National Parks: Good for the Environment, Bad for the People

It cannot be denied that humans are slowly destroying the ecosystems around us with industrialization and exploitation of resources. Action needs to be taken to mitigate this issues and the international community needs to establish policies that will both protect the rich environment that has yet to be manipulated by human needs and to reestablish any destroyed areas. Naturally, the concept of national parks seemed like the perfect solution to this problem. They create the sacred aura around preserving nature and promote its importance and keep beautiful areas beautiful. Politically, it shows the people that the government is putting efforts and funding into preserving the environment and righting the wrongs committed by big industry. However, in the beautiful picture of scenic landscapes and glistening rivers, one does not consider the people of the land that were forced to sacrifice their homes for the country's luxury. 
 It is rather common that richly bio-diverse areas tend to be populated by the poorest communities, most likely because they do not have extra money to develop the area or the funds to live in more industrialized areas. These people tend to live off the land and rarely have property rights. During my study abroad experience in Thailand, we had a home stay with villagers who had been kicked off their native land that their families had lived on for years in order for the government to establish a national park in the area. 
This was in reaction to a huge logging movement throughout the 1980s to push industrialization to make the Thai economy more competitive. Though these efforts did help Thailand economically, it gave the country a bad representation in the international community because of the poor environmental practices. This prompted the move towards national parks that was actually based on the US establishment of parks.
            However, Thai society is very community based and land rights are not established in the same way as in the United States. Rural Thai citizens pay taxes on the land, but usually do not technically own the land that they live on. The land belongs to the community or traditionally to the King. In this circumstance, government officials took villagers’ tax papers to return with “more official documents” and ended up telling them they needed to move with no compensation.
            Since these villagers usually do have anywhere to go, they would typically move close by and continue to farm. The government officials proceeded to gradually take more farmland from them or to charge them for “increasing global warming” if they stepped into the unmarked boundaries of the national park.
            Obviously, this is not a good solution to the problem. On the surface, the idea of preserving natural lands seems like the government is moving in the right direction, but few know who pay the price. Uddhammar makes the important point in the reading that some believe the revenue created by the parks can benefit the local economy, but this money rarely reaches the people.   

            Another issue discussed in class was the issue of blaming the local people for the environmental degradation issues in the area. While indigenous communities may have some practices that do not promote environmental conservation, governments tend to focus on the small-scale issues of poor environmental practices rather than the large industrialization issues impacting the country as a whole. This reinforces the idea that the economy drives motivation behind conservation efforts, just as was discussed during the World Trade Organization discussion. Overall, I think this issue shows that governments will remain solely motivated by economic gains or losses when it comes to environmental issues, so shifting the focus is the first step to creating an international discussion about sustainable and socially conscious ways to preserve the environment.

North vs. South

I thought it might be interesting to discuss some of the mindsets, movements, and opinions of the 'south' or developing countries in comparison with the mindsets, movements, and opinions of the 'north' or already developing countries. We often think of the north as being really progressive and open to change, and aware of the environmental issues that are occurring everywhere, but I think we've seen and discussed some situations that have proven that to be untrue. I think we've read about some instances where the south or other undeveloped countries have been more in touch with environmental issues.

When our group was leading the discussion in class, Mark asked a question about the readings pertaining to how those being colonized might have viewed the colonizers and saw what led to the beginnings of conservationism.  I didn't answer at the time because I hadn't thought about it yet, but I think it very much could have been a situation in which those on the ground and interacting with the environment around them on a daily basis knew much more about its state than those making the decisions. I know this is a common occurrence, its a reason policies are so hard to develop sometimes. We can think of the people still in Europe, leading the countries that are discovering new lands as those in charge of the decisions and those who decide where the money goes, and we could think about either those indigenous to the newly developed land or even those who are residing on the land being colonized as those who are on the ground. I would imagine that those indigenous to the lands being colonized knew that threats to the environment existed before anyone else did. I would think that they understood what conservation methods needed to take place before those who actually began the conservation movement did. We touched upon this idea again in lecture on Thursday, when considering whether or not an agency or organization should intervene with the ecology of an area where an indigenous population lives in order to conserve or to save an endangered species. I think we would have a similar case where those indigenous to the area are much more in touch with the environment around them than those coming in and attempting to change it, even if their intentions are good.

I think this idea can also be applied to the situation in Ghana with GMOs. I think that there are positives and negatives associated with GMOs, and that some of them are necessary. For instance, vitamin enriched foods. Most Americans don't get their daily recommended dose of Vitamin D or calcium and this would be even more true if pasta and bread didn't come with Vitamin D and calcium in them. The passive nature of this health behavior allows everyone to be healthier. Obviously, people in the United States and other developed countries hold the same view as those in Ghana, who are protesting for the elimination of GMOs. In countries in Europe, there is less tolerance of GMOs in food as well. I see these countries as being the ones who have noticed that there are harmful aspects of GMOs and they are stepping forward as the problem solvers. I think, many times, we see ourselves as the problem solvers and forward-thinkers, but maybe we could allow some of the credit to go to the south as well. We've also seen situations where developed countries have met time and time again to sort out our global environmental issues and conferences have ended with no deal in sight.

Obviously, there are benefits to being a developed country when it comes to environmentalism as well. The world will be much more willing to listen if the United States or China propose a monumental idea than if an undeveloped, less influential country did. But its interesting to see where the knowledge sits on colonial conservation and how movements and policy changes can happen in smaller countries.

Golden Rice: The Silver Lining of GMOs?

          In a few of our readings, class lectures, and discussions we explore the world of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), which are generally developed by western industrialized societies and then marketed to less-developed nations as potential solutions to hunger, disease, pests, or climate change. 

The consensus seems to be that GMOs represent more of another form of imperialism than an altruistic endeavor, with large corporations from the global North gaining profits through selling “Franken-foods” to the vulnerable South.  These crops often have uncertain side effects, and can be more susceptible to problems from disease (because of monoculture) and corporate greed or corruption. 

But are there any cases in which GMOs could truly help solve a problem in the developing world without controversy?  In this blog, I am arguing that Golden Rice represents a non-controversial GMO that, if used and marketed correctly, would significantly benefit populations in the global South.

What is Golden Rice?

Golden Rice is normal rice infused with beta-carotene (a source of vitamin A), which causes it to appear yellow in color.  Beta-carotene is naturally found in crops such as corn, squash, carrots, and melons; and is important because vitamin A supports immunity and eyesight.  A large portion of the diet of many people in Asia and Africa consists of rice—these populations tend to lack sufficient vitamin A.  As a result, ¼ to ½ million children go blind each year.  In addition, about 2 million die from disease as a result of weakened immune systems from vitamin A deficiency.  Just one bowl of Golden Rice can supply a child with 60% of their daily vitamin A requirements.

Unlike most GMOs, developed by chemical companies to be resistant to pesticides, chemicals, or harsh weather conditions; Golden Rice is naturally infused with vitamin A and contains no known traits that could cause it to outcompete natural rice.  In addition, it contains no new allergens or toxins that could present a threat to human health.  Also unlike many GMOs, Golden Rice was developed by a non-profit known as the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), not a corporation.  The creators gave the patent to the agribusiness known as Syngenta on the condition that Golden Rice seed would be made freely available to poor farmers who need it most, and these farmers can choose to plant it however they see fit—this was in an attempt to avoid absolute corporate control of golden rice and to ensure it gets into the hands that need it most. 

            Characteristic of GMOs, there is still some controversy surrounding Golden Rice.  It has yet to be approved in its target countries, such as the Philippines.  A recent scandal involving testing on Chinese children created a wave of distrust in the crop.  Some argue that it represents a “Trojan horse” for biotechnology, and that support for Golden Rice comes not from a desire to save children, but from a desire to give GMOs a better name.  Finally, there is the concern of “unforeseen risk” that causes leaders to be hesitant to support Golden Rice.

Overall, Golden Rice seems like a promising option for helping millions in Asia and Africa who depend on rice and suffer from vitamin A deficiencies.  The consensus within the scientific community is that Golden Rice contains no harmful qualities to cause apprehension, and that its benefits could be huge.  Already, reputable organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation strongly advocate for the approval and use of Golden Rice in Asia and Africa.  Whether or not governments and the public will agree remains to be seen, but Golden Rice does look to be a silver lining in the otherwise controversial world of GMOs.

The Necessity of GMOs

GMOs are expensive. They typically require more resources than natural plants and require replanting each year. But they also increase yield by incredible amounts, lowering hunger. These are common truths about GMOs, but GMOs are a politically and socially controversial topic. They represent tampering with nature by man, but, like many other processes man employs, we should continue development of GMOs with caution.

            Energy and medicine represent two cases that directly relate to GMOs. Go back about 150 years and man found coal and oil in the ground that could be used as fuel, as energy. These resources vastly increased the population and wealth of the world. Medicine, specifically in the last century, allowed immunity to prevent the spread of diseases and viruses. People created these medicines by modifying extracts from plants and modifying the bacteria and viruses to introduce them to our blood in a dosage that taught our bodies to defeat them. GMOs, like energy sources, remove resources from the ground, creating an imbalance. GMOs, like medicines and vaccines, modify organisms such that those organisms can make plants more nutritious and resistant to viruses and diseases.

            Humans can modify nature, with unnatural results, in ways that provide more good than bad. This issue begs the question: why is creating vaccines for people acceptable but modifying plants-that feed the same people who need vaccines-to be immune to viruses and diseases is such a divided issue? This is not a plants are people too argument. That makes no sense. But plants are the source of our food, and we need more of it. Shiva proposes essential arguments about the nasty sides to GMOs, of which there are many. But her argument highlights a major issue in GMOs, that big businesses take advantage of individuals and small businesses by making farming too costly in one way or another. Where I disagree with her is her argument that GMOs have made Indians worse off. Certainly small-scale farmers have lost their competitiveness as a result. But a quick look at World Development Indicators tells a different story. Since 1960 in India, total cereal yield, cereal yield per hectare, and GDP per capita have all at least tripled. People are wealthier and eating more. And on top of that, the GINI index in India suggests a more equal wealth distribution than the United States and the United Kingdom.

            Borlaug points out the incredible amount of land that would be required to feed today’s population without GMO. He stated in 2000 that at 1950 standards, we would need 1.2 billion more hectares than the 660 million already in use. GMOs have a bad reputation, but today we cannot feed 7 billion people without them. Still, this is not to say Shiva is wrong. She presents strong evidence suggesting GMOs have a bad effect in small-scale farming regions. However Borlaug is convincing that GMOs are good and necessary to feed the world.

            Humans created GM crops just as they did medicines. But there is a need for more careful implementation of the GM crops. Regulating big businesses by looking closer at their presence in small farm regions could mitigate the effects they have on less market-oriented farmers. Changing the patent laws on organisms could allow small-scale farmers to adapt their own seed. This sort of practice could provide the opportunity for thousands of small farms acting as their own labs with the GM seeds, rather than have most of the GM seeds developed in expensive labs at universities or big businesses.

            There are plenty of areas that need improvement; especially the role big business plays in the GM sector of agribusiness. But GMOs should continue to be a focus of research and development, of public and private funding, and of production on large scales if not small scales as well. A scary fact is that GMOs helped get the global population so large, and now the world relies on these crops to feed it.

My research for this post came from the class readings of Shiva, Stone, and Borlaug, as well as data from the World Bank. 

GMOs: A Case for Labeling

       Genetically modified organizations have become a hot topic in the realm of environmental politics.  They have become a great source of controversy amongst the general public, as well as the farmers who are given the opportunity to use them.  While many argue against the use of GMOs, there also many proponents who feel that they can provide a wide variety of benefits to the global community.  Many countries have already banned the use of GMOs, however they are still widely used in the United States, leaving many citizens very concerned about what they may potentially be eating.  Although a ban may not be in the future of the U.S. anytime soon, laws requiring the labeling of foods containing GMOs may be a suitable response to this dilemma. 

       Labeling laws essentially require that all food containing GMOs be labeled as such, allowing consumers to fully understand what they are purchasing, and eventually putting into their bodies.  They would not place any bans or limitations on these products, rather simply allow the public to make an informed decision before purchasing them.  While the likelihood of passing such a law at the federal level is seemingly reasonable, so far only a tiny amount of progress has been made with Maine and Connecticut recently becoming the first two states to pass such measures.  There have been many challenges and obstacles that have slowed efforts for labeling legislation in the U.S., most of which involve large corporations in opposition.  

       One particular example of a failed effort includes California’s Proposition 37, a ballot proposition that would simply require the labeling of all foods containing GMOs within the state.  While there seemed to be a great deal of support for the proposed legislation, just under 50% voted against the bill, and it was ultimately done away with.  This loss may be attributed to the significantly greater amount of donations that came from the opposing side, with Monsanto contributing the most with an 8 million dollar donation.  The passing of this law would have made California the first state to pass such a policy, however it seems that the power of multinational corporations may be too heavy to match in many cases.

       It seems that there are also many arguments that are held against labeling laws.  Such claims include the idea that it is unnecessary to require labels on foods if they are safe to consume.  However, due to the relatively recent use of GMOs on a mass scale, there have been no long term studies conducted to appropriately assess whether or not foods containing GMOs are in fact completely safe.  Other arguments center on the idea that labeling laws will place limitations on the options of consumers.  While this may be true in a sense, people will still be free to purchase products containing GMOs if they choose to do so.  Labels would simply give them the power to make an informed choice. 

  

       While there is still a great deal to be learned about the potential benefits and dangers of GMOs, it only seems fair that people should have the choice of whether or not to incorporate them into their daily lives.  Labeling may be a way to deal with many of the concerns for GMOs, while also adhering to the needs of individuals who they may potentially benefit.