What was big was not the trout, but the chance. What was full was not my creel, but my memory” (43). My dad and I do most of our father-daughter bonding when we fish, and at the end of the day it isn’t important how many we caught, or how large, but that we were together. Fishing is also very meditative for me at times, usually when I don’t get very many nibbles. Whether in a boat or from shore, I am calmed by the repetitive motion: cast, wait, reel, wait, reel, wait, reel, cast… *** There are some undeniable ways in which my lifestyle differs from how Aldo Leopold’s was, but we undeniably have common values. Land conservation, recreation, and observation of changes and cycles of ecosystems are all ideas by which I feel connected to Leopold. I think that he would be happy to know that in my generation, there are still some folks like him. Mae DesTroismaisons
Nature and Culture March 27, 2014 Professor Walter Kuentzel “The ultimate challenge facing conservationists today is not only to reconcile errors of the past but also to determine how to shape human interactions with nature in landscapes of which people are a part.” –Brockington, Igoe, and Schmidt-Soltau (“Conservation, Human Rights, and Poverty Reduction”) Tarangire National Park (TNP) is located in northern Tanzania and is known for its “authentic safari atmosphere” that includes elephants, exotic birds, and beautiful views of the African landscape (“Tarangire National Park”). The park is not as well known for the dark side of its history. When Googled, a wealth of travel sites appear, all advertising safaris and other tourist activities. Virtually none of the search results mention the Maasai, who are the indigenous people of northern Tanzania and southern Kenya that have been living in the region since the 15thcentury or earlier (“Impacts of Nature Reserves on Local People and Cultures”). The Maasai are semi-nomadic, and rely heavily on cattle, both culturally and economically. In 1970, the Maasai lost a large portion of their land, including critical sources of water, grazing land, and salt lick, to the Tanzanian government via eminent domain, or, “the power of the federal or state government to take private property for a public purpose, even if the property owner objects” (Stille, 2002). The Maasai lost a sizeable amount (over 1,000 square miles) of their most important land, without reciprocation, for the creation of TNP (“Impacts of Nature Reserves on Local People and Cultures”). The above instance is an example of fortress conservation. Unfortunately, this type of conservation involves the eviction and forcible relocation of local people who live in an area that has been declared to be protected land by some authority, usually the federal government. As a result, locals often loose their livelihoods and are left in poverty for the government does not typically provide them with financial assistance (Brockington, 2002). Fortress conservation is most common in developing areas like East Africa (“Impacts of Nature Reserves on Local People and Cultures”) and is arguably a form of what is known as “green imperialism” or, “a case of Western scientists declaring the environment a ‘global resource’ to justify seizing control over other countries’ territory” (Stille, 2002). In the 1980s, about ten years after the Maasai land was seized to establish TNP, another approach called community-based conservation began gaining support in response to the negative effects of fortress conservation. Community-based conservation can be initiated by means of ecotourism or government subsidies, and its main principles are the involvement of local peoples in nature protection and the education of locals about environmental stewardship. In general, community-based conservation is considered more socially just than fortress conservation (“Impacts of Nature Reserves on Local People and Cultures”). It is clear that the Tanzanian government treated the Maasai unfairly in the name of conservation, but perhaps if a community-based strategy had been used, then things would have panned out differently. Instead of not receiving any economic gain from the creation of TNP, the Maasai could have helped manage the park and reap the financial rewards of jobs in tourism. Additionally, they might have been able to have a greater say in decision-making regarding the park as labor unions formed. An intangible gain for the Maasai that could stem from community-based conservation in TNP would be a greater sense of pride in their homeland, and comfort in knowing it would always be protected by the local people and the federal government as a team. Obviously, community-based conservation is a better option than fortress conservation, but it is far from perfect. Some argue that it is both a blessing and a curse in that increased revenue from tourism aids in the “Westernization” of indigenous cultures, and as a result, some of the culture is lost or forgotten and replaced with television, computers, and other media. In my opinion, community-based conservation is the best way to move forward at this time because it guarantees that land is conserved in a way that at least does not drive locals into poverty. In an age of rapid globalization, the development of nations in East Africa is inevitable, so we might as well ensure that it has a focus on the protection of natural resources and wildlife. I do, however, think that a stronger focus should be put on preserving the world’s cultures as well as its land. Works Cited Brockington, Dan. “Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies 35 (2002): 594-596. JSTOR. Web. 27 Mar. 2014. Brockington, Dan., Igoe, J., and Schmidt-Soltau, K. 2006. Conservation, Human Rights, and Poverty Reduction. Conservation Biology 20(1): 250-252. <http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/content/1/docs/brockington.pdf>. “Impacts of Nature Reserves on Local People and Cultures.” NC State University. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2014. <http://www4.ncsu.edu/~cjanders/#fortressconservation>. Stille, A. 2002. Protecting species in Madagascar. The Future of the Past (ch. 5). New York: Picador. 123-154. “Tarangire National Park.” Tanzania Odyssey: Specialists in Travel to Tanzania. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2014. <http://www.tanzaniaodyssey.com/tanzania/tarangire>. |