Group items tagged

So, our worst fears about GMOs have come true.  But should we still be afraid?  This article starts by saying "This might not even be a problem at all," then describes how genetically engineered canola is sprouting up all along roadsides in North Dakota.  As it turns out, "These genetically engineered canola plants have been found growing along roads in Canada, where canola is widely grown, and in Japan, which imports the crop."  Doesn't this mean lots of other crops will soon follow suit?  One scientist offers in conclusion that plants like corn and soybeans, also preponderantly GMO-based, are "super-domesticated and they just don't really like to go wild." So maybe we'll get used to only certain GMOs alongside our roads?

The animal rights movement is making headway on chicken farmers and others who raise livestock.  It's easy to see the economic interests of chicken farmers being affected by these new regulations, but can we appreciate that they genuinely find nothing to be wrong with current cage regulations, as suggested in quotes from this article?

This bill just recently came to my attention. I havent had much time to research it further, but it sounds rather frightening. This YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOups0dfdwM&feature=channel) captures the fear based objections to the bill, and though it is propaganda, these are definitely issues we ought to be worried about! The "official summary" of the bill on this posted web site is long but seems to line up with the YouTube clip. Yikes! I propose more research.

This article on research is related to our last ENVS 220 lab. The article does not address environmental justice in relation to minorities or socioeconomic status, yet it warns of communities and populations potentially exposed to unsafe levels of pollutants beyond their control, a reminder that environmental injustice can occur in any demographic. This also relates to the Pamela R. Davidson reading in that the study referenced in this article sounds suspiciously like one that Davidson might call into question. It is likely that many of the ambiguities she highlights were not taken fully into account. Thats not to say we shouldn't be concerned, however, and this article brings up an important point: should we really have to "vote with our dollars" to protect ourselves from potentially harmful chemicals, especially when the harmful practices themselves have damaged our ability to vote by warping our perspective on the real cost/value of food?

Very cool article on the particular weather patterns of the Willamette Valley and how they can nurture (or wreak havoc with) its vineyards.

An article run recently in the Portland Tribune details the price disparity between the local fruit of farmers markets and the local fruit sold at other shops throughout Portland. On one end are the sometimes obscene prices of farmers markets, tailoring to a predominantly wealthy white clientele, and on the other, you have prices at fruit stand shops that are for a blue collar society, sold at often over half the cost of farmers markets. A strange economic situation underlies the difference. Are Portland's own renowned farmers markets, cherished by so many, tailoring exclusively to rich white folks?

I think this is an important topic to address, however after reading the article I still agree with one of the comments another reader posted at the end of the article: "Many assumptions are made in this article about "local" produce. I would have asked some additional questions such as "What is your definition of locally produced?" Also, what are the labor practices on these farms? Of course I would choose $.89/pound over $1.50/pound unless that means the farmer is paying low wages to workers. What agricultural practices are these farmers using? We have an unrealistic idea of the true cost of food because of decades of subsidies and genetic modification. I'm willing to pay more to purchase beautiful, fresh, non-gmo, organically produced food by workers receiving a living wage. I'm willing to support small farmers and I like knowing that my money is going directly to the hand that grows it. It is true, many farmers markets are more expensive than traditional grocery stores and other outlets but they are offering much more than just a grocery shopping experience. It's a social, community building event." I also posted a response to the article: "I would like to second "local4food"'s comment. There's a bigger problem at hand here. We really shouldnt be focusing on getting the best deal for our food when we already have such a warped idea of the true cost of food. As someone who has both lived and worked on farms and grown a good deal of my own food, there's no way I can look at a bag of tomatoes and not think they're work $3 per pound... at least! Food is such an amazing resource. Shopping at farmers' markets makes me pay more attention to the amount food I buy and be more mindful of how much its really worth to me. I feel better too, knowing that the people who provide me with it are receiving the minimum compensation for their work. We should treat those who feed us with the upmost respect, not like measly vendors who ought to compete themselves nearly out of bus

Upcoming limits on use of antibiotics to promote faster growth in livestock turn out to be far less than many food activists want, and far more than many farmers want. Is there any possibility for getting producers and consumers on the same page?

"What's particularly tragic, and what I had never realized, is that the misery and suffering was the result of human action. Encouraged by a combination of well-meaning governmental incentives and predatory schemes by land investors..." This brief synopsis includes an overview of how large-scale farming and government subsidies can unknowingly create environmental disasters.

Timothy Egan is a well-known contributor to the New York Times on environmental issues, especially those affecting the U.S. West. I'd assume his book is eminently readable. If you're interested in the Dust Bowl, one classic is Donald Worster's Dust Bowl (1979; new Oxford edition 2004).

From their site: "We believe in listening to the needs the poor tell us about, not assuming we know best. We believe in products and services designed for specific cultural contexts, not just Western hand-me-downs. And we believe that careful attention to design can create innovative-and extremely affordable-solutions to the problems of the other 90%."

Good to know: in the midst of the confusion around companies "greenwashing" their products, not even a "certified organic" label is a guarantee for good karma. Take home lesson (in my opinion): always do your homework and never try to cut corners in doing the right thing (buying sustainable food, for example). This is a long report, but the first part sums up the problem pretty well.

There is a concern whether or not this years set backs for the biotech company (famous for use of GMOs) Monsanto shows a downward trend of creating genetically engineered crops.

Military scientists and entomologists collaborated and made some significant breakthroughs in the big bee die-off mystery. The researchers have concluded that a combination of fungal and viral infection is the most likely culprit. It is still uncertain how (or if) the bees can be saved, but now researchers at least have some starting ground. One suggestion at the end of the article is that the fungal part of the infection could potentially be curbed with fungicides to prevent bee deaths. This makes me nervous though. It sounds reasonable enough if the goal is to save bees, but deep down it sounds too much like the way western medicine works -- antibiotics to treat the diseases once they take hold, instead of addressing the root of the problem.

This makes me nervous: http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/honey_bees_ny_times.fortune/index.htm "What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths" Speaks for itself.

"... researchers were especially surprised to find that wealthy nations were no better at safeguarding their rivers than developing nations." GIS mapping used here too. After the Willamette River cleanup this past Saturday, this topic has been on my mind. I think we really need to address the chemicals we're dumping into our water, and this doesnt just mean the typical concerns around oil and extremely toxic compounds. We have a mentality that water is only here for us to use to get rid of our waste. We emphasize the importance of "clean water" for people's health because we use clean water for cleaning things, but we forget that even though we're clean, the water's not anymore. And the truth is, water does a lot more than function as a human waste disposal. We should know better than to think that we wont have to deal with the effects of the chemicals in our shampoos, toothpastes, and agricultural chemicals once the drain/rain takes them away. It just takes the effects a little longer to cycle back around, but clearly, they have.

This article highlights a new solution that's "already being spear-headed by farmers on the ground." It preserves biodiversity, alleviates hunger, addresses malnutrition, protects against drought, and produces sustainable yields... a miracle GMO? No... traditional vegetables? Who knew? "Many indigenous vegetables use less water than hybrid varieties and some are resistant to pests and disease without the use of chemical inputs, which are expensive both financially and environmentally." Does is seem surprising, odd, and even a bit backwards that the idea of using traditional crops and biodynamic farming is presented as a new and innovative idea? "While what we eat is important, what may be even more essential over the long term is preserving knowledge about how to plant, grow, and cook what we eat." It MAY be more essential...?

A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet This grant is open to college student applications with proposals for in the following areas: Energy, Built Environment, Materials and Chemicals, Water, Agriculture. Anticipated Type of Award: Grant Estimated Number of Awards: Approximately 64 awards for Phase I; Approximately 15 awards for Phase II Anticipated Funding Amount: Approximately $2,310,000 total for all Phase I & II grant awards. Potential Funding per Award: Up to $15,000 per Phase I grant including direct and indirect costs. Any proposals requesting an award of more than $15,000 will not be considered. Proposals for Phase I grants must be for only one year. Upon the successful completion of Phase I, grant recipients will have the opportunity to apply for a P3 Phase II grant of up to $90,000 total for two years including direct and indirect costs (see Background section for more information). Proposals for Phase II grants requesting an award of more than $90,000 will not be considered. Cost-sharing is not required for either Phase I or Phase II grants. Anyone interested in working on a proposal? Permaculture garden/research center maybe? Sustainability House? Others?

Interesting facts and information about the mainstream perceptions of biotech produced foods, GMO, and the like. On one side, they've got a huge percentage of the market cornered (86% I think), which likely strikes fear into the heart of many anti-biotech folk. On the other hand, you have a lot of scientists saying that GMO crops are no more likely to produce more than conventional - why then, are we doing it? To stop weeds, that are already coming back with greater resistance? However you analyze it, an interesting article (and a recommended source - people often write off the Christian Science Monitor because of the first word in its name, but its not a religious news source, it is very high quality, and they have people reporting from all over the world. They do very good analysis of global energy issues, and I would highly reccomend their coverage of China's growing green economy. They've done a lot of work on that)

"What Monsanto's fall from grace reveals about the GMO seed industry" http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-12-what-monsantos-fall-from-grace-reveals-abo-the-gmo-seed-industry

Most likely, we already know most of this, but it is definitely a succinct summary and perhaps a good refresher for some. Most inspirational that it's coming from this kid, regardless of how much help he got in putting this together, this is important. Also, really what I wanted to share here is TED.com and TEDx.com. These are awesome organizations. I think LC should jump on the "ideas worth sharing" bandwagon.

An interesting article from NYTimes Magazine about the communities that are built around alternative movements and the ways these communities shape the movements themselves.