GM Foods

Genetically Modified Foods

The average person eats nearly 1500 pounds of corn a year either by itself or indirectly. It’s what the cows, chickens, and pigs eat, it’s what is in anything containing high fructose corn syrup, and it’s in ethanol, or grain alcohol, that we drink every weekend. There simply isn’t a way to get around it, almost everything we eat is made up somehow of corn. At 1500 pounds a year, with 304,059,724 people living in The United States, we as a nation consume roughly 456,089,586,000 pounds of corn a year. With the help of genetically modified food, we are able to provide for this large amount of people to eat what they do everyday. Genetically modified foods are a necessity to our lives in that they offer us benefits that are astronomical.

There are two popular methods of genetic modification, cisgenesis, where genes are transferred from one organism to another similar one, and transgenesis, where a gene can be taken from anything and put into whatever we want. The idea is to find a gene that can produce a desired result, and insert it into the organism to make it better and more efficient. The extraction of a gene is also possible in that they can remove it so that it no longer hinders the organism’s productivity (Kang).

People have various opinions on whether GM foods are safe for humans, morally just, or even unfair to other food producing industries. There are claims that GM foods are against God in that we shouldn’t alter God’s creation. Others say that we are becoming guinea pigs in an experiment and that we really don’t know what we are eating because there hasn’t been proper testing on GM foods (Hall). There are also people that fear of a monopoly in the food industry that could drastically change the prices in the foods that are modified. The largest company that produces GM foods is called Monsanto, which can account for 91 percent and 97 percent of the world’s share in GM soybean and maize respectively. The fear is that a company like this will dominate the market and have complete control over food prices (O’Brien).

Although there is much skepticism on food that has been altered genetically, the benefits most certainly outweigh any negative claims. Many plants that get genetically modified, like corn and soybean, are altered so that they are more resistive to pests and prosper in conditions that they wouldn’t normally. This is such a great advantage in that not only is crop growth no longer weather dependent, but it doesn’t take environmentally harmful chemicals to keep them growing unharmed. The genes of animals, like salmon, can even be modified for rapid growth. These two examples alone are reasons that would tremendously help with the poverty issues around the world.

Bibliography

Hall, Angela. “Suzuki warns against hastily accepting GMO’s.” The Leader-Post (Canada), 26 April 2005.

Kang, JX. “Why the Omega-3 Should go to the Market.” Nature Biotechnology Print.

O’Brien, Robyn. “The Monopoly of the Food Supply: Price Inflammation and One Corporation’s Allergy to Labels.” 07 May 2008. Web. 30 Jan 2010. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_12154.cfm.

Weintraub, Arlene. “Salmon That Grow Up Fast.” BusinessWeek (2006). Web. 31 Jan 2010. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_03/b3967111.html.

A Forest Returns

A Forest Returns was a nice change of pace in that it was a happier story about an environmental issue. I was surprised at how much of an impact this guy made on the tree growth in Ohio. I never realized that most of the state we live in was logged, and that the forests we have now are the second wave of tree life. It was interesting to see that our government had programs that gave people work to do by having them plant all these trees. In today's society, I don't think that our government would ever do that because we are so money-driven that it would cost more to have people individually plant forests than it would to hire one person and a machine to do just as much. However, in 1935, it was a good thing that they helped restore the habitats of many animals that were destroyed in the logging process.

David Maywhoor

I liked David Maywhoor's presentation in that it was informative on how he stands against logging and prescribed burning, but I would've liked to hear a little more about his solution to the problem. I didn't know that prescribed burning even existed before today, and he did a great job explaining why it is so bad, but what should we do instead? Sure, logging is bad because it causes sluffing of the layers of earth, but what should we do instead to get our wood? It's easy to state a problem and say why it's wrong, but creating a solution to the problem should be the the focus. His speech was good in that it presented me with facts that made me think of alternatives to logging and burning. I would imagine that if we would use less wood to build things, like our houses that he mentioned, then the demand for wood would decline, which would then cut down on logging. So, as a solution to the problem he presents, I would say he should put efforts in wood alternatives rather than telling people they should stop logging and burning, because unless people have a reason to stop, they won't. Overall, I liked his presentation because it was very informative and showed he was knowledgeable on the subject, but I felt like I was left hanging.

Research Prospectus

After searching through a few topics that seemed very over-played in the category of writing papers on environmental issues, I started to explore solutions to environmental problems. In this search I came across the solution of genetically engineered foods. Many people are against the idea of eating something that could somewhat be considered unnatural, but there are many benefits to genetically modified foods (GM foods). Foods can be cross-bred with others to create foods that are more nutritious, deliver vaccines, and even plants that can produce different plastics. This sort of engineering can help the world in so many different ways. The opposing side to GM foods will say that there will be a food production monopoly over many small food vendors and farmers, unknown side effects, and simply that this will cause much stress to plants and animals.
Another topic that I have considered is solid waste. It seems very obvious, but I don't think that the general public is involved as much as it should be in recycling. People just aren't aware of how much trash gets thrown into landfills, which obviously takes up a lot of space. With recycling what we can, we can save ourselves a lot of trouble in the long run. Landfills are getting full and cause contamination in groundwater and burning it would release hazardous toxins into the air. The opposing side will say that recycling cuts many jobs, but this makes no sense to me because in increasing our recycling, we will just create more jobs in the recycling business. Not only will recycling do that, but recycled products are always cheaper than the original products. So what do we do? I never really recycle, so this subject to me seemed interesting to cover.

Part Three

Berry Wendell describes the mind in two different ways, rational and sympathetic. Rational, he says, is thinking about profit and doing what it takes to make it. The sympathetic mind is about "wholeness" where it favors nature and how it takes its course. The coal companies are seeing the mountains with the rational mind where they see a source they need to make money, they find out how to get it, and they make their profit, whereas the people neighboring the mountain are more sympathetic in that they want to the mountain to be how it was. The sympathetic mind realizes that everything needs something else for a reason, the wolf is needed to kill the deer, because the deer eat the vegetation, which feeds other animals and is home to others.

Reece talks about how the coal companies just simply don't care about the nature in the mountain and that they make the excuse that "it's already fucked up anyway" based on some locals' litter and decide to mine it. Reece then mentions how the companies decide that the soil that gets dug up has "no monetary value" and "sees no value at all," thus appealing to the rational mind. He says that the coal companies are planting grass instead of trees for reclamation, burying streams instead of tunneling for coal, and constantly polluting the air with no regards to nature, but only for the money that they are making. Reece also takes the sympathetic mind when he talks about how the land of the mountain is a macro-organism and everything living on the mountain takes part in the life of it. Everything needs something else indirectly for the life of the mountain to be healthy.

To quote a significant part of the Conclusion, I thought that the following was interesting: "And while the United States produces twice as much carbon dioxide as Russia, Bush made it clear in the presidential debates that he would not sign the Kyoto Protocol because it could 'cost American jobs and stifle economic growth.' In other words, short term decision making will continue to rule the day, though the long term effects of those decisions could be disastrous." This is interesting because it seemed like the entire book was based on it. The coal companies have mined the tops off of mountains thinking nothing of how they're effecting the wildlife that lives there. Sure, having more coal is better for having energy right now, but if we are getting rid of these plants and animals' habitats, then later on, we are going to see worse consequences. He mentioned how when the wolves were dying off, there were more deer, which meant there was less vegetation, which mean that other animals were dying because they had less to feed on. In thinking purely of the short term, we are forgetting that there is always an indirect relationship between us and what we are destroying. And by signing the Kyoto Protocol, there wouldn't even necessarily be a stifle in economic growth because with more regulation on something that is harming our environment, there would be more incentive to find ways to create energy that are more ecologically friendly and less wasteful.

Pages 85-162

Throughout the book Erik Reece does a fine job in appealing to the emotion of his audience through not only his words, but through the words of others. Many examples of difference situations are explained that help the reader relate to the experiences of others. He does this so that we, as the audience, feel sympathy for the people that coal excavating has drastically affected. He also gives examples of how the coal companies just don't care about these people and that even after their efforts to seek help, no one listens.

He gives is a story called "Before the Law" that was a pretty good description of the people that drink polluted water, breathe coal dust, and people that have simply been flooded out of their homes due to poor strip mining regulations. He talks about Steven Griles, and how he took advantage of the SMCRA in that the mining permits say "to the extent possible," meaning there really was no enforcement in their "efforts" to prevent water contamination. He basically made sure that they could do whatever they really wanted, but have documented that there was regulation when really there wasn't. Another complaint that people had in McRoberts was that the their houses were basically in shambles due to blasting. Several houses and churches has sunk foundations, bowed walls, roof tears, and coal dust covering every inch of their homes. The coal companies simply did not care what they are doing to these people and simply say "You've got an old trailer. Nothing lasts forever." Hearing some of the provided stories makes it hard to even listen to argument from the other side because of how corrupt Reece makes the system seem.

These examples are sickening to think that people have no morality and can only think of the money that they are making instead of the people's lives that they are destroying. With all of the testimonials, it's hard to even think about being on the opposing side. This way of introducing other people's perspectives helps the reader think that it's not just the author that feels this way, and that in fact, many people are affected by strip mining.

Page 1-85

Erik Reece explores the mountain tops of Kentucky and explains what the extraction of coal is doing to our environment. He explains how it is an issue that continues to go ignored and that something needs to be done. Every year wildlife habitats are destroyed, leaving many animals and plants that dwell in high altitudes vulnerable to other predatory species. He also mentions how the moving water regions have been harmed, which then affects plants like the liverwort that multiply by with the help of water droplets. Not only has our coal mining hurt the wildlife, but Reece mentions that ways it hurts us as well. The sulfur the is released into the air leads to acid rain which causes respiratory problems, mercury can lead to birth defects, and CO2 leading to global warming.

Reece used to work in a coal burning power plant and has seen how that affects the environment, and now he is out seeing the results of the beginning of the coal burning cycle. His dad was an engineer for the power plant and worked on the scrubbers that helped contain gases from escaping into the air. Reece talks to several people in order to uncover the truth behind the chemicals that do leach out into the environment. He likes to use very descriptive words and sarcastic remarks to emphasize his points and then provide us with examples of problems that people have come across in relation to the coal extraction. This method sort of made me feel like theres no way I could possibly be on the other side of his argument. Hearing the story of Blanton and how basically all of her friends and family had died because of the chemicals leaching into the water and air, and how "Almost nobody in Dayhoit lives past fifty-five" helped me emphasize a lot more with her story and support Reece's view.

After reading this portion of the book I have been pulled more towards Reece's side. Mountain top removal is something that we should definitely try to regulate more. I still really haven't been convinced completely in stopping it because whether or not we like it, coal is definitely a huge source of energy for us. Until we can find more efficient ways of alternative energy sources, there isn't much we can do as far as not using coal completely. Regulating the way that they are dumping waste and doing a better job of restoring the areas are things that need to taken care of.

Clean Coal

When first opening each website in their own different windows, I noticed that the “This is Reality” site seemed much more interesting than “America’s Power.”

Though I initially had no interest in clean coal, I began scanning through the more interactive “This is Reality” website where they keep giving facts about the faults in clean coal. Knowing that coal is a fossil fuel that gives off many gases that are harmful to the environment, I could only see myself agreeing with the facts being presented in front of me. The site gave many reasons why coal burning is harmful, and even revealed that even after all of the advertising of clean coal, there’s not one power plant that stores its global warming pollution. They talk about how we need to invest more in solar, geothermal, and wind sources because they are not only efficient, but are renewable sources that do not emit the CO2 that burning coal does. These facts appeal to logos right away after the comment about there not being any plants that use the CC as claimed.

Flipping over to “America’s Power,” I was presented with reasons why coal is good for us. They try right away to appeal to the every day person and how they use electricity for video games, tv, and charging cell phones, so that we can’t say we aren’t indirectly using the coal ourselves. Tons of numbers are thrown around to make it seem as though things were being done to make our lives better with the use of coal. It is easy to even see a more localized view of how much coal energy is used by state so that we can more easily relate the how much coal we really use. There’s a fun little game where you can provide power to your house using different means of energy sources and the run different kinds of common household items. This serves to appeal to the logic of how using coal would give us more energy than any other source.

Both sites appeal to the average person in that they are trying to get us to use logic to reason with them. Many environmental councils and federations sponsor “This is Reality,” which to me seems as though they may be leaving things out, because to me these people always seem a little radical in their views, and not too much was said that I couldn’t have already guessed. “America’s Power” was set up in more of a legit looking website that appealed to me more and seemed more credible rather than a website that I could’ve put together. Overall, I would have to say that “America’s Power” seemed more like it was explaining to me facts with things to back up their claims as “This is Reality” just seemed like a website that Joe Dirt made because he doesn’t like power plants to burn coal.

English Day 1

Hi, my name is Michael Koh and I'm from Akron. I am a Junior and I am studying Mechanical Engineering. Things I like to do include snowboarding, wakeboarding, and working out. I have an Engineering Co-Op, or Internship, with Component Repair Technologies in Mentor, Ohio. This is a company that repairs commercial jet engine components when they have been worn or gone through stress that would hinder performance. There really isn't much interesting to say about myself as I am just a regular college student doing the regular college student thing.