Calorie Companies versus Water Privatization

            When considering all the mounting environmental and resource availability problems our modern society is facing, many people turn to advances in technology and neo-liberalisation as potential solutions.  In Paolo Bacigalupi’s novel The Windup Girl, powerful agro-businesses, known as “calorie companies”, specializing in genetically modified organisms hold almost absolute economic and political control in a future society. One relationship I noticed between Bacigalupi’s world and our world is between the control of calorie companies in the future world and the potential for water privatization today.  Both are examples of the so-called “solutions” where industry takes over control of a necessary resource, with the expectation that pressures of supply and demand coupled with technological advances can solve societal problems better than government regulation.  I’m arguing that both Bacigalupi’s novel and modern cases of water privatization are examples of this theory going awry.  Although water privatization can benefit the public and help create water security, when implemented incorrectly it can lead to ramifications similar to the result of calorie company control in The Windup Girl.

            Water privatization involves transferring the control of water operations and distribution from the public sphere into private hands, and is a very controversial topic.  Those who advocate for privatization argue that the private sector, operating on the principles of supply and demand, would be much more efficient in setting prices, updating infrastructure and technology, and distributing water than the government.  Those opposed argue that water is a fundamental human right, and should be controlled by the public sector to avoid problems caused by high prices or poor water quality. 

Today food is, of course, controlled by the private sector and sold in markets operating on the principles of supply and demand—but it is regulated by the government and not nearly as monopolized as it is in The Windup Girl.   The monopoly of food resources that the calorie companies hold in futuristic Thailand allows them to engage in bio-warfare and create a market for their products because they control such an important resource.  Similarly, businesses that exercise a monopoly over water resources have the option to manipulate the resource to their benefit, because water is an even more essential human need than food.  I am not arguing that water privatization leads to bio-warfare, but it can often lead to pricing out of the poorer class, health problems, and conflict.

            An example of this occurred in Cochabamba, Bolivia in 1998. The Cochabamba government was corrupt and inefficient and therefore unable to provide sufficient water to their citizens. At that time the World Bank was spending a lot of money to promote neo-liberalism in developing countries with transitioning governments, like Bolivia.  The World Bank lent them money on the condition that they privatize their water system.  Cochabamba entered into a 40-year contract with a private firm, giving them total control and ownership over their water system, including the water itself.  Prices of water skyrocketed, traditional water practices were banned, and the water quality actually decreased.  After just two years, public protests and civil unrest led the government to break the contract and take back control of the water system.

            Like in Cochabamba and Bacigalupi’s futuristic Thailand, when companies gain absolute power over a resource that is essential to life, such as water or calories, there is a strong possibility for corruption and greed.  Many people view technological advances and neo-liberalism as keys to solve and adapt to our growing environmental problems, The Windup Girl warns against this growing reliance.  As we discusses in class, human nature tends to be “reactive” as opposed to “proactive” and instead of dealing with issues of climate change and water scarcity head-on favors taking the easy way out and trying to adapt using technology and economic control.  I believe that in order to be proactive we should focus fixing on the systematic flaws of our lifestyles to try to combat the problem, as opposed to relying corporations and technology to combat them for us.

Drawing comparisons between the world in The Windup Girl and today

When I was reading The Windup Girl, I was obviously thinking about how different the world the characters were living in was compared to the one we live in now. While there were clear and obvious differences, I was also able draw some comparisons between elements of the story and things that exist today.  A lot of the things I picked up on are related to health or medicine because those are the classes I spend most of my time in, but I think they are still applicable. 

The first similarity I noticed was the presence of GMOs.  Obviously, the extent to which they are used is very different, but I wondered if the future of our GMO use will be very similar to that of their use in The Windup Girl.  Its hard for me to imagine that the use of GMOs would become that seemingly out of control and industrialized, but when compared to the differences between food production now and 100 years ago, maybe large-scale changes (GMOs now to GMOs in the book) are possible.  On an even larger scale, generipping seems to serve as an extreme form of genetically modifying foods, and even animals and humans.  While I can't really come up with any strong comparisons between generipping and science and technology today, except perhaps, cloning and stem cell research, for the sake of them not being 'natural,' the idea of genetically modifying animals and humans doesn't seem so alien. We already have gene therapy, and while I think creating entire genetically modified humans is extreme, imagine if we could genetically modify a liver or pancreas to be resistant to the cell mutations that cause cancer.  I think the prejudice that existed towards Emiko was awful and that's just one reason why we can't have totally genetically-modified humans walking around in this day and age.

I also noticed that the consistent use of GMOs in The Windup Girl was to combat the threat of diseased food.  With every resistant disease contaminating a batch of fruit, new, disease-resistant fruits are created.  This reminded me a lot of how, today, we are constantly dealing with the threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.  I've obviously read a lot about this in public health classes so I don't know if anyone else thought about it, but they have similar characteristics.  Antibiotics such as Penicillin are given in massive doses now, compared to the doses that were needed to treat an infection around the time Penicillin was created around World War I.  There are also strains of staph that run rampant in hospitals and other health care facilities that have begun to show resistance to the health industry's most potent and expensive antibiotics.  A major issue with antibiotic resistance is that the bacteria become resistant too soon after the drug is released and it can take ten years and billions of dollars to develop a new drug.  This isn't enough time to combat the resistance.  I felt a similar sense of urgency in The Windup Girl, with companies continuously trying to stay on top of the latest resistant bug and attempting to avoid another break out.  I also thought it was interesting how the idea of a breakout of blister rust or cibiscosis could totally shut down a community or threaten the livelihood.  The only comparison I can make between the fear of outbreaks in The Windup Girl and today, is possibly the SARS outbreak between 2002 and 2003.  The United States didn't see much of the effect of the outbreak, but Canada and many countries in Asia did.  SARS was so scary because it was sneaky and quick, and no scientist or public health official had ever seen it before- it was totally new.  I don't think we live in fear of outbreaks the way that individuals did in The Windup Girl, but I think there have been times that we have experienced that tension.

The Rise of GMOs in Tomorrow's World

My first thought when reading “The Wind Up Girl” was about our class discussion and my personal knowledge on the rise of GMOs in today’s society. In the novel, essentially all foods and even living things such as animals and people are genetically manipulated. The novel arguably is the manifestation of most or all of the social fears surrounding the increase of genetically modified products within the food system.

            One major issue is obviously health complications. In the book their genetically modified organisms created massive effects with cibiscosis that most characters seemed to fear constantly and blister rust. This not only created personal health implications but also social fear and distrust as individuals were afraid to catch the disease and it would create conflict within society.

My main argument is a lack of information on the health effects from GMOs. I recently read that the ratio of children born with autism has risen from 1 in 88 births to 1 in 68 in the United States from 2012, just two years ago. I’m not going to be so bold to say there is a direct correlation between the rise in autism and the use of GMOs, but I think it is a feasible idea that the health effects of GMOs have not be sufficiently studied and could be involved in the extreme rise of many new health problems we’re seeing today. 

GMO diets have been linked to infertility issues, damaged organs, gastrointestinal and immune system failure, and other problems. This has been extremely under researched and is not common knowledge in society. Additionally, many are unaware of just how frequently we consume GMO products every day. Since more than 90 percent of our corn and soy products are created with GM seeds and these products are in virtually all processed foods, GM products are in a great percentage of food availability in one’s local food market and all go unlabeled.

As is seen in the novel, the introduction of genetic modification and chemicals into the food production system has had a huge effect on the genetic makeup of agriculture. The newest phenomenon has been Colony Collapse Disorder, where entire bee colonies are disappearing because of the use of pesticides. If the number of bees continues to dwindle, many common fruits and vegetables will no longer be pollinated and therefore will disappear just like the ngaw from “The Wind Up Girl”.

Another correlation between the novel and today’s fears is the unknown side effects of manipulated genes and its effect on the natural environment.  In the novel, the megadonts or genetically modified elephants caused many issues, for example the attack in the factory. Emiko was a genetically modified human who was created with a genetic malfunction of becoming too hot in warmer climates. The unpredictable nature of manipulating genetic material can lead to more future problems with causing unforeseen health effects or cause animals or plants to go extinct.

Reading this novel make me thinking about what is to come for our future world. As we talked about in class, the idea of “If we can do it, we should” directs a lot of our endeavors in society, including the rise of GMOs. Despite the arguments for creating enough food for the many more mouths there are to feed, I worry about what our meddling with the natural food system could eventually do to our health and the environment. I say we need to refocus our endeavors to keep the long term effects in mind and make sure we’re keeping ourselves and the ones after us safe.

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.