Globilization!

Globalization seems to be a matter in which the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, but the advantages are very great.

For one, in some cases, the economic and social conditions of farmers are increased by globalization of agriculture. It also helps increase the efficiency of workers, and it helps improve the quality of food we receive. It keeps prices reasonable because the competition is so high.

The advantages really mainly fall around money, which isn't always a good thing, the lives of many farmers are being ruined because of this new way of doing things.

Personally, I guess I'm affected because I'd imagine a lot of what I buy could possibly be more expensive if it wasn't for the Globalization of agriculture.

Food Safety

Ultimately, I believe it is up to the consumer to be responsible for food safety. Too many times humans try to push the blame over to somebody else, but if consumers were more cautious about their food many of the problems would be solved. I'm not saying I don't appreciate all the programs that are in place, but the consumer should be more responsible for their selves as well.

For example, if consumers were to report every time they became sick from food from a specific company, then other consumers could see these records and refuse to buy from that company. This would in turn cause the company to clean up whatever problems they may have. Even with all of the programs in place to ensure food safety, consumers can still pull their weight. For example, we read a two page guide on food safety regarding turkey. If there's a two page guide for turkey, I'm sure there are multiple precautions to take in preparing and storing any food that may be overlooked and cause problems.

In the case of a restaurant's, it's a little more difficult for the consumer to take precautionary responsibility their first time there. However, if they experience illness related to food after eating there, they can let the restaurant know, and in turn, I'm sure the restaurant would be more than happy to fix whatever it was that led to that consumer's misfortune so that the chances of it happening again are greatly reduced.

We, the consumers, control what we put into our bodies, so ultimately: we should take responsibility for those actions.

Organic Food Production

Is it good or bad for the food industry and the consumer that the term was legally defined by the federal government? Are organic foods better for people and the environment than traditionally produced food? What are the drawbacks to organic food production? How do you feel about the "big business" of organic i.e. retailers like Whole Foods??? Make sure you are supporting your claims with valid evidence....Include anything else that interests you...

Generally, when the Federal government steps into people's every day lives, it's not a good thing, but, in the case of organic foods, having a national standard may not be a bad thing. While "organic" doesn't mean 100% pure, it definitely guarantees that the methods for producing the product were more pure than what non-organic food consists of. People often "buy organic is to avoid pesticide residues,"(Renner) but this may not always be the case. I believe this here is a drawback, in a small article, it was written that, "Banned pesticides like DDT were found in organic carrots and potatoes at levels as high as or higher than conventionally grown produce, according to a screening study conducted by a college undergraduate and presented at the Society of Toxicology and Chemistry annual meeting in November"(Renner). People end up paying extra money for something that isn't doing them much more good than if they bought regular produce (although, they are still supporting a cleaner environment and cleaner farming practices).

Big businesses stepping in and selling organic foods is probably a good thing. Organic farmers are this way encouraged to continue their practices since they are guaranteed sales. While, as I said before, organic doesn't mean 100% pure, but it's certainly purer. So when big businesses begin to move into the organic stream of things, it's a little bit better for everybody. Some examples, from http://www.avalonhealthinfo.com/ are:

Food giants such as PepsiCo and Coca-Cola are also breaking into the organic food market. Frito-Lay, which is owned by PepsiCo, has begun selling organic salsa and blue and yellow corn chips with the brand name Tostitos.

In 2001, Coca-Cola purchased the beverage line Odwalla and is selling organic carrot, apple and orange juices.

Additionally, the spice producer McCormick & Co. has been selling organic spices, including thyme and rosemary, since 2002.

Biotechnology (Round 2!)

So, last week we checked out many of the different crops, both cash and food, which were genetically modified, and I think everybody will agree with me when I say it's a very positive direction for science to be going.

Some of the many benefits include:
- Genetically resistant plants; resistant to diseases, insects, weeds, and critters that could normally ruin a harvest.
- Reduced use of pesticides; people won't have to worry as much about all of the many cancers and sicknesses which some pesticides could potentially cause.
- More nutrition from everyday items, such as the enhanced beta-carotene in golden rice which the body uses for Vitamin A. Nutritional items that some people normally would miss out on would then be healthier from there on out without having to drastically change their diet.
- Some GM crops are designed to grow in no-till farming conditions, which saves the environment in fossil fuels, ground nutrients, and less runoff of soil and fertilizers.

The major cons I've seen so far are:
- People may be allergic to a certain product that has been added into a crop, but with them not knowing it's there they could be in trouble from eating these.
- If a genetically modified strand of crop was accidentally mixed with an original crop field, the original crop could be lost.

Opposition still stands, but will it forever? Biotechnology is creating major benefits to the inhabitants of our earth mother and is preventing many disasters from happening (imagine: the Irish Potato famine being completely erased from history because of earlier discoveries).
-

Biotechnology

"Tobacco plants growing in a hospital laboratory in London, genetically modified to include an algae gene, are said to provide an effective anti-HIV drug" (http://spicycauldron.com/2007/04/30/the-gm-tobacco-that-could-save-lives/).

With new technologies progressing rapidly, it's no surprise that something previously known to kill so many has been mutated into a tool to help people with HIV. By a gene placed into the DNA of the plant, a protein is created, even though the plant has no use for it specifically.

Now, currently, it seems as though this sort of plant is only being produced in a very few areas because the creation is still relatively new (the oldest news article I've found has been dated for 2005). There is no large-scale production line of these tobacco plants, as far as I know, but there are farms around the world, such as in Kent, but the project has not yet been perfected. There are huge plans in the future, however: "Once successful, each plant will be capable of providing 20 doses of an anti-HIV drug, which is enough to protect a woman from infection for up to three months" (http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/gm-tobacco-production-in-kent-could-provide-anti-hiv-drug-to-millions/).

It's easy to point out the positive effects this new method for cheap medicine will have, but there are also disadvantages. Such as with all GM plants, there is a chance that they could "infect," so to speak, the natural population of the plants, and cause them to be extinct. Also, more specifically to this crop, some may use the new medicine expecting 100% results 100% of the time, and this may not be true, causing HIV to continue to spread regardless.

Food Safety Blog

In my opinion, food safety is the consumer's responsibility. If the consumer is concerned with what he or she is eating, he or she better look into where that comes from. Sure, the companies should be somewhat concerned about it, but in the case that they'll loose business if they aren't.

A lot of people, I've noticed, try to shift responsibilities onto other people, but really, people should start stepping up. When something goes wrong, people don't want to have blame on themselves so they look for the easiest excuse, which often starts with, "It wasn't my fault-." If something is going to affect somebody, that somebody should be concerned about what it is that's affecting them and take the initiative to step up and take responsibility.

I may have veered from the topic a little bit, but essentially, the fact can be applied to Food Security as well, I'm sure.

The Green Revolution

Is new technology necessary to increase food production?

That's a relatively difficult thought to ponder. I mean, back in the day, before any of our times, people provided food for themselves and as their cultures grew, they were able to continue producing more food because their workforce grew as well. So then that comes to another road block, if we were all to produce food for ourselves, would it increase food production?

I don't believe that at the time we're in it is possible to increase food production in any way other than new technology. Imagine a person growing up with a big ol' 50 caliber sniper rifle and shooting it all their life, and then later in life having that rifle taken away and they are given a slingshot instead. Sure, they could still get their self food with this new(well, old) tool, but since it wasn't the way they grew up, it would be much more difficult to make the change.

Population Growth & Food

Was Malthus wrong because food production has kept up with population growth or will he be right sometime in the future? If so, what will the secondary impacts of increasing food production be?

I personally believe that Malthus is wrong about Food Production vs. Population Growth. While it's obvious that Malthus was a very intelligent person, I think he may have overlooked the unlimited possibilities of mankind. He did mention that population would influence production, but then further production would create even more growth in population.

We have sent men to the moon. We operate many parts of our daily lives by little chunks of metal constantly falling around the curvature of the earth sending and receiving signals. I heard rumors of a plan for a space-plane, which would make it possible to fly with the control of an airplane outside of earth's atmosphere. In this sense, not even the sky is the limit to what humans can do.

I believe there are endless solutions to the endless answers that arise on this planet, and if forced to, people are capable of doing some pretty impossible things. Sure, as population grows, so will food production, and as production grows, so will population, creating and limitless cycle on a limited landmass, but I don't think we've seen even a glimpse of what is going to be in our future.

Maybe I'm looking at this from a too optimistic view, but I really don't see in my head what can prevent humans from overcoming what's ahead.

If population control must be implemented, I suppose measures such as one-child policies are a possible solution. The only problem I see with this is that some families (or so I've heard) see a girl as less profitable, so they will get rid of the child in order to have a boy. How true is this? I'm not certain, but if this is the case, then something else could be done. I have also heard that families in China who wish to have more than one child can simply move out of the country, have their child, and then move back, but it's definitely still a method to reduce the number of children in the country as a whole.

This may sound ridiculous, but I think another option would be to work on making people more tolerable to homosexuals. If more homosexuals were to be married and faithful to each other, then that would be one less pair of people producing offspring, which could equate to quite a difference.

Ultimately, I believe Jesus is coming back, and probably will before the World is strained beyond human consumption.

I'm usually a pretty logical person basing all of my ideas off of hard truth, but in the case of Human Population and Food Production, I don't believe I could ever learn enough to REALLY estimate what will happen and how to prevent, or promote, what may come.

Federal Lands Grazing

Should grazing of livestock be allowed on publicly owned lands? Why or why not? (Remember to support your claim and to cite sources of information). If so, should the fees be the same as what is charged for private land leases? Why or why not? Try to be inclusive of as many viewpoints on this issue as possible when formulating your response.

If I understand everything I've read correctly, there isn't anything wrong with farmers allowing their livestock to graze on publicly owned land. For more information on the topic, I visited WorldNetDaily.com and found an article at the following URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=22039

After reading through that article (hopefully it was on the right track as this topic), I don't believe that farmers should be restricted any farther than the previous laws have restricted them regarding grazing on publicly owned lands, and they shouldn't be required to pay any additional fees. According to the article, they are entitled to a portion of the public land by law. If they're already entitled to the land by law, why should they need to add to the government's funds for its use?

Additionally, by allowing the cattle to graze farther out from only the private property, doesn't this reduce the risk of hazardously overgrazing? If they're restricted to the farmer's own property, the protection over the top soil would be worn away relatively quickly, allowing for rains to come and wash away top soil with no resistance. Should the farmer's be charged to prevent one piece of land from being over used?

Farm Subsidies

I'm embarrassed to say, but before today, I didn't really know anything about Farm Subsidies.

After reading both of the articles, I went and found another website filled with many opinions on the recent bill.

http://www.ewg.org/farmeditorials

To me, it looks as if it's something along the lines of welfare, or well, that's maybe what it should look like. Farmers who are doing very well off don't really need the extra money to be wasted on them, but farmers who maybe experienced a natural disaster would need the extra money very much.

Looking into it, I guess Welfare was reformed to be a limited deal while I was younger (in the 1990s) instead of being available for a person's lifetime. Maybe they should think about implementing the same idea with farming? If somebody goes over their limit for legit causes, maybe they just weren't destined to be in the farming business.

People may still be able to cheat the system, but I think it would still save us some money as a whole over all.