Food Politics

Recently in class we spoke about food politics and the issues we have seen arise along with their origins. It has been debating as to whether it is the technology that have formed these issues or the people using the technology that is being created. There are several different technologies being created for bio-engineering medical purposes but it could be seen that there are not as many being created for food purposes. Are our priorities in line to help all people and save more than seeing more starve? How much does it count if someone is in good health but cannot recall when their last meal was? If there was more of a balance between the technologies that are created for both industries, then it would assist more people.

            Yet there is also still the people that are funding the creations of these technologies and using them. Corporate control that companies have with this technology could be used for ulterior motives. Corporations are just looking at the end product and the revenue it could bring in. So their priority may not be how the technologies could succeed better in helping the people, but focusing on the technologies that would produce the most revenue for the company. There is also the possibility of potential ulterior motives to be neo-colonialism. By having technologies for bio-medical usage or food purposes that sets power structures that countries fall into depending on technologies they have and utilize along with the revenue that accumulates from them.

The need for everyone to be involved is critical in most environmental efforts and issues. So if some countries are using these new technologies, all the countries including the developing ones, should be using this new technology as well. But some undeveloped countries do not have access to this new technology and developing countries may see an opportunities to go in and change undeveloped countries current structures to expand their technology usage. By micromanaging undeveloped countries, it will cause them to conform to our standards.  

Both ulterior motives are existent currently but if one had to be chosen for which is more of a motive, it would be neo-colonialism. It can already be seen as African cultures are being transformed from what they have been doing for centuries due to other countries coming and attempting to take control of the area for an environmental cause. It is said that because they are unaware they need to be guided and thus that leads to control over a part of the country’s economy. I don’t think that they need to be guided. It has been centuries that these cultures have existed and survived, they will adapt according that works for them and will be beneficial for the global environment. But forcing them to assimilate the methods that have been successful for developed countries isn’t fair and is not their place to do so.  

African Leaders, Neocolonialism, and GM Crops

       I believe the leaders of developing African states need to alter their views on genetically modified foods, especially in times of famine. The leaders need to move beyond the influence of neocolonialism and the stringent environmental policies of first world nations in order to become more self-sufficient. They need to understand that GM crops are consumed around the world and may be a less ideal option for feeding the population, but it will aid millions of starving citizens and a step in the direction of technological development.

 Neocolonialism exists all over the global south, and is very present in the developing nations of Africa. In the past, colonial states claimed that the reason they had entered colonies was to assist the native peoples in modernizing, but in reality the exploited the labor and natural resources of the colony. Today, colonies no longer exist, but the influence of former colonial states continues to persist. Dreisson discussion of how corporate social responsibility has mutated form it original purpose shows the negative effects of neocolonialism on African countries. He claims that the well fed first world activists fail to focus on the critical concerns of the sick and malnourished people of African countries during their discussions of economy, technology, and scientific health debates. Instead, these activists focus more on future issues that will affect their own countries. The nations impose their environmental ethics on developing nations thus impeding their progress. These sustainable policies force developing countries to meet their needs and improve their economic, technological, and agricultural sectors with a minimal amount of energy, technology, and science available. In times of famine, these developing countries cannot cope because they lack the means to produce enough extra crops for food to counter a famine. I believe that until developing nations adjust their policies to move away from the influence of western environmental ethics and improve their agricultural science; these nations leaders need to accept the availability and donations of GM crops to feed their populations.

The issue of GM crops has been controversial issue in the west and in the developing nations of Africa alike. European nations tend to hold a negative view against the possible negative health effects of GM crops. African leadership has adopted these views from rich countries that can afford to oppose GM crops because they have the funds to find alternatives. African leaders have denied their own farmers access to agricultural science through official disapproval and regulations placed on modern agricultural biotechnology. Paarlberg mentions political leaders lack of investment in science, especially agricultural science, has lead to Africa lagging in farm productivity for decades. Dangerous situations are created when famines occur, because governments are unable to feed their citizens because the farmers are not as productive and prosperous to counterbalance the lack of production. The insertion of GM crops would greatly aid these nations in feeding their populations, but they oppose these crops and refuse aid. In Zambia, leadership refused millions of tons of GM wheat to aid 3 million starving citizens. I believe that the leadership needs to reevaluate the value of their citizens’ lives, GM crops, and the value of investment in agricultural science because these nations must take some measure to feed their starving populations. Until developing African nations have improved their economy and technologies to a level where they can feed the population and afford the alternatives to GM crops, the leaders must turn to look to GM crops as a food source for their citizens. African leaders need to move away from the western environmental ethics and find a balance where they can develop their economy and agricultural sciences to sufficiently provide for their populations. GM crops are a viable option and are one the technologies that African countries could invest in to combat famine as well as continue to develop their autonomy and standard of living. 

The Resource Curse: Making the poor even poorer

          The resource curse that has plagued developing countries throughout history is a constant threat whenever valuable resources are found. Many authors, such as Michael Ross, argue that the curse itself stems as a result of irresponsible governments and poor financial decisions. While these are true, they point to a bigger issue that seems to be at the heart of the resource curse. These countries that experience financial and political collapse as a result of discovering valuable resources always classified as “developing.” Rarely is there a scenario in which an independent, developed nation discovers a substance of value and the results are devastating. Usually, the opposite happens, and the economy flourishes.  

            The issue, therefore, is that valuable substances are a curse that make poor nations even poorer. Like Africa has seen time after time, with rubber, oil, gold, and diamonds, an unstable or nonexistent government cannot be an effective actor. The combination of valuable resources and unstable governments is something that begs for a solution, but unfortunately, a solution is not likely to arrive. The natural resources that are found in a nation are the sole property of that nation. Therefore, we cannot simply take away the natural resources of these nations to avoid economic trouble. As for telling other governments how to function and use the natural resources, that can only work as far as they are willing to take the advice of others. More often than not, the leaders of a developing nation will exploit all the resources for their own benefit until the resource runs dry, the economy collapses, or both. It is impossible for an international agency or entity to plan for the discovery of a valuable resource, therefore we cannot simply expect an issue and deal with it accordingly.

            The best approach to resolving, or at least remedying this issue is through a series of long term actions that would hopefully allow these developing nations to make intelligent decisions that will benefit that common people which, in turn, will benefit the governments. First, there should be international advisors to nations struggling with resource management. If a nation is on the verge of collapse, or even on the verge on discovering and exploiting a resource, someone should be there to act as a sort of financial advisor. Educating these developing nations is the first step towards a solution.

         The next remedy solution, which is essentially an ultimate solution for any nation, is to promote democracy in the region, hopefully sparking the movement towards more democratic nations. Mitchell’s Carbon Democracy hits the nail on the head with describing the only legitimate solution to ending the tragedy that befalls on poor nations that stumble upon sudden wealth. With such a divide between developed and developing nations, there are really only two options for what can occur as a result of such a discovery: economic success or civil war. It is ultimately a choice that must be made by the developing nations themselves. They can either ignore the signs from the past and take advantage of an opportunity, or they can exploit their land and devastate their country.

            

GMO’s, Monsanto and why it sucks to be a farmer

By: Noah Johnson

            Genetically modified food crops were developed to increase yield and possibly enhance food security throughout the world. Proponents of the “Green Revolution” claim agricultural technological advancements, since the mid- 20^th century, have saved over a billion people from starvation. GM crops have become climate resistant, pest resistant, drought resistant, etc. Even the notions of GM foods having adverse health effects are becoming disproved by research. Yet, GM crops are by no means a perfect or possibly even good product for consumers. GMO patents have had nasty consequences both domestically and abroad. In the US, multinational biotechnology companies like Monsanto are dominating farmers through litigation. Abroad, these same corporations prey on the cheap labor in developing countries and leave poverty in their wake. Patenting something as essentially to human life as food is wrong and must be changed in order for true food security to be established.

The Supreme Court case of Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013) unanimously found that second generation crops, with patented genetic traits, fall under patents laws of first generation seeds. Meaning that farmers must continue to pay Monsanto’s licensing fees for as long as there crops continue to reproduce. This puts adds extra cost to farming, which is already a largely unprofitable business in the US. Monsanto’s patents and legal actions are deincentivizing the use of GM crops, which will inevitably reduce yield and increase costs for consumers. If crop patents did not exist, farmers could cut costs by reusing their own seed free of charge and therefore reduce food prices in the supermarket.

The power of Biotechnology corporations extends even farther in developing countries, where agriculture is a larger part of the economy and food is less secure than in the global North. In places like India, Monsanto has been blamed for selling ineffectual GM seeds that have caused a huge increase in farming debt. Critics blame Monsanto for pushing their patented seeds  as “cash crops” and then raising prices when farms become monocultures. Farmers who cannot afford to change the type of crops they grow become extremely vulnerable to the boom/ bust nature of monoculture. When droughts in India limited the yields of crops like cotton, farmers became indebted to Monsanto without means to repay them. This relationship cause a huge uptick in farmer suicides in India.

Change to patent law, in terms of crop seeds, seems unlikely due to the political influence companies like Monsanto have in Washington and other governments around the world. Bio-technology companies have been very effective at lobbying as well as supporting state and national political campaign through the country. Monsanto’s is known to fund likely winners of political campaigns in order for their financial influence to go as far as possible. This is reflected in Monsanto’s nearly 50/50 split in the percentage of Democrats and Republicans candidates Monsanto contribute to. Monsanto’s has been able to influence other governments as well, and has been most effective in developing regions like South America and Africa. Some countries, such as Brazil, have been able to avoid the influence of large Bio-Technology companies through legislation, but the end result is has been complete bans of all GM crops.

By banning GM crops outright, countries like Brazil and France miss out on the technological advantages of GMO’s. Complete deregulation of GM crops has its own draw backs as the competitiveness of capitalism does not maximize the benefits (for the world) GM crops can produce. Governments should continue testing the safety of GMO’s while also eliminating patents for GM crops so that our food can be profitable and cheap. Some that the precedent of eliminating GMO patents would endanger the pharmaceutical field which relies on patents in order to produce and sell antibiotics. “If GM crops cannot be patented, how could bacteria be patented”. This is where politicians need nuance. It is possible to keep patents for GM bacteria around while also eliminating GM crop patents. This type of nuance already exists  in the area of gun control. I can own a hunting rifle, but not not a machine gun or RPG's. Such differentiation can be made for GMO’s, and the sooner this change happens, the sooner we can start ensuring food security throughout the world.

Origins of Environmentalism

      As most college students do, I was strolling through my social media accounts, updating myself on the lives of others around me and the general world. Facebook tends to be one of the first websites I go to when I start my routine. A couple days ago, one of my Facebook friends shared a video that I found really interesting. The video was recorded in Barbados at Burke’s Beach. What makes the video intriguing is that hundreds of dolphin had swam up to the shore, not realizing that they were pretty much on the land. Several of them got stuck on the shoreline and couldn’t get back in the water. The reaction of those at the beach was startling to me. Everyone immediately jumped in to rescue the dolphins. Those who didn’t physically get in contact with the animal yelled out ways to get the dolphins back in the water. It was amazing to see the team effort that was put into saving the animals. The link to the video is as followed: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10151838587417813&fref=nf  . Please take a minute or two to watch the video. It will give you a better understanding of the story that I am trying to tell. Saving the dolphins was clearly an act that stemmed from environmentalism. After watching the video, I immediately related it to some of the ideas brought up in class. This post will explore the origins of environmentalism, evaluating whether it branched solely from colonialism or whether it was came out of religious ideas and morals.

     Author of Ecological Imperialism, Alfred Crosby, shares with us an idea behind why the western world’s culture is more European driven than anything else. He explains that the earth’s latitude is at the core of colonialism. According to him, Europeans migrated to areas that were attractive to them because they were able to survive there. As a result, during the early 1800s there was a large movement of Europeans to the West. When they migrated here, they brought with them their culture, practices and way of life. They would sow the same crops, speak their native language, and practice the religion that they have practiced for centuries. With all the transfer of knowledge that occurred during this time, there is no doubt in my mind the ideas of environmentalism was spread throughout the world through colonialism. Author of Green Imperialism, Richard Grove makes it clear that environmentalism is not a new concept. In fact, there were forest conservation policies in British colonial States. Conservation is the act of preventing deterioration. Over time there has been a growing understanding of the relationship between man and the earth, particularly the idea of conservation. Colonialism promoted the rapid growth of scientific ideas. With this growth came an understanding of how the world works. This eventually led to environmentalism because people are now able to connect the state of their environment with their actions. With all of this being said, colonialism could be viewed as the start of environmentalism, especially in the New World.

     Though colonialism seems like the start of the environmental movement, other factors may have played a major part. Religion, which is defined as a particular system of faith and worship, may also be the catalyst of environmentalism. In the 1400s, Christopher Columbus made several voyages to the New World. Here he came into contact with the Native Americans. The Europeans labeled these people as uncivilized. They did not acknowledge their way of life as one that was sophisticated enough, and therefore inferior to theirs. This included their language as well as their faith. As a result, the Europeans took it upon themselves to bring some type of “civilization” to these people. They educated the Natives on European languages, introduced them to European trinkets and exchanged religion with them for gold. Religion is a very important aspect in molding the ethics and moral of people, though one can be ethical without religion. At the time, Europeans were mainly Christian. In the Christian faith, the belief is that god made the world and that we should have a sense of care for what he has provided us. Care for the environment is the main argument of environmentalism. When the Europeans brought their religion to the West, they may have brought with them the ideas of environmentalism, which has evolved into a widely known movement today.

     It is hard to distinguish between whether colonialism or religion, two things that helped shape the world that we live in today, started the environmental movement. However, I know that they both played a role somehow. Religion to me is the obvious start of the ideas that created environmentalism. It was here before scientific discoveries were here, which was way before colonialism. It created the idea of conserving what god has given to us and using our resources wisely. It helped to create a sense of what is right and what is wrong. When the Europeans moved to the New World they brought their religion with them, hence, bringing the ideas of conservationism with them. This ideas were then shared with the people that were already present here. As a result, colonialism had an effect on the spread of the environmental movement. Today, these ideas have been ingrained so deeply into society that the people at Burke’s Beach, Barbados, found it necessary to help pull the dolphins back into the ocean. This was only the “right” thing to do.

Industrialized Nations: Adjusting their views and goals for development and emissions reduction.

 Recently we discussed the Copenhagen Agreement, a document drafted during the 15^th session of the Conference of Parties at the United Nations Framework convention on climate change. It was created by the United States in partnership with newly industrialized nations China, India, and Brazil. The conference discussed issues such as the number of international agreements to be negotiated, the future of the Kyoto Protocol, and how to create targets for maximum global temperature increase, carbon emissions, and aggregate emissions reductions. The debate over emissions reductions created a partition between participants on whether developing countries actions should be subject to international measuring, reporting, and verification. The west offered to finance developing nations proposed actions for emission reduction by placing $25 billion on to the table at the conference. However, China, India, and Brazil, the three main draggers against an emission reduction treaty, neglected to follow on their reported reduction pledges and reciprocate. Instead, this bloc continued to lean on their freedom to develop despite possible environmental impacts. In the video we watched in class, the Chinese representative mentions how past action by industrialized nations caused the majority of climate change. China believed that they as well as other newly industrialized nations should not have their progress impeded due to other nations past actions.

     The actions of the newly industrialized countries, China, India, and Brazil impeded the conference from drawing up an effective treaty to follow up the Kyoto Protocol and reduce emissions. I believe that newly industrialized countries need to modernize from the standpoint that traditional polluters are responsible for the climate change issues. Also, the newly industrialized need to adjust their own policies to balance their development and their impact on cumulative emissions in order to better cooperate with the global communities goals on climate change.

     I believe that newly industrialize countries need to modernize from the standpoint that traditional polluters should be responsible for their past actions, and this standpoint should be removed from the discussion of multilateral treaties on climate change. As China, India, and Brazil continue to develop, their emissions continue to rise. Past contributors such as the industrialized nations in the EU as well as the US and Japan have implemented programs to reduce emissions. These programs include investing in renewable energy research, electric automobiles, and increasing the amount of green energy used by the citizens of these nations. With these programs, established nations have begun cutting down on their current impacts and amending their historical impacts on climate change. When looking at a graph of GDR responsibility, China creates about 24% of the total emissions, but is not held responsible for 18% of the total emissions. China has its sovereign right to run its economy as it would like, but I believe that it needs to step away from the traditional emissions argument. China needs to accept responsibility and alter its policies to behave like an industrialized nation, which means to curb its emissions.

     Emissions and development are a linked issue that affects many of the developing nations on the globe. China as well as India and Brazil have neglected to cooperate in past meetings, i.e. the conference in Copenhagen. Such lack of cooperation cannot be tolerated, as economic competition for development cannot take precedence over the destruction of the environment. The environment provides all of the resources that nations use to develop their economies and standard of living. As countries have developed so has globe’s environment and thus so have the roles industrialized and developing nations must play in the global economy. Newly industrialized countries, specifically, China and India create a new niche in the global economy and the climate change discussion. This niche must allow nations to properly balance responsibility for emissions and their ability to develop. A balance is necessary in order to meet the goals of the nations themselves and the greater global community especially regarding of climate change. We cannot have political ploys being played such as the opening and closing of negotiations in Copenhagen that lead to the US, India, China, and Brazil agreeing to delete of the “legally binding” negotiation outcome. Previously mooted 2020 goals for a future treaty transformed proposed emissions reductions from 80% in industrialized countries to a 50% reduction of cumulative global emissions. Actions such as this deflate any progress in emissions reduction. Having no cooperation from newly industrialized countries such as China, India, and Brazil leads to the weakening of these policies and treaties because nations have no incentive to gather or penalty to fear for adhering to agreements such as the Copenhagen Agreement. The newly industrialized countries specifically China, need to adapt their stance on the relationship between their development and responsibility for emissions reduction. A more responsible stance would foster better cooperation between newly industrialized countries and the rest of the global community during treaty negotiations on climate change.