The
Horace Mann Review
The Future of Food
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
HMReview
the
Issue 5, Volume XVII
Spring 2008
The Future of Food 5
When Will it Stop?: Poach-
16
U.S. Aid vs. Bush: Politics behind U.S. foreign aid. By Will Dubbs
25
Tuning Diplomacy: Can music make the difference in foreign relations? By Katie Cacouris
ing in America. By Kevin Lin
7
Genetically Modified Food By Amelia Ross What Happened to the American Farmer?
By James Yaro
The hard-working, independent American farmer has been replaced by corporate agribussiness. Why we need to end agricultural subsidies. Page 3 Consuming Clones By Starlyte Harris
Dealing French Fries:
How fast food advertising contributes to the obesity crisis. By Maya Chung
11
Waiting for the Next Food Drop: The U.N.’s attempts
As the price of corn increases, it’s becoming harder to buy products such as food and gas. At this rate, it could put the world economy at risk. Page 19
By Henry Hoglund
Turkey’s Hijab Heresy By Jackie McDougall
Turkey’s attempts to modernize in the face of radical Islam. Page 37
Debt Row: Africa’s last
chance for relief. By Spencer Penn
33
The Victimized Candidate: Nader Woes. By Jason Sunshine Peeling Off the Organic Label
American Food Culture:
The Paradox of Russian Democracy: Can Russia
31
The CAP has Got to Go
The race to provide the cheapest food has hurt America’s diet.
29
By Aradhna Agarwal
By William Manning
15
By Katie Dubbs
The Killer Crop: Corn Prices
at food relief are underfunded and in need of reform. By Nancy DaSilva
13
Don’t Drink!: The politics and dangers of unpasteurized milk.
reconcile its authoritarian past with a democratic system? By Dan Temel
The recent FDA decision means we could be eating clones and their offsprings, which is potentially dangerous and immoral. Page 17
9
27
By Antonia Woodford
Many consumers increasingly seek organic alternatives for health reasons, but what officially constitues organic food is not what you might think. Page 21
34
Satellite Destruction:
Space is no longer just the final frontier; now it’s the battleground for a new Cold War. By Justin Katiraei
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- BioEconomy
Letter From the Editor Dear Reader,
The Horace Mann Review Volume XVII , Issue 5
A Journal of Opinion on Current Events, Politics, Public Policy, and Culture Kunal Malkani Editor-in-Chief
Lindsay Gellman Editorial Director
Tal Shachar Production Manager
Jake Sloane Managing Director
Rachel Siegel Copy Chief
Ted Sumers Photography Editor
Thomas Hwang Venkat Kausik Alice Kissilenko Zach Malter Senior Editor
Neal Poole Director of Technology
William Kim Production Assistant
Kimya Zahedi Senior Columnist
Nick Gerard Dexter Richards Webmaster Charles Stam Anoushka Vaswani Chairpeople of the Board Associate Editors Will Dubbs, Katie Dubbs, Spencer Penn, Rumur Dowling, Nancy DaSilva, Nick Herzeca, Dan Temel, Jason Sunshine Contributing Writers Nick Herzeca, Belle Yoeli, Eliza Harkins, Nancy DaSilva, Will Dubbs, Dan Temel, Rumur Dowling, Spencer Penn, Katie Dubbs, Jarett Bienenstock, Jason Sunshine, Victor Ladd, Sonja Perl, Aradhna Agarwal, Miguel Alonso-Lubell, Dan Shapiro, Justin Katiraei, James Yaro, Belle Yoeli Faculty Advisors Mr. Gregory Donadio and Dr. Barbara Tischler TheReview@horacemann.org The Horace Mann Review is printed throughout the academic year. The Review is a member of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association, the American Scholastic Press Association, and the National Scholastic Press Association. Please contact The Horace Mann Review for information on advertisements at TheReview@horacemann. org. Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Editorial Board. Opinions expressed in articles or illustrations are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board or of the Horace Mann School. Interested in subscribing? The Editorial Board is pleased to offer mailed subscriptions this volume. Email us at TheReview@horacemann.org for information. Thank you for your support.
© 2008, The Horace Mann Review
Welcome to the fifth issue of The Review. The price or politics of food is not usually an issue of concern in the United States. However, recently dramatic rises in food prices have caused serious worldwide ramifications. Even in the United States, middle-class families are noticing rising prices in meat, corn, and cereal. For the first time, rice has been rationed at Costco stores. With this, politicians in the United States have been forced to pay increased attention to policies on agriculture, ethanol, and the bioeconomy. Around the world, the consequences have been even more severe. According to an estimate by the president of the World Bank, 100 million additional people have been pushed into hunger and malnutrition because of rising food costs. Charities and international aid organizations have been hard pressed to respond, especially with the recent cyclone in Burma and poor harvest in North Korea. There have been riots in Mexico over rising tortilla prices and strikes in Egypt, Morocco and Jordan. India, Egypt, Cambodia and Vietnam have suspended exports of rice to prevent shortages at home. Haiti’s already precarious political situation was further destabilized when its prime minister was forced to resign after food riots. Many argue that policies in Europe and the United States are at least partially responsible for the current food concerns. Europe’s Common Agricultural Policy, discussed on page 13, subsidizes European farmers and has devastated farmers in Africa and Asia. The United States government’s emphasis on ethanol production from corn, discussed on page 19, has led to higher crop prices around the world and is neither energy efficient nor a viable source of energy to replace oil. Our foreign aid policy administered through USAID, discussed on page 7, has been heavily restricted by political concerns and therefore aid does not go where it is needed most. At the same time, the United Nations’ food drop program, discussed on page 11, is not funded sufficiently or flexible enough to respond to the increasing demands for food aid. The issue also looks at the food culture in America on page 15 and the extent to which our eating habits are influenced by fast food advertising, on page 9. With new technologies influencing how our food is grown and raised, we look at the ethics of eating clones on page 17 and the concerns with genetically modified foods on page 25. On the other hand, we look at the politics behind organic foods, including the different definitions of organic and the benefits they may provide, on page 21. Outside of what we have termed the bioeconomy, the issue focuses on issues inspired by recent significant political events, including the future of Russian democracy, the potential for another Cold War in space, fostering development in Africa through debt relief, and the significance of Ralph Nader in the 2008 presidential election. Finally, on page 37, we look at a potentially hugely significant but underreported story about Turkey’s attempts to reconcile its secular and modern culture with traditional Islam. Thank you for picking up a copy of the issue. On behalf of our writers and editors, I hope you enjoy it. Sincerely,
Kunal Malkani Page 2
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
What happened to the American Farmer? Why we need to end agricultural subsidies
B
eginning in the 1930s, in the midst of the Great Depression, America began to provide agricultural subsidies to farmers. These subsidies were designed to ensure the survival of the 25% of America’s population that lived on small farms. Although these subsidies have continued on to today, now 72% of subsidies go to large farms, as small family farms are being bought up by huge, often publicly owned, farm corporations called agribusinesses. In 2003, 5% of subsidy recipients received 55% of the subsidies. Two-thirds of America’s farms don’t receive any subsidies. With the advent of agribusiness, we need to put an end to agricultural subsidies. America has always had a soft spot for the hardworking, independent farmer, who we believe exemplifies American virtues. However, we are no longer subsidizing poor, hard-working, independent farmers; we are subsidizing corporate America. Agribusinesses are created to maximize profits through vertical integration, in which the company tries to control as much of farming industry as possible by producing the seeds used on farms and farming, processing, distributing, and marketing the crops. The change from small family farms to agribusinesses can be demonstrated by the fact that in 1940, there were 6 million farms in the United States with an average size of 67 hectares (equal to 6700 acres), but
Page 3
By James Yaro by the late 1990s, the number of farms had been reduced to about 2.2 million farms with an average size of 190 hectares. The family farmer has to invest a large portion of his capital into the equipment needed for farming, while an agribusiness, with an economy of scale, has vast amounts of resources allowing it to be more efficient than the average family farm. This makes it very hard for small family farms to compete with the vast agribusiness corporations. The success of agribusiness has allowed the corporate farms to have a significant lobby in Washington with disproportionately large influence upon the politics of the United States. While agriculture makes up just 3% of the U.S. economy, and farmers make up less than 1% of the population, farmers receive massive subsidies, tax cuts and other financial incentives. From 1995 to 2005, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s subsidies for farming totaled an estimated $164.7 billion. It was the rise of agribusiness in the 1970’s that helped to give the farm lobby such an inordinate amount of power. Instead of small family farms with relatively little unification, there are now many agribusiness corporations that can throw significant financial backing behind a candidate in support of the farm lobby’s policies. The political and financial clout of agribusiness means that many political candidates will subscribe to agribusiness’s agenda to reCenter: www.archives.gov.on.ca Background: www.oznet.ksu.edu
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- Bioeconomy ceive support from the farm lobby. In the Senate, where all states have two senators and therefore an equal amount of power, the farm states and in turn the farm lobby, have a large amount of power. Further cementing the power of the farm lobby is the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Agriculture Committee. As the names suggest, these committees are very important in deciding farm policy. The districts of the House Agriculture Committee, a 46 person committee which makes up around 10% of the House, receive around 40% of the subsidies. These important bodies contain almost exclusively politicians who represent farm states. The farm lobby not only affects the election of member of Congress and members of state legislature, but also affects the presidential elections, as numerous presidential candidates support agricultural subsidies. In 2008, one of the main issues on Republican Mike Huckabee’s platform was agriculture. Stated Huckabee, “We must continue subsidies because our farmers compete with highly subsidized farmers in Europe and Asia, and they face fixed costs whether or not they produce a crop.� By asserting his support of keeping subsidies at the ridiculously high level they are already at, Huckabee was clearly hoping for the support of the farm lobby and constituency. Unfortunately, under the current rules of farm subsidization, agribusiness will continue to receive significantly more subsidization. There are two parts to the current system of granting agricultural subsidies; crop-related subsidies and conservation-related subsidies. There are also three types of payments for agricultural subsidies; direct subsidies, countercyclical subsidies, and loan and loan-deficiency programs. The amount of subsidization is dependent upon the amount of land a farm has, and since agribusinesses have more land, they receive more subsidization than family farms. In crop-related subsidies, farmers are paid to grow certain crops such as corn, cotton and wheat. Currently, the government distributes about $7.5 billion annually for crop-related subsidies. Conservation-related subsidies are subsidies that encourage farmers to follow environmentally-sound regulations. Conservationrelated subsidies accounts for $4.9 billion of the annual subsidization. In addition to crop-related and conservation-related subsidies, roughly $44 billion goes to poor farmers to pay for conveniences such as food stamps and other equipment. There are three types of payment for agricultural subsidies. The first type is direct subsidies, where the farmer receives a payment with a rate determined by the USDA which is not affected by market rates. The second type is countercyclical subsidies, where farmers receive payments if the USDA decides that the farmers are not getting fair value for their crops, and the government then supplements that. The third type is loan and loan-deficiency programs. In the case of a loan, the farmers take out a loan and use their crops as col-
lateral to pay back the loan, or in the case of a loan deficiency program, farmer get paid the difference between the loan and the market price of commodities. The other type of subsidy is called conservation related subsidies. In this form of subsidization, farmers are paid not to sell their crops, but to conserve the land by stopping erosion and protecting habitats. The subsidization programs developed by the USDA were developed in an age in which the economy of the U.S. was functioning in a completely different manner. The conservation funding programs were developed so that the U.S. would not produce too much surplus food and ruin the income for farmers. Unfortunately, in this day and age, continuing to pay farmers not to plant their corn is a poor economic decision. Due to an ever-increasing demand for ethanol, corn and soybean prices have skyrocketed. Prices for a bushel of corn are now as high as $5.25 a bushel, compared to $2 for a bushel in 2006. A possible solution to the problem of skyrocketing corn prices would be halting the process by which we force farmers not to plant their crops. Otherwise, without changes to this form of subsidization, we will force ethanol manufacturers out of business, as they will be unable to make a profit because of the over-inflated corn prices. The purpose of agricultural subsidies was to help impoverished family farmers, and agribusiness executives are certainly not impoverished family farmers. The only sort of subsidization that we should support is the subsidization of small family farms. We cannot allow the hard-working small farmer to be replaced by the ever-increasing mechanization of the agribusiness. We cannot allow our rural communities to be replaced by corporations, or we will lose m a part of our American heritage. We must o r.c g ge u increase subsidization of small farmers and eeh i.tr restrict subsidization of agribusinesses wishing to buy out small farmers. We must also upgrade rural infrastructure, health care and education for small farmers so that they have an easier time competing with agribusiness. Since the 1930s and the beginning of farm subsidies, the entire nature of farm politics and economics has changed. We have seen the rise of agribusiness and the increased political power that has come along with it. While the farm subsidies have remained the same, and in some cases increased, the profits from farming, especially farming in the form of agribusiness, have increased markedly. The issue of agricultural subsidies has been made an unfortunately small issue in the presidential election. Due to a lack of knowledge of the subject by much of the population, farm subsidization can be grossly manipulated by the farm lobby. Unless we want to spend over $165 billion in the next 10 years padding the already rich pockets of agribusiness owners, we will have to end the unnecessary subsidization of agribusinesses. We have to return to our roots and support subsidization of the family farmer, or else forever lose that integral part of our heritage to the menace of agribusiness.
Page 4
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
When Will It Stop? Advocacy for Animals
The illegal hunting of animals in America is increasingly problematic. Kevin Lin looks at poaching in America.
E
arly morning on September 12th, 2007, a 600-lb black bear was found shot to death with a crossbow in White Haven, northern Pennsylvania, near the High Elevations Bar and Restaurant. A few months prior, an immense white-tailed deer had been found butchered in suburban Pinery, Colorado, with its antlers carved out of its head. Several years ago, in Saratoga, California, a community of million-dollar homes, a man had been caught stalking deer in his wife’s Honda, with a $2,000 rifle and reduced noise ammunition stashed under his children’s coloring books. In December 2007, California game wardens arrested four men and a woman for allegedly running a ring of illegal hunters in Dos Palos. In fact, one of the ringleaders, by the name of Donald Hennagan, Jr., had boasted of “killing dozens of bears and mountain lions.” These are just several cases pertaining to a little known problem in America: poaching. Poaching, by direct dictionary definition is “the trespassing on another’s property in order to take fish or game [or] to take (fish or game) illegally.” Ever since the fifteenth century, poaching has always been conducted in forests, usually on the private territory of wealthy individuals. Poachers, usually driven by sheer necessity, would literally steal deer from the land of aristocrats, gentlemen and kings. However, as governments grew to own more and more territory, poaching became more prevalent on federally regulated areas. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, Congress had passed the first laws defining the nature of the term “property” in accordance with the animals on the specified territory. Illegal hunting
Page 5
since that period has usually been undertaken on government property, with poachers slaying and carting animals off law-restricted areas. Unfortunately, a new trend that has been observed in recent days changes the very nature of the problem. Contrary to age-old methods of poaching on private or federal land, poaching has moved much closer to residential and urban areas. As the examples above of recent poaching events show, almost all cases have been conducted in densely inhabited communities: White Haven is a busy village filled with businesses, and Pinery itself has 1,850 homes. These towns are not the small frontier towns next to forests and wildlife, but the underarms of cities and metropolitan areas. Urban sprawl, therefore, is largely to blame for the increased sightings of critters in these suburbs. As 79% of America’s population now lives in urban areas, according to the United States Census Bureau, housing has begun to cut deep into the natural habitats of various animals and is now moving much closer to wildlife than ever before. Thus, creatures that have rarely been sighted in residential areas, such as deer, bears, mountain lions, antelope and elk, are being forced out of their previous homes and into the backyards of residents in communities like Pinery. Rather than deterring poachers from hunting in the plain view of other residents, the closer proximity of “big game” has actually led these illegal hunters to be more brazen in their tactics. “Poachers show no lack of guts. There are no rules they won’t break,” said Craig Lonneman, a conservation officer in the Iowa division of natural resources. And surely enough, in Redwood City, California, there has been a case in which poachers, armed with crossbows, built tree stands in a public park, scattered bait left and right, and waited for deer
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- Bioeconomy to stumble by. In Des Moines, Iowa, two men were arrested for illegally hunting trophy-size deer at the local airport. “It’s becoming more of a huge issue every year,” said Lieutenant John Nores of the Cali-
still target them, sometimes for money, sometimes even superficially, as the killer of the bear in White Haven has demonstrated. Populations of mountain lion, elk and antelope have also been dwindling, bringing the world closer to a when bio-diver“Poachers show no lack of guts. There are time sity is at a minimum. no rules they won’t break,” said Craig LonPoachers also endanger society as neman, a conservation officer in the Iowa a whole by pursuing division of natural resources. their bloody passions closer to home. In the more populated comfornia division of fish and game. “These munities where children play in the streets guys are so good at playing this game.” and where people are always strolling outAccording to wildlife, fish and game side, poachers could cause great damage officials, the typical perpetrators are usu- to public life. Stray bullets and crossbow ally experienced hunters who could af- shafts could strike windows, cars and posford the expensive equipment for poach- sibly even children. Homeowners have ing. They hunt not out of necessity, but already begun expecting the worst. “Who for the thrill of the kill and the excitement knows when they could be sitting out on that they get out of stalking animals. They their deck and get hit with a stray bullet,” buy customized Browning rifles worth up said Joe Narracci, president of the local to $5,000, Leupold scopes and $800 Ex- homeowners’ association in Pinery. “Can calibur crossbows. “Sometimes, it’s like you imagine that happening to a child?” an addiction with these guys,” says Nores. Consequently, bounties worth tens A second underlying cause could of thousands of dollars have been placed on easily compel hunters to poach: the black perpetrators. A convicted poacher now facmarket. Hunters who kill the right animals es up to six years in prison and a fine close and who can find a consistent consumer to $20,000. However, as positive as these for animal products can easily make a large conditions may sound, it is still incredibly profit. Bear bile, for example, extracted hard to stop poachers. Poachers sorely outout of the bear’s gallbladder, could sell for number wildlife officials and completing $1,000 for every 250 cc, as the Japanese and one poaching investigation takes years. To the Chinese covet it for use as an aphrodi- make things worse, the illegal hunters seem siac, or for its alleged benefits in reducThey buy customized Browning rifles worth ing fever, protecting the liver, improving up to $5,000, Leupold scopes and $800 Exeyesight and break- calibur crossbows. “Sometimes, it’s like an ading gallstones. A baldiction with these guys,” says Nores. anced set of elk antlers could sell for $10,000, for use as wall trophies and decorations. to know where all the animals are and can Meanwhile, a pair of bighorn-sheep horns exploit the public’s lack of awareness to could vend for close to $60,000. After run rampant in their hunting sprees. For all, poaching has always been a hidden this reason, there are a good number of part of the world’s bio-economy. In fact, hotlines available for public use, so anythe global market for poached animal one can alert the authorities with tips on goods is estimated to be at $10 billion, suspicious activity. At this point, the vital with price tags worth tens of thousands task is for the public to keep its eyes and fixed on tiger pelts and komodo dragons. ears open. After all, if the poachers could The environmental detriment in no longer manipulate the people’s oblivipoaching is clear. Although bighorn sheep ousness to their advantage, some of the and black bears have been on the endan- lives and species of this balanced planet gered species lists for decades, poachers could be preserved for the better of all.
Page 6
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
USAID
S
vs.
hortly after the fall of Berlin and the end of World War II, agencies like United States Agency for International Development (USAID) were created to help the United States rebuild Europe and carry out its anticommunist agenda in Western Europe. Over fifty years later, the U.S. still uses USAID to pursue its own agenda, showing preference to countries that have similar economic and political policies and/or governments that have anti-abortion policies, even if the countries do not need aid as much as others. After World War II, as a part of the United States’ Marshall Plan, named for Secretary of State George Marshall, USAID was created with the purpose of rebuilding and uniting Western Europe against the growing Communist threat in Eastern Europe. While the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) and other international efforts helped give relief aid, USAID and U.S. government agencies under the Marshall Plan helped increase broad European cooperation and economic integration by increasing trade among the European countries, unlike other international efforts which focused on helping individual countries. Agencies like USAID gave preference to countries that would trade with each other and countries that were in the Organization of European Economic Cooperation (OEEC). This deepened the division between these countries in Europe, those which were under the Marshall Plan and those who were directly or indirectly controlled by the Soviet Union. This division, strength-
Page 7
Bush By Will Dubbs
ened by agencies such as USAID, was one of many factors that hardened the positions of the US and its European allies during the Cold War. When the Marshall Plan ended in 1951, USAID did not play a central role in American foreign policy until the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act. The Foreign Assistance Act consolidated many aid agencies into one USAID program. In 1999, USAID was officially made an independent government pro-
“USAID needs to adjust its policy to help people in need whether or not they have corrupt governments.” gram under Section 104 of Title 5 of the United States Code. During President George H.W. Bush’s administration, USAID made strides to increase the effect of aid to Third World countries. Andrew Natsios, the head of USAID from 2000 to 2007, made significant changes to USAID’s strategy for international aid and helped enact regulations so that countries would receive aid that would not fall into the hands of corrupt governments. Governments that received aid needed to, according to President Bush at a Mexico Conference on Financing for Development, show responsibility and have a functionary legal system to provide for the sanctity of contracts and allow free markets. Nations had to show a desire to improve health and
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- Bioeconomy education agencies as well as develop economic and trade policies that encouraged public and private investments. President Bush and USAID made sure that America would commit “to mobilizing domestic resources, attracting international flows,
“In addition, as seen in Sudan during the Darfur Crisis, poverty stricken areas with little relief can also lead to a major refugee problem in the surrounding areas. ” promoting international trade as a engine for development, sustainable debt financing and external debt relief, and enhancing the coherence and consistency of the international monetary, financial and trading systems,” according to the Monterrey Con-
receiving foreign aid in U.S dollars or in goods. Uganda, with the help of USAID, now exports $9 million a year in flowers and selling vanilla because of expertise given to Uganda farmers by USAID. According to a 2005 Washington Post article, USAID is “getting credit from humanitarian groups for quickly looking beyond immediate relief to long-term reconstruction,” something that many government agencies did not do. However given other U.S. restrictions, the U.S. has refused to give aid to some countries solely on the basis that they do not follow an anti-abortion policy. The heavy cost of the Iraq war has caused Bush to appeal to Evangelical Christian organizations for funding. In turn, Bush reinstituted the Reagan Mexico City policy where aid can only be given to countries that sign the Mexico City anti-abortion pledge. Although USAID gives $75 million worth of condoms to countries around the world suffering from HIV/AIDS, it does not give aid to 29 countries,
“Even though the United States is trying to successfully give money to impoverished countries, the U.S. is still excluding countries due to President Bush’s restrictions.” sensus document in 2002. This group of policies and restrictions were called “smart assistance” by the Bush Administration. Even though the United States is trying to successfully give money to impoverished countries, the U.S. is still excluding countries due to President Bush’s restrictions. When Bush and USAID created the “smart” assistance that gives aid to countries that achieve certain guidelines, the goal was to decrease poverty in those countries but some countries failed to follow those “smart” policies. However, the people in these countries still need the aid from the U.S. but USAID cannot give it due to President Bush’s restrictions. USAID needs to adjust its policy to help people in need whether or not they have corrupt governments. According to an article in the Foreign Service Journal in 2002, these “isolated swamps of poverty and discontent” where countries, particularly in Africa, have corrupt governments that cannot receive U.S. aid, could lead to areas that can become terrorist havens or sanctuaries where terrorists can gain anti-American support. In addition, as seen in Sudan during the Darfur Crisis, poverty stricken areas with little relief can also lead to a major refugee problem in the surrounding areas. Nastios, Secretary of State Colin Powell and President Bush worked on long-term recovery projects for countries that are in poverty. One way this was done by increasing trade generated by foreign aid instead of countries simply
18 in Sub-Saharan Africa, because either the countries’ family planning groups are associated with International Planned Parenthood or the countries’ health services are pro-abortion. While USAID has had successes under the Bush Administration, ideological roadblocks set up by the Bush Administra-
“...[T]hese “isolated swamps of poverty and discontent,” ... could lead to areas that can become terrorist havens....” tion have prevented some aid from going where it nees to go. When first elected President Bush stated that foreign aid was not important, but as shown, that position has changed substantially over the course of his Administration. Nevertheless, USAID does not have control over where the aid goes and how much goes to each country because of political, economic and social restrictions. If USAID is to have a greater impact in the future, the President needs to eliminate those restrictions and allow USAID to dictate where and how much aid goes to each respective country.
Page 8
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
Maya Chung
reports on the effects of TV advertisements and the obligation fast food companies have to our nation’s children.
A
Truthseeds.org
ccording to the Department of Health, over constantly creating commercials that encourage foods full of sugar one-third of American adults are obese. This and fat, commercials encouraging nutritious foods and healthy lifecan in large part be attributed to the numer- styles should be aired. Advertisements are extremely powerful and ous commercials advertising junk food bom- food industries should use that power to positively influence people, barding children. The food industry markets not to take advantage of them. It can be difficult for most consumcandy, fast food, and soda specifically to young people who do not ers to stop themselves from buying and eating a product they saw know the harmful effects of what they consume. The food com- numerous advertisements for. Instead of blaming consumers for panies take advantage of the being obese, the marketers should children’s ignorance by creating “Advertisements are extremely pow- be blamed for dishonestly adcommercials such as the Mcvertising their unhealthy foods. erful and food industries should Donald’s Kids’ Meal commerFood companies often are cial featuring the Cabbage Patch use the power to influence people not completely truthful in their kids. The food seems exciting rather than take advantage of them. commercials. For example, in or “cool” to children because of various advertisements, McDonthe popular toys marketed in the It is difficult for most consum- ald’s claimed that their French same commercial. Yet, accord- ers to stop themselves from buying fries were cooked in vegetable ing to The American Journal oil. Consumers discovered, howand eating a product they saw nuof Clinical Nutrition, approxiever, that the fries were actually mately 400,000 Americans die cooked in cow fat; John Banzhaf, merous advertisements for. “ every year as a result of obesity. a professor of law at George Therefore, the food industry must be honest to their consumers Washington University consequently filed a lawsuit against the and make sure buyers know what they are eating. The government company. Further, commercials make junk food appear, especially needs to regulate the commercials that the food industry airs on to young children, healthy and fun to eat. Marketers use popular television. It needs to force companies to tell their consumers the children’s characters, increasing a product’s “coolness.” Therefore possible harms and nutritional content of the product. Instead of the marketers take an unfair advantage of the children because
Page 9
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- Bioeconomy they know they are easier to convince. Similarly, most people do not read the labels on food packages. Food companies can sneak two servings into one package, and represent daily values and nutrition facts based on one serving. Consumers do not realize that they are eating twice the fat and calories they believed they were eating after reading the nutrition facts. Food companies must be required to put all the nutrition facts per one serving so that consumers are completely aware of the nutrition they are receiving. Marion Nestle, acclaimed author of several nutrition related books such as “Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health” and “What to Eat,” says that junk food sales are similar to tobacco sales. John Hoebel, a psychologist at Princeton University, said sugary and fatty foods stimulate the brain to secrete hormones which cause addiction to the foods, similar to the hormones secreted as a response to drug intake. A child who, at a young age, sees advertisements for junk food multiple
Justelite.net
because they are baked; these labels gives people a false impression that they are eating healthily. Because commercials have a lot of power over the minds of consumers, the food industry should use their marketing power to promote health and fitness instead of focusing only on their businesses. Though many people believe that it is the fault of consumers if they are overweight, it is actually beyond the control of most people to, as Marion Nestle says, refrain from buying something they saw numerous appealing commercials for. The government, in its duty to serve the public, should regulate what the food industry does and help people stay healthy. For example, the government needs to make sure labels and claims on packages are clear and Wordpress honest. Also, menus, especially at fast food chain restaurants, should have nutritional information by the items, so that consumers are conscious of what they are eating. At schools, various fried foods, snacks, candy, and soda are available to students daily. The government can make guidelines for the type of food that schools can make available to their
Current.com
The targeting of children with fast food may lead to empty playgrounds in the future and an equally staggering obesity rate.
times is likely to remember and recognize the brand. If that child constantly buys and eats the food the commercials advertise, he or she is likely to continue eating the junk food because of the addictiveness of sweet and salty foods, causing obesity later in life. Food industries must change their values and goals. Fewer commercials that advertise unhealthy foods should be aired on television. Especially for children, commercials should be made, funded by the government, to promote healthy foods that are also appealing. Instead of using popular characters to advertise junk food, they should use the characters to interest children in healthy food. Packaging and labeling on products also must be clearer. For example, labels that say “Smart Choice” appear on Doritos bags just
students. If the food industry takes care in being honest to their consumers, especially in marketing, and the government provides rules and regulations for the food industry, obesity can become less of a problem in the United States than it is currently. Much in the same way cigarette commercials are illegal, advertisements for unhealthy food should be banned. In April of 2007, the United Kingdom passed restrictions on advertisements of sweet, salty, and fatty foods to children under ten. In March of last year, France passed a rule saying that food advertisements are required to contain messages about nutrition. The United States government should follow in these governments’ footsteps, passing and enforcing rules that reduce marketing of unhealthy foods and therefore reduce obesity nationwide.
Page 10
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
Waiting for the next food drop By nancy dasilva
B
ecause of recent natural disasters, food supplies and funding for United Nations food drops have been almost completely eliminated. The United Nations Development Programme’s food drops were started in order to provide those who can not obtain food with crops that contain proper nutrition. The UNDP implements food drops as a temporary solution to many humanitarian crises and crop shortages. UN food drops deliver food to specific locations, such as internally displaced persons (IDP) camps, refugee camps, villages and small cities in developing nations. Many countries depend on these food drops in order to feed their citizens. For example, in Chad, a country almost three times the size of California, only 2.8% of the land is available for agriculture; Chad is highly dependent on UNDP food drops. Now, more than ever, it is of the utmost importance that the UN continues its commitment to feeding the world’s hungry. However, this goal is constantly facing obstacles. For example, environmental setbacks such as droughts halt the production of crops. Also, the rising price of food makes it nearly impossible for the UN to afford these crops. Finally, the UN must provide for the areas with the most need first, before supplying other sites. A serious consequence is that the people waiting for food in the original food drop locations will not be served for weeks on end. The first step must be to help the farmers, who supply the food, to grow their goods efficiently. Once the food supply is under control, it is imperative that the UN rework its existing food drop schedule. Finally, the UN must reorganize its funding plan to prevent a bankruptcy crisis, spurred primarily by the increasing price of food and a lack of funding from UN member states. Food is given to the locations with the greatest need for food first and then the remainder of the food is delivered to the other drop locations. Usually, this results in the bulk of the food being delivered to
Page 11
UNHCR
IDP and refugee camps as well as to areas affected by natural disasters or crises. The small amounts of food left over are dispersed among the villages. The food is accordingly unevenly distributed and not everyone is fed. This inequality can be corrected by creating a comprehensive schedule that will allocate a specific amount of food to each drop location and, therefore, reaching as many hungry people as possible. The most recent example of the UN’s emergency response was in 2006, after massive floods in Somalia and Kenya. The UN did not have an emergency stockpile of food for such a situation and, consequently, depleted almost all of its food sources. Also, delivering the food proved to be much more difficult than expected. The UN dug deep into its funds in order to buy helicopters and land vehicles to deliver the food. This crisis made the UN aware of its need to change how it would carry out future relief missions. The United Nations is now making efforts to save some of the food it obtains in order to create a food bank that is to be used only in emergency situations. Another action that should be taken would be to set up a program, in which the host country would provide the UN with transportation in exchange for the food supplies. The source of food for UN food drops is farmers, to whom the UN provides incentives. For example, many of these farmers participate in the UN’s food-for-oil program. However, lately, crop shortages and environmental problems have led to a smaller amount of crops being produced. Therefore, the UN is not able to acquire the proper amount of food needed in order to feed all of the people at the food drop sites. Also, many of the farmers are not equipped with the most up-to-date technology, which would allow the farmers to produce more crops at a faster pace. It is imperative that the UN creates a way for new technology to find its way into the hands of these farmers so that the food supply can increase as quickly as possible. Currently, the UN faces many obstacles, keeping it from cre-
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- Bioeconomy ating a clear-cut solution that will end this crisis. For example, disagreements within the UN not only create tension between countries, but also make it nearly impossible for the body to come to a decisive decision or pass a resolution. Another problem that the UN faces a depletion of funds. Due to the UN’s recent worldwide deployment of new peacekeeping forces, the UN has virtually no additional money to focus on the impending problem of food drops. The most threatening obstacle is the increasing price of food, a problem facing not only the UN but also the entire globe. According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the price of wheat has increased 80% since last year. If these new, higher price levels remain, the UN will be able to feed significantly fewer than 73 million people, the number the UN predicted it could feed early this year. However, major countries with large populations, such as China and India, have such a high demand for food that the rest of the world must compete for the remainder of the food supply, thereby raising food prices to a new extreme. One of the simplest solutions to the shortage of food is genetically modified (GM) crops. Currently, the UN is discussing whether or not to allow the use of GM crops in their food drops. However, if the argument continues for much longer, then the food supplies will run out. The UN must realize that, although GM crops have an initial high cost, their long-term benefits make up the difference. GM crops grow much faster and are able to grow in environments that are not ideal for a certain plant. Therefore, farmers can produce a variety of crops and the UN can obtain enough crops to feed all of the people at the food drop loca-
tions. Many nations, however, ban the exportation or importation of GM crops. Therefore the farmers should initially only genetically modify a small percentage of their crops. This way, they do not have any trouble exporting their goods to buyers other than the UN, such as markets in the European Union. Another obstacle that the UN may face is that many developing nations have many of the same concerns that western nations have about GM
Countdown
crops. They are unsure of the health side affects that GM crops may cause and not completely confident in their effectiveness. Another major problem that is distracting the UN from reaching a solution is the instability within the countries that receive food drops. For example, many developing nations in Africa have governments that would rather increase their weapons and armed forces ca-
“ As the food situation worsens, it is
imperative that the UN recognizes that this is one of the most pressing issues at the table.
Wordpress
Distrust of GMO crops lingers in many developing countries.
�
pabilities than feed their people. Unfortunately, the United Nations cannot supply an entire country with food. The UN needs to work with these countries to fix their budgets so that feeding the people is always feasible. Another problem within some of these countries is that the land is not capable of producing a substantial amount of crops. Because some countries only grow crops in one season, such as the summer, the UN needs to deliver food that will last for weeks or months at a time. The food needs to be plentiful throughout the harvest off-season and less abundant during the growing season. As the food situation worsens, it is imperative that the UN recognizes that this is one of the most pressing issues at the table. Many of the wars that are taking place amongst developing nations are partially caused by a lack of food supplies. As the amount of cheap food available drops, countries that do not have great access to food sources are becoming extremely defensive of their existing food supplies. If we do not give these countries equal access to food, then there is the looming possibility of these smaller wars manifesting into wars that would, potentially, span the globe. Our world leaders need put their differences aside and work together to find a solution that will bring both immediate and long term relief.
Page 12
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
The CAP
www.seriouseats.com
has GOT to GO
By William Manning
T
he Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was introduced to members of the European Commission in 1960, after intense negotiations between its member states. Its stated objectives include the protection of agricultural jobs, environmental preservation, and maintaining a reliable food supply. The European Union (EU) website describes the CAP as “fundamental to the strength and competitiveness of EU farming.” While EU expenditures on
Page 13
this program have decreased as a share of general EU tax revenue, foreign countries affected by the subsidies, such as Brazil, India, and other underdeveloped nations continue to call for their complete elimination. Even countries within the EU, such as Sweden, have joined developing nations in their call for removing the CAP, complaining of economic protectionism and general imbalances within the European agricultural economy. Given the current situations, the European Union as a whole would benefit greatly from removing these subsidies.
The CAP, codified in the Treaty of Rome in 1957, in many ways reflects the habits and needs of its creators, in both its creation and intended impact. The product of a general consensus among the members of the newly formed European commission, the CAP created the current system of agricultural subsidies in Europe. The largest advocates for the institution of the policy were, not surprisingly, the national leaders of European agribusiness: Spain, France and Portugal, with diverse agricultural products, ranging from dairy products to wine, cereal, and livestock. These nations had, in turn, been motivated by various agricultural lobbying groups, such as the Agriculteurs Fançais et Development International of France, and similar groups in Spain and Portugal. Not all EU nations, however, welcomed the CAP. Major opponents of the policy included Britain, Denmark and Germany, whose representatives realized that their nations would suffer a net financial loss by funding the subsidies. The EU regulates its agricultural policy, aided by an agricultural subcommittee, through the main legislative body of the EU. The goal of environmental preservation is addressed through the E.U.’s support of organic farming. Some significant benefits from organic farming have been observed in scientific studies, such as increased crop yields during drought and a reduced impact on the soil. The practice of organic farming is reported to be significantly more helpful in developing nations, due to its labor intensiveness. Unfortunately wealthy nations, such as the principal supporters of the CAP, are the primary beneficiaries of organic farming. Highly successful European farmers have managed to use organic farming as a means of justifying their outrageous cost to European consumers and to developing farmers. They cleverly employ organic farming techniques as a marketing strategy, by creating organizations to certify organic food and proudly displaying their self-created certifications on food labels whenever possible. Since the sophisticated techniques of organic farming remain obscure to farmers in developing nations, the Europeans then proudly proclaim the superiority of their goods. According to the 2006 annual report released by the European Commission for Agriculture to the European Parliament, the European Union has spent exactly 49,888,205,270.19 Euros on the CAP subsidies. The report also shows that although
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- Bioeconomy the percentage share of the CAP subsidies of the total EU budget has declined slightly, the net amount of the subsidies has steadily increased. This increase can be attributed to the increasing size of the European Union, as it continues to add member states.
policy of the National Farmers’ Union raises questions about the group’s true intentions. Less obscure are the effects of CAP payments on developing agricultural economies, victimized particularly by the portion of the CAP payments specifically dedicated
“Organic farming helps the wealthy supporters of the CAP, not third-world countries.” Thanks to the negotiation of Prime Minister Thatcher with EU member states, the United Kingdom obtained a partial rebate of approximately two thirds of the money it loses to finance the agriculture of other EU member states. Successive British administrations have also ensured the continuation of the rebate program as a means of reducing the cost to British taxpayers. While the average British taxpayer finances the CAP subsidies, the money given, in part, is used to aid the production of organic products, which have become highly popular throughout Europe. In addition, Britain’s prince Charles is among the many landowners producing organic products under the brand name “Dutchy Originals.” He is also among the many wealthy landowners receiving CAP subsidies. Additional reporting on the recipients of the subsidies reveals that the largest single beneficiary of the CAP agricultural policy is in the UK: a British producer of farming equipment receives over 2 million pounds in direct subsidies. That the British citizen must pay an estimated £14 per person to finance the CAP subsidies, which benefit companies rather than farms, clearly shows the CAP’s inefficiency. Among the few promoters of the CAP in the UK, the National Farmers’ Union maintains an office in Brussels for the purposes of hindering any cuts to the subsidies. Much like the subsidy program itself, the stated and actual goals of this lobbying group appear to be inconsistent. On its website, the group states its desire to help British farmers, and to promote “health and safety within the agricultural community,” and continues with similar goals such bioenergy and environmental preservation. The site then offers several articles describing policy designed to promote these goals. Interestingly, several additional articles, under the category of “economic affairs” are restricted to only the members of the lobby group. This concealment of the economic
to subsidizing exports. A 2006 report released by the public policy advocacy group, Oxfam, gives insight to the effects of the CAP subsidies. One of the world’s poorest countries, Mozambique, is a major victim of the practice of sugar “dumping,” the practice of selling exports on the world markets resulting from overproduction of sugar cane and beet sugar in Europe. Sugar cultivation is Mozambique’s largest single source of employment, though its capacity to provide jobs is greatly altered by the CAP policy. The World Bank estimates that EU subsidies alone reduce global sugar prices by 18%. This drop in sugar prices, combined with the effects of other subsidies from different regions, as well as general global competition
growth is hindered by a similar price depression, roughly 18%, in dairy products. There are countless more personal examples of the detrimental impact of the CAP subsidies. The CAP payments should be abolished as rapidly as possible, as they benefit only a minority of Europe’s millions of residents, most of who live in a select few European nations. The influence of various national farming lobbies can be overcome with increased public opposition to the CAP program. The greatest benefit to the European Union itself would be the financial savings resulting from reduced EU membership dues and potentially lower crop prices as a result of vanishing price supports. After further reduction in the CAP subsidies, it is likely that the United States will be prepared to make concessions, according to the U.S. representative at the failed Doha trade talks. This will only compound the benefit to developing nations, and also ensures that E.U. farmers will remain on the same level with other farmers in the developed world. One additional example of the potential advantages of removing the CAP subsidies comes from New Zealand, which has reduced its payments to agricultural
“The CAP payments benefit only a minority of Europe’s residents in select few nations.” and the technological superiority of developed nations in agriculture result in great difficulty for a prospective producer of sugar. Mozambique, whose land is perhaps more naturally capable of sustaining sugar cultivation, languishes in poverty despite the high rate of productivity of its farmers. Another example of the many developing nations affected by CAP subsidies is India. India is now the world’s largest producer and exporter of dairy products despite these subsidies, but its
employees to a minimal 1% of total agricultural revenue, according to a BBC report. Although the removal of agricultural subsidies was met with some opposition from New Zealand’s farmers, the predicted number of farm bankruptcies as a result of the cut of subsidies was a gross overstatement, as farmers in New Zealand had developed increasingly innovative measures of agricultural production. Europe, with sufficient political pressure, can likely obtain similar results.
www.crdi.ca
Page 14
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
F
American
d Culture
By Henry Hoglund
F
ood culture has played an integral role in the development of civilization. The partaking of food and drink has been seen by many as an acceptance of hospitality, an essential part of the culture, and an important social event in the community. As a great nation, America has a food culture upon which the essence of American cooking is founded. This cuisine, however, may be one of the most potent poisons ever to be encountered by Americans, and it comes in the most innocuous package—a simple hamburger wrapper. The food culture is such that Americans are growing progressively outward, as opposed to their European cousins, who are growing upward. The American diet of meat and bread, sullied in grease, has adverse effects for health and can also exacerbate preexisting medical conditions. Why, then, in the supposedly greatest nation on earth, can we not maintain a healthy lifestyle? Many factors have led to the radical devolution of our diets, not the least of which is easy access to cheap, highly processed, and unhealthful food. McDonald’s is famous for applying the assembly line theory of manufacturing to food production. This successful business model has been replicated at all lines of the supply chain, from the meat for the hamburgers to the produce for the lettuce, tomatoes, and buns. The food is made so cheaply that healthier alternatives are too expensive to be bought in quantity. Worse, in many cases fast food tastes better to the average palate due to the multitude of powerful artificial flavors. Organic food has also assumed a negative
connotation as being the foodstuff of the pretentious upper class, looked down upon as an inferior, expensive, and socially degrading meal option. According to the individual rights advocates we should have individual choice in what we put into our bodies. However, sometimes the choice that we enjoy can be false and self-destructive. There was quite a firestorm over the banning of trans-fats in New York City, with the Center for Consumer Freedom leading the charge against the new legislation. But if the choice to consume trans-fats were to remain nationwide it would cause 30,000 more premature coronary deaths than if trans-fats were abolished, according to Harvard nutritionists.
in jobs that do not require physical exertion and cheap food available, the pounds that we gain come faster. What many people do not realize is that with increased quantity and cost-effectiveness, quality suffers. In a heavily deregulated sector of the economy, companies are trying to compete so much that they are forced to drive prices down to an extent that quality truly diminishes. Multiple food scares are the result of this race to the bottom to provide the cheapest food, no matter the quality or humanitarian implications. So much food needs to be produced in an extraordinary small amount of time in order for profit to be made, and with companies expanding rapidly into new mar-
“In a heavily deregulated sector of the economy, companies are trying to compete so much that they are forced to drive [food] prices down to an extent that quality truly diminishes.” Peering further into the muck that is the American diet, some blame should be laid at the feet of America’s rabid consumerism. Furthermore, thanks to powerful marketing techniques, such as targeting the youth and getting them hooked early, more Americans are getting fat younger. In a libel suit carried out against McDonald’s in the mid 1990s, the judge found that McDonald’s was “exploiting children” by directly advertising to them and also was “culpably responsible” for its cruel treatment of the animals used to make the food. Another contributing factor to America’s unhealthy eating habits is the lifestyle that exists in post-industrial America. With more people
kets in order to gain the consumer base needed to stay afloat, the safety of the food we consume is not guaranteed. Companies are not afraid of litigation because there are active forces in Congress trying to limit it under the guise of “tort reform.” Some methods to improve America’s eating habits include the banning of trans-fats when there are healthier alternatives and the creation of programs to educate the consumer about the nutritional value of our food. Whatever plan is used to alleviate America’s food problem there will be heavy opposition, but if we are willing to allow greater regulation of the food industry, we will become healthier than ever before.
The McDonald’s Meal
740 570 310 Calories
Page 2
Wikimedia
Double Quarter Pounder With Cheese
Calories
Calories
Large Fries
Large Coke
Tuning Diplomacy The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- Bioeconomy ABC of AU
By Katie Cacouris
N
LA Times
ational anthems serve as common grounds of unity in any country. Why is music so special? Many call music a language; depending on how it is played or sung, each note can express enormous amounts of emotion, often moving people to tears. Musicians cannot be technically perfect; they have to put everything they have into each piece, drawing from their personal emotions in different pieces or movements. It has to be personal, something unique that each musician brings to the piece. Throughout history, monarchs have demanded that music be present at their courts; music was taught to daughters so they could entertain their guests and potential husbands, and after hunting monarchs required that music be played to relieve tension. In October of 2007, North Korea invited the world-renowned New York Philharmonic to perform in Pyongyang, the capital, in an attempt to relieve the uneasiness between the two nations. Generally, an orchestra’s performance in another country does not generate media attention. But North Korea censors every form of information: almost all citizens are blocked access to the Internet; it is illegal to listen to any music that is not from North Korea; the borders are sealed; and all news stories, in the form of newspapers and television, are reported only by the government. When ABC News was allowed to go to a school where students spoke English, reporters asked the students where they would like to travel. The students responded that they would not like to travel at all, because they have everything they need in North Korea. Some Americans opposed the Philharmonic’s decision to go to North Korea, arguing that the trip symbolized reverence for the country, and that the event could easily be spun by North Korea’s propaganda agencies. But these complaints were groundless. The North Korean people overwhelmingly enjoyed the repertoire of the New York Philharmonic.
Weekly Standard
Though the New York Philharmonic may not have drastically changed the way North Korea handles its nuclear program or any other policies, its visit showed the North Koreans a different side of the United States. If the United States was truly a “bully” as North Korean newspapers proclaim, then the Philharmonic would not have gone and made such an effort to connect with the North Korean people, first by playing the North Korean national anthem, and secondly by performing a traditional song, Arirang. Similarly, in 1973 the Philadelphia Orchestra went to China to perform. It was the first American orchestra to perform in China, coinciding with the policy of détente, in which the United States re-established diplomatic ties with China. The importance of music has led Hugo Chavez, the leader of Venezuela, to initiate Misión Música, a program which will give musical instruments and lessons to one million children who would otherwise not be able to afford them. The spread of music in these poor areas opens people’s minds and perspectives. Music has been overlooked in the past as a way of uniting people; especially in impoverished areas, a music program may deter children and teenagers from falling into the grips of crime and drugs. Misión Música will follow the example of El Sistema, a Venezuelan group program targeted at impoverished kids throughout the country, founded in 1975. The success of Venezuela’s musical ventures is easy to hear; Venezuela’s Simón Bolívar Youth Orchestra has performed in numerous European countries. Since music can be performed anywhere at any time, music is a universal language that everyone can relate to. Venezuelans can connect with Europeans and Americans with North Koreans. Music, an outlet for opportunity, unites different cultures. Though the performances of the New York Philharmonic may not have removed Kim Jong Il from power, the benefits of the performance are priceless. Perhaps in the future, politicians, instead of calling for war, should listen to the music of peace.
Page 16
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
S
hould the American people consume cloned and genetically modified organisms? From the earliest days of research into biotechnology, researchers envisioned harnessing the power of genetic engineering to enhance nutritional and commercial properties of food. Scientists manipulate cloning to create disease resistant organisms, generate body parts for transplants, and increase America’s food supply. The consumer benefit, however, cannot outweigh the potential health risks, environmental risks, and immorality of “playing God.” Americans
C CL LO CONS UMING LN E OE S NS E S
earlier than natural mice. Not enough clones have lived long enough to show accurate data about how clones age. Appearing healthy at a young age is an indicator for quick death. There have not been enough tests to determine whether cloned animals are truly safe for consumption. The cloning process holds many problems. For example, scientists still do not know how to prevent Large Offspring Syndrome (LOS). According to Japanese studies, one-third of cloned calves born alive have died young and many are abnormally large. In 2002, researchers at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research reported that cloned
By Starlyte Harris
should not consume cloned animals or their offspring since the organisms have been genetically tampered with and are therefore unnatural and unfit for human consumption. Reproductive cloning is the process of transferring a donor’s cell nucleus into the host’s egg whose nucleus, and thus genetic material, has been removed. Scientists then add electricity to the new egg to stimulate division and create organisms that have desirable genes. These artificial offspring are chosen to have increased protein, higher levels of antioxidants, and greater crop yields. Reproductive cloning is an expensive and inefficient process, which may require hundreds of attempts to create a viable animal. Less than 10% of cloning attempts yield viable offspring. Dolly the sheep was the sole survivor of 276 attempts to create and implant an embryo. In order to make one feasible clone, scientists must often undergo more than one hundred nuclear transfer procedures. In addition to low success rates, the clones suffer severe health complications. Cloning is irresponsible and immoral not only because these victims experience compromised immune function and higher rates of infection and tumor growth, but also since they often die mysteriously. For example, Australia’s first cloned sheep appeared healthy and energetic on the day she died, and her autopsy results showed no cause for her sudden death. Japanese studies show that cloned mice live with poor health and die
USDA
Page 17
mice have compromised genomes. By analyzing more than ten thousand liver and placenta cells of cloned mice, the researchers found that four percent of genes function abnormally. In October 2003, the FDA released its first draft document concluding that clones and their offspring are safe to eat. No labeling would be required for clones and their offspring. The decision profoundly affected the material content of the food industry. The FDA based its decision on data indicating that milk and meat from cloned animals and their progeny pose no unique threat to consumers’ health. Scientists now use reproductive cloning to produce fruits, vegetables, cattle, horses, pigs, goats and other mammals. Farm Sanctuary, the nation’s leading farm animal protection organization, in association with the American Anti-Vivisection Society, fights to end the animal experimentation. They denounce the FDA’s decision to endorse the sale of cloned animals and the progeny of clones as food. Public research shows health risks for clones at all stages of their lives. Results from cloned mice and cattle experiments show considerably reduced life expectancy. The two main U.S. cloning companies, Viagen Inc. and Trans Ova Genetics, already have produced more than 600 cloned animals for U.S. breeders, including copies of prize-winning cows and rodeo bulls. Although the first cloned animal was a tadpole created in 1952, the most publicly
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- Bioeconomy significant event in cloning history was the cloning of the sheep Dolly in 1996 at the Roslin Institute in Scotland. Never before had scientists used a cell from a fully-grown adult mammal to make a genetically identical copy. The success sparked controversy over cloning uses and abuses. In a 1997 presidential speech in response to the cloning, Bill Clinton said, “Each human life is unique, born of a miracle that reaches beyond laboratory science. We must respect this profound gift and resist the temptation to clone ourselves.” Since Dolly, scientists have continued to breed more cloned animals such as sheep, goats, cows, mice, pigs, cats, and rabbits. Cloning offers tremendous advantage for farmers, whose livelihoods depend on selling huge amounts of crops, meat, and dairy, since it allows them to replicate the best crops and animals. The reproductive breeding technique enables a greater number of ranchers to select and propagate the best cattle that are fast growing, have lean but tender meat, and are disease-resistant. The clones transfer these ideal traits to their offspring as well. Today’s most common procedure is somatic cell nuclear transfer, which involves transferring genetic information from an animal into another’s empty egg cell. The surrogate mother then carries that embryo until birth. This method is of commercial interest since many animals can be produced from a single donor. All products are “twins” that share the same genetic information. On January 15, 2008, the FDA released the final risk assessment on animal cloning, despite strong opposition from Congress. The FDA concludes that cloning presents the same risks associated with other forms of assisted reproduction such as embryo transfer. Clones, however, suffer higher mortality rates and have a higher deformity rate than normal animals. The percentage of embryos lost during cloning is higher than the percentage of embryos lost during normal traditional breeding. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency control animal cloning in the United States. As cloning techniques evolve, federal laws address the level of public health and safety. These include the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, Animal Health Protection Act, Animal Damage Control Act, and the National Environmental Protection Act. The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2007 fails to prevent human cloning since
the legislation solely prohibits implanting a clone into a woman. In November 2001, the Advanced Cell Technologies, a biotechnology company in Massachusetts, announced that they had cloned the first human embryos. In the UK, cloning a human carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. The media works to assuage the public’s concern about consuming unnatural and unhealthy food products. In 2000, FOX TV covered up a story about the effects of bovine growth hormone (BGH) that is secretly injected into cows. As a result of pressure from the hormone maker Monsanto, FOX TV fired two of its award-winning reporters in order to hide the story. Similarly, the media and government bury information that challenges genetically modified and cloned foods. The main motive is to protect companies that make immense profit off cloning. If food were labeled, giving the consumer a choice, the cloned food items may not sell as well as natural products. The law does not require companies to label genetically modified products. The American people, however, should know the content of their food. Labeling would raise awareness, but would not solve the cloning problem entirely. Even if the items were labeled, the consumer would not be sure if the progeny of a clone produced the food. The consumer would be faced with the same health risks and moral considerations. Theistic religions strongly oppose cloning. Christians believe that bringing a new human or animal life into the world mimics God’s role as the Creator. Buddhists, however, do not have the same objections, since they do not believe that life is a gift from God. Buddhists instead feel that life begins in many ways. The National Academy of Services (NAS) concludes, “There is no scientific evidence that cloning is associated with any unintended compositional change that results in unintended health consequences in humans.” Likewise, the FDA concludes, “The current weight of evidence suggests that there are no biological reasons…to indicate that consumption of edible products from the clones of cattle, pigs, sheep or goats poses a greater risk than consumption of those products from their non-clone counterparts.” However, the continuous debate over the issue shows doubt concerning edible clones. In today’s world, the best way to avoid cloned and genetically modified foods is by consuming organic products. As scientists discover new methods to mimic the cre-
1.A sperm fertilizes an egg. 2. The embryo grows into eight cells. 3. The cells split into four identical embryos, each with just two cells, that will be implanted into surrogate mothers. ation of life, debates will continue centering on health concerns and morality issues. If the FDA does not completely abolish the consummation of clones and their progeny, it should require the labeling of genetically modified and cloned foods so that the American people can choose what they consume. Should the FDA’s decision remain unaltered, America will become the first nation to allow artificially cloned products for sale.
Page 18 USDA
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
The other side
The Killer Crop: How Corn Prices are Ruining the Economy
By Aradhna Agarwal
I
t’s in our sodas, eggs, milk, and even in some of our fuel. In 2007, corn became one of the most damaging commodities to the world-wide economy. Ethanol is a cheap fuel that can be produced from crops such as sugar cane, and most significantly in the U.S., corn, as the U.S. is the largest producer of corn in the world. The advent of ethanol has resulted in heavy dependence on and large consumption of corn. Combined with the rapidly shrinking available space to grow crops, this has inflated the prices of corn and products associated with corn. In addition, the rising corn prices have driven up the opportunity cost of not making corn, resulting in higher prices for all crops. All other countries around the world, especially thirdworld countries, are suffering from huge inflation on corn-related products because of their heavy dependence on U.S. corn. Recently, due to increased ethanol production, less land is available for crops, and we are exporting less corn, further driving up the price of corn. Since mid-2007 the price of
George Mason University
Texas A& M
nearly every major food product has tripled, and today, US farmers are planting the largest corn crop in history. Analysts fear that a “corn shock” is steadily creeping up on the economy, with recent events of ethanol stocks plummeting and oil prices spiking up to $122 a barrel. Using extraordinary large amounts of corn to produce “earthfriendly” ethanol has proven to be more damaging than beneficial, and alternatives must be found in order to prevent worldwide economic chaos. Government financial support is the core reason for the large amount of production of corn in the U.S. Subsidies for corn are at nearly 7 billion dollars, although ethanol will only comprise of 5% of our fuel. “Subsidies are paid out of taxpayer dollars by the federal government, while the renewable fuel standard costs consumers at the pump,” said agricultural economist, Wallace Tyner. Even acknowledging ethanol’s role of boosting corn and other food prices, the Bush administration still insists that we should start relying on ethanol. “We’ve got to get off oil; American has got to change its habits,” said George Bush at the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference. “It should be obvious to all, demand [for oil] has outstripped supply, which makes prices go up.” However, he fails to recognize that
Los Angles Times ww w.personal.pdu.e
Background: Minnesota Department of Agriculture
du
MSNBC News d.yimg.com
Page 19 Time Mag
azine
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- Bioeconomy the same issue applies to corn. Demand for corn has been outstripping the supply because of how much of land is being devoted to corn for ethanol- in turn, this is causing the prices for corn to skyrocket. For this reason, if we were to switch to use more ethanol than oil, the prices would be the same or possibly greater for fuel.
“Millions around the world are starving due to high food prices, and millons will continue to suffer if the corn price continues to skyrocket.” Being the largest corn producers in the world, the US corn exports measure almost $9 billion dollars. Countries importing U.S. corn have heavily suffered because of the high prices, with protests in Indonesia and Pakistan over soybean and wheat shortages and riots in Mexico over rising tortilla prices being only a few examples. Many African countries haven’t been able to afford to import corn. “232 kilograms of maize creates 50 liters of ethanol, but it could also feed a child in a poor country for an entire year,” said Jean Zieglar, a UN independent expert to the right to food. Millions are suffering from starvation around the world due to the high food prices, and millions more will continue to suffer if the price of corn continues to skyrocket. The main stated reason for using ethanol is to reduce carbon emissions and the price of oil– though neither goal has been achieved in the U.S. Experts have even started to question whether ethanol is really as environmentally friendly as advertised. Ethanol corn plants consume large amounts of water and destroy soil. Because they destroy soil, corn planters must constantly search for new land, which sometimes involves destroying forests and wildlife- in turn, increasing carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, the nitrogen-based fertilizer used to supplement the growth of corn spills into rivers and contaminates the water. The fertilizer stunts the growth of marine life. “This rush to expand corn production is a disaster for the Gulf of Mexico,” said Simon Donner, an assistant professor in the Department of Geography. “The U.S. energy policy will make it virtually impossible to solve the problem.” Any livestock animal, such as a sheep or cow that feeds off corn, may become contaminated and sick from the pesticides and herbicides used on corn plants. The environmental constraints caused by the heavy production of corn for ethanol are unnecessary. We can see this by observing other countries who have found viable alternatives to producing ethanol. Brazil has developed a successful and flourishing renewable energy economy based on sugar cane production, as opposed to expensive, nutrition depriving corn. With sugar cane, Brazil has been able to produce ethanol for only $1 per gallon compared with the average, international price of gasoline which is about $1.50 per gallon. Today, ethanol comprises of nearly 20% of fuel in Brazil in comparison to the meek 5% in the U.S. In Brazil, “flexible fuel” cars that run on fuels other than oil (usually on ethanol) have proven to be very successful with nearly 65% of all new cars sold being flexible fuel cars. In addition, Brazilian farmers have recycled the remains of processed sugar cane to fertilize sugar fields. With Brazil’s ethanol production thriving, critics have developed concerns over the sustainability of the Amazon rainforest, which has been a target area for Brazilian crop fields. If farmers were to push
into the borders of the Brazilian rain forest, it would cancel out the successes with biofuels. However, for the time being, Brazil has not found a reason to push the shrinking borders of the biggest rainforest on the planet. Other countries have not adopted Brazil’s renewable energy plan, because Brazil’s conditions for sugarcane growing are very exclusive to the region. Brazil has ideal conditions– plenty of rain, available land, and cheap labor. Nonetheless, other countries such as India, China, and the U.S. have been closely observing Brazil’s progress. Sweden hopes to live far past Brazil’s standard by adopting an “oil-free nation” in the next 12 years. Most have admitted the idea is far-fetched; however, Sweden has been admired for their goals. “I don’t think this is realistic,” said Kenneth Werling, an executive at Sweden’s largest ethanol factory, “But it is a good ambition. Maybe we can build a society that is less dependent on oil, and that is good in itself.” Despite the difficulties ahead, the Swedish government is very serious about their goals. Fearing a global recession due to skyrocketing oil prices, they have been bracing their economy by turning to renewable energy sources. They have created 400,000 jobs due to their commitments to renewable energy while having 26 percent of their energy coming from renewable resources. Sweden imports ethanol from Brazil, converts alcohol into biofuels used in trucks and buses, and has even turned to wind and solar power for energy. In addition, the government has been offering tax breaks and rebates to car customers who buy flexible-fuel cars. Other countries with huge energy bills such as China, India, and the countries in the European Union, are closely watching the success in Sweden and Brazil. With the biggest populations in the world, China and India have been biting their fingernails at the
“The time has come to look into alternative methods to obtain ethanol.” increasing oil consumption in their countries and are vigorously studying successful renewable energy models in other countries. Their greatest challenge is to find an alternative to producing ethanol (other than corn) that doesn’t jeopardize the food security for their rising low-income populations. High prices on corn imports from the United States have already put strain on the two countries. India, especially, has been observing Brazil, as sugarcane is a dominant crop in both countries. With the exception of Sweden, countries in the European Union have been taking baby steps towards renewable energy, but have been turning their noses up towards ethanol and looking into alternatives such as biodiesel and biomass. “Everything about ethanol is good, good, good,” said Senator Chuck Grassley of Illinois in 2007. However, ethanol for the United States has turned out to be bad, bad, bad. The U.S. marketing plan for corn has been shown to be a proven failure, and the time has come to look into alternative methods to obtain ethanol such as switch grass and poplar trees. Corn is considered to be an “environmentally unfriendly crop” and has been harmful to the global market. Analysts have called the hunger devastating third world countries one of the biggest food inflation crises in history. Countries like Brazil and Sweden have adopted plans that have turned them into superpowers in the renewable energy market. Corn has not become the face of the future as government officials assured us; it’s become the face of starvation. It’s time to move on.
Page 20
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
Peeling Off the Organic Label Antonia Woodford
looks into the issues of organic food in the country and in the school Image Korea
“Potential health benefits aside, hurried consumers in a grocery store may have an exceedingly difficult time determining whether a food is organic.”
D
riven by concerns over rising obesity rates, American food culture is becoming increasingly healthobsessed. As consumers strive to become more health-conscious, sales of foods labeled as “natural,” “organic,” and a host of other “green” terms have skyrocketed. Many consumers equate “organic” food with improved health and well-being; grown without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, organic produce is considered to be purer, fresher, and therefore more nutritious than conventionally-grown food. Yet consumers’ knowledge about what constitutes an “organic” food often lags behind their enthusiasm. Contrary to popular belief, no conclusive research
Page 21
has yet determined whether organics are more healthful than conventional foods. Given that, according to the Journal of Food Science, organic products tend to be 10 to 40% more expensive than conventionally-produced ones, it is worth exploring what benefits organics truly provide. In December 2000, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) established a set of national standards that all foods marketed in the U.S. must meet in order to be labeled as organic. Organic fruits and vegetables must be cultivated without the use of artificial fertilizers, sewage sludge, most pesticides, bioengineering, or ionizing radiation. Organic poultry, meat, eggs, and dairy products must come from animals that have not been treated with growth hormones or antibiotics. Farm-
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- Bioeconomy As part of its effort to provide healthful food options, the HM cafeteria is expanding its selection of antibiotic-free, “allnatural” products.
1 2 3 4
For example, the cafeteria will begin serving antibiotic-free chicken and certified all-natural Angus beef. Organic produce will be used in some of the entrées, and ultimately the daily menus will list which meals contain organic vegetables. In addition, the cafeteria now sells antibiotic-free milk and Stonyfield Farm organic yogurt.
ers and businesses wishing to obtain organic certification for their products must submit their farms to inspection by USDA officials. Potential health benefits aside, hurried customers in a grocery store may have an exceedingly difficult time determining whether a food is organic. In a 2007 survey conducted by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), 28% of respondents interpreted the USDA’s “made with organic ingredients” label to mean that a food is completely organic. As detailed in the sidebar on the following page, however, such a label only guarantees
ens to be cooled to as low as 24°F, which is below freezing. There is no official definition of the terms “hormone-free” or “antibiotic-free” except in reference to meat and poultry. The USDA bans the use of hormones in raising pigs or poultry in all cases, so any “hormonefree” label on these products is meaningless. The labeling term that has created the most ambiguity is “natural.” According to Nielsen LabelTrends research, products labeled “natural” outsell organics by a 5 to 1 ratio and generate over $20 billion in sales per year in the U.S. In 2007, “natural” was the
The cafeteria’s push towards organics began with the purchase of all breads at Rollo Mio which is “all-natural, organic and made fresh daily,” according to former HM executive chef Jerry Kalicharan. Organic bread differs from conventional bread in that it is made only with USDA-certified organic ingredients. Similarly, the cafeteria has begun using organic poultry. “Most chickens are given lots of antibiotics because farmers want to make sure that they’re not prone to injury,” said Stefan Hildebrant, a manager of an organic business. “Eating those chickens might make you immune to some antibiotics yourself.” By eating organic poultry, you can keep your body free from antibiotics fed to an animal; by eating organic bread, you avoid ingesting the pesticides sprayed on ingredients in the bread.
Samuel Stewart
that a food has 70% organic ingredients. Only 16% of respondents knew that a USDA Organic seal is more authentic than seals from alternate certification agencies, which may or may not be accredited by the USDA. Compounding consumers’ confusion, companies often label their products as “fresh,” “hormone-free,” and “natural,” all terms that connote foods as organic. Yet none of these terms are interchangeable with “organic” and none of them meet USDA standards for being organic. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies fruits and vegetables as “fresh” if they never have been frozen or heated and contain no preservatives; yet the USDA definition pertaining to poultry allows “fresh” chick-
Stores promoting healthy and organic products have sprung up all over the country in response to surging consumer interest and demand. second most common label (after “kosher”) put on new foods marketed in the U.S., appearing on 2,023 foods and 405 beverages according to the Mintel International Group Ltd. of Chicago. This label can often be misleading: in 2006, beverage company Cadbury Schweppes marketed its 7UP soda as “100% natural” even though it contained high fructose corn syrup, an ingredient which many consider artificial because its molecular bonds are rearranged during the manufacturing process. Cadbury Schweppes was threatened by lawsuits until it decided to drop the label; Kraft Foods came under similar attack in 2007 for calling its Capri Sun juice “all-natural.” Consumers use the words “natural” and
Page 22
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII Flickr - Phil
The USDA began issuing its organic food labels in October 2002. Singleingredient organic foods, such as fruits, vegetables, and milk, are distinguished by a green USDA Organic sticker. Foods with multiple ingredients, however, are labeled in a much more complex manner.
Researchers have established that organic fruits and vegetables tend to have much less pesticide residue than their conventionally grown counterparts. “organic” almost synonymously, yet the USDA’s failure to establish a legal definition for “natural” leaves consumers open to exploitation by clever marketing techniques. The Sugar Association has petitioned the FDA to define “natural” on behalf of sugar growers, who find it difficult to compete with makers of artificial sweeteners. In a position statement released last year, the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO) also urged the FDA to adopt a uniform definition for the term. As of February 2008, however, FDA spokespeople maintained that defining “natural” is not a top priority. “We don’t have any evidence that people are confused,” an FDA spokesperson told the Palm Beach Post. Such denials should be very worrisome to consumers who want to make informed decisions when purchasing food. Once a given consumer deciphers a food label and discovers whether a food is organic, a pressing question remains: does organic food justify a hefty price tag? Studies reveal that consumers tend to overestimate the nutritional benefits that organics provide. In a 2007 Nielsen survey of consumers who bought organic food, 57% of North American respondents chose organics over conventional foods because “it’s healthier for me.” However, whether or not organics are more nutritious than conventional foods is still a subject of much debate. It is very difficult for researchers to come up with a definitive answer because of the variety of organic foods and the variety of conditions under which they are cultivated or produced. Researchers have established that or-
Page 23
ganic fruits and vegetables tend to have much less pesticide residue than their conventionallygrown counterparts. However, the implications of this finding are unclear. Most pesticide residue can be washed off by rinsing produce with water, and conventionally-grown food has very low levels of pesticide residue to begin with. Furthermore, organic produce is not guaranteed to be pesticide-free: while organic farmers cannot use synthetic pesticides, they are allowed to occasionally use certain pesticides derived from plants. One of the most common organic pesticides, rotenone, is highly toxic to aquatic animals and somewhat toxic to humans. Levels of pesticide residue also vary from crop to crop. Pesticides are less likely to penetrate the thick skins of fruits such as bananas and oranges. By contrast, apples seem to be the best fruit to buy organic: according to the USDA’s 2005 Pesticide Data Program Summary, pesticide residues of 43 different kinds were detected in 98% of apple samples. Conventional processed foods such as cereal and pasta, on the other hand, have such extremely low levels of pesticide residue that buying organic versions of them is probably unnecessary. Researchers have advanced a variety of theories about why organics might be more nutritious than conventional foods. One speculation is that organic plants must be stronger than non-organic plants in order to survive, since they must produce more antioxidants to shield themselves rather than relying on pesticides. If this were true, consumers
The USDA also specifies that its organic label refers only to how foods are grown and processed; it “makes no claims that organically produced food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food,” according to the USDA website.
> 95% The USDA considers foods “100% organic” if they contain only organic ingredients and “organic” if they contain at least 95% organic ingredients. Companies are allowed to affix the USDA Organic seal on any packaged food with at least 95% organic ingredients.
> 70% Foods with at least 70% organic ingredients are labeled as “made with organic ingredients,” while foods with less than 70% organic ingredients cannot have any claims on the front of their packaging about being organic.
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- Bioeconomy might expect to enjoy the added health benefits of antioxidants. Another theory is that organic plants grow in richer soil, and thus they must have more nutrients and taste better. Organics are often promoted as fresher, and therefore tastier, than conventional produce. This is true, but only to an extent – the freshness of a food depends mostly on how quickly it is eaten after it is picked, not on how it was grown. Organic food tends to be grown and distributed locally, rather than shipped across the country. Thus, it is often associated with being fresher. Interestingly, when the organic agriculture movement emerged in the early 20th century, proponents of organic farming emphasized its benefits on the environment, not on human health. That organic food be “produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations” is part of the USDA’s definition of organics. While faith in the nutritional superiority of organics may be misplaced, there is considerable evidence to suggest that organic farming is very environmentallyfriendly. Several studies have suggested that organic farming practices are less environmentally damaging than conventional farming techniques. Organic farms do not release synthetic pesticides, which can be toxic to animals, into the environment; they sustain diverse ecosystems; and they use less energy and produce less waste per unit area or per unit of yield than conventional farms. Supporters of the organic movement today still advocate its eco-friendly farming practices. In the mind of the public, however, organic foods continue to be primarily associated with personal health and wellness. In the Nielsen organic food survey, only 13% of respondents purchased organics mainly because of environmental concerns. The extra money one pays for an organic product is really paying for what does not go into the environment, not for what added nutrients the food may or may not have. One can of course argue that the environment and personal well-being are interconnected, but it seems like organic farmers’ original intentions have been misinterpreted and used to fuel a health craze. As consumers now clamor for more and more organic products, another problem has emerged. In the past, one reason for buying organic was to support small farmers and give back money to the local community. Supporters of organics also used to favor them as an alternative to mass-produced foods heavily treated with chemicals by large food corporations. Yet as the demand for organics and other “natural” products continues to increase, more and more large companies are seeking to cash in on the potential profits. Wal-Mart was one of the first large corporations to
tap into the organic market, stocking up organic foods alongside conventional ones. Major food producers have rushed to invent organic versions of best-selling processed foods such as ketchup, ice cream, and coffee. Organic supermarket chain Whole Foods has expanded tremendously, buying up many small organic producers in order to dominate the organic food market in the way that other companies dominate the conventional food market. All the companies selling organic foods have made the required changes to obtain USDA certification. But even though these companies continue to uphold stringent federal standards, some consumers fear that the integrity of the organic movement will be compromised. As organic food production becomes industrialized, small farmers are hard-pressed to compete. Processed organic foods are mass-produced just as conventional foods are, and one can no longer be sure whether an organic product on a grocery shelf is locally produced or from across the country. As a result, the freshness of organic produce is compromised, and consumers may be unable to distinguish whether they are supporting small farmers or agribusiness when they purchase organics. In the case of processed goods, many food corporations seem to use organic labeling purely as a marketing technique, a reason to charge consumers a higher price for products that are practically the same as their conventional counterparts. Additionally, the USDA may cave in to what many corporations likely desire: a weakening of its organic food standards. Lower standards would make it even easier for large food companies to market new products as organic, until the market would be so flooded with organics that the organic classification might lose all meaning. In 2007, the USDA added 38 new non-organic ingredients to the list of ingredients allowed in products with a USDA Organic seal. According to the OCA, this “will mean that Anheuser Bush will be allowed to sell its Organic Wild Hops Beer without using any organic hops at all. USDA Organic-certified sausages, brats, and breakfast links will be allowed to contain intestines from factory-farmed animals raised on chemically grown feed, synthetic hormones, slaughterhouse waste, and antibiotics.” The organic movement is well onto becoming the victim of its own success. Consumers upset by the eroding value of organic labels, however, can still obtain fresh, high-standard organic food from local farmers. An offshoot of the organic movement – or perhaps a reaction to the corporate takeover of the movement – is the local food movement. To support local farmers and protect the environment close to home, organic foods may be worth the price.
That organic food be “produced by farmers who emphasize the use of
renewable resources to enhance environmental quality for future generations,”
is part of the USDA’s goal in organic produce. Only time will tell if the USDA’s lofty goal influences our dinner tables.
Page 24
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
French Wave White Flag to
Genetically Modified Foods By Sarah Swong
B
iotechnology is a growing trend that has seized the US agricultural industry – 70% of the market is made up of genetically modified organisms. The European Union, however, which is the fourth largest importer of American genetically modified foods, is experiencing a different situation. Though EU governments are supportive of agro biotechnology, the public is not. The mistrust that European citizens have in their government is creating roadblocks to the expansion of this type of science. Though the EU and the United States have similar innovative ways for paving the agro biotechnological road, Europeans are much more skeptical genetically modified foods. In the 1990’s, several health inspection mistakes by the government led to serious health concerns, the cause of today’s current mistrust. Europeans’ suspicions of their governments hurt these countries economically, socially, and politically. It has led to a vast policy differences; the EU’s strict policies have been shaped by the public’s growing concern. This could damage the European-US trade, which will potentially hurt the US e c o n o m y.
St. Columbans Mission Society
Page 25
When first traces of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (also known as BSE, or “mad cow disease”) surfaced in the United Kingdom in the 1990’s, it spread to other parts of Europe. Though the public was concerned about the health risks associated with eating infected cows, U.K. regulatory agencies assured people that BSE-
“As a result of public concern for human health and the environment, European regulatory agencies have become extremely strict when approving imports of foreign foods.” meat was safe. However, in 1996, there was confirmation of a link between developing a similar human disease and eating BSE-infected meat. In 1999, traces of dioxin, a highly toxic chemical contaminant, were found in eggs and meat processed in Belgium. Then in 2007, there were three unrelated outbreaks of the highly contagious Footand-Mouth Viral Disease (one in January, August, and September) in the United Kingdom. These dangerous health threats were a result of the sloppy work of European regulatory agencies, and it has led people to lose faith and trust in them and their governments overall. Whether or not these circumstances were associated with biotechnology, it has caused the public be weary of any type of innovative type of agriculture because it has to be verified by the food agencies, and people have deduced from these incidents that the regulatory agencies are not dependable. Since the involved regulatory agencies are funded and operated by the central governments, the government has also been blamed for the health crises. As a result of public concern for human health and the environment, regulatory agencies such as the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency have become extremely strict when approving the importation of foreign foods. Since the majority of US foods are genetically modified, the EU consistently denies US exports. The Bush Administration has not granted these agencies enough money to conduct proper research, so most foreign imports end up being denied without fair or thorough research. In 1998, the whole EU issued a de facto moratorium, essentially a total ban on biotechnological products, such as many
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- Bioeconomy
Sam Javanrouh
Some farmers grow genetically modified pumpkins because of their larger size and faster growth, but oppoenents worry that such GM crops may contaminate fields of natural crops and thus prevent consumers from choosing natural and potentially safer products.
common strains of rice sold around the world. Its detrimental effect on world trade is evident-- the moratorium has cost US corn
“The governments of EU countries need to spend more money on independent scientific research to determine the safety of GMOs.” growers 300 million dollars annually. Though the blockage of biotechnological products has “officially” been lifted, there are still many EU nations that continue to forbid these products. This is not only bad for the United States’ trade with the EU, but also for many other countries with large agricultural sectors. In addition, people outside of the European Union often fear the health effects of GMOs without correct information. The result is fragmented trade with foreign countries and a damaged US economy. The problem can only be resolved by rebuilding the trust between the people and regulatory agencies. First, the governments of EU countries need to grant more money for independent scientific research; the funding will help perform thorough research. Proper research would yield a higher number of clear health safety reports and environmental policies to regulatory agencies, so agencies like the FSA will be able to determine the products’ effects on people and the environment more accurately. US approved foods, which are safe,
will then resume being main imports for the EU as long as they can be approved by the agencies, which will be less selective once they can properly research foods. When the public realizes the truth behind GMOs, they can make an informed decision about what they eat.
Greenpeace
Page 26
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
Don’t Drink! By Katie Dubbs
D
(Unpasteurized milk)
uring the Escherichia coli (E. coli) scare in the fall of 2006, people avoided all spinach products in case of contamination. This strand of E. coli originated from cow feces. Now some Americans drink raw milk directly from the cow’s udder despite the presence of E. coli in the stomachs of many cows. This unprocessed milk should be outlawed from the American market due to the severe health risks it presents. Furthermore, states should pass legislation ensuring milk sanitation. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), pasteurization is the process used to heat milk for a short period of time in order to kill bacteria and postpone spoilage. Unpasteurized milk that has not undergone this heating is often called “raw” milk. The health risk of raw milk is the presence of bacteria pathogens. These pathogens include E. coli, salmonella, listeria, Campylobacter, and Brucella, according to the FDA. “By heating the incoming refrigerated raw milk in specially-designed equipment, pasteurization ensures the safety and wholesomeness of the product while not affecting the quality or taste of the milk,” according to the National Dairy Council of the American Dairy Association. Unfortunately, many people drink raw milk and are unaware of the health risks. People drink raw milk for many different unscientific reasons. Some evangelical Christians drink raw milk because they follow the teachings of Jordan Rubin. The author of The Maker’s Diet, believes that food “needs to be consumed in the form that is compatible for the human body,” which means to him, “in the form that God created it.” Rubin was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and developed his own diet through readings from the Bible. Rubin’s experience and teachings illustrate a non-scientific rationale for drinking raw milk. A survey by the Department of Veterinary Science and the Department of Food Science at the University of Pennsylvania reveals that 42% of raw milk producers in Pennsylvania do not know the health risks of raw milk. According to this survey, 72% of raw milk producers in Pennsylvania drink raw milk because of its taste, while 60% drink it for the convenience. However, according to the survey, many raw milk drinkers drive out of their way and even employ illegal measures to obtain raw milk. Some producers, because
Page 27
of legal prohibitions, sell the milk out of the trunks of their cars. Many people drink raw milk because they think that because it is “natural,” it must be healthier. According to Sally Fallon, an advocate of raw milk and president of the Weston A. Price Foundation for Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, unpasteurized milk contains “lactic-acid-producing bacteria that protect against pathogens” while “[p]asteurization destroys these helpful organisms.” However, no scientific data supports the claim of a lack of nutrients and proteins in pasteurized milk. Furthermore, the pathogens in raw milk are neither destroyed nor deactivated, so as a result there have been many instances of illness and even death in raw milk drinkers. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has published reports of more than one thousand cases of illness caused by unpasteurized dairy products. In Los Angeles County alone, 394 cases from food-borne illnesses have been documented after 1973. 101 of these cases were caused by unpasteurized milk. Before 1938, illnesses from dairy products comprised of a quarter of all food-borne illnesses. After pasteurization became prevalent, milk-caused illnesses fell to less than one percent of all food-borne illnesses. In 1998 a rapid spread of the bacteria Listeria Monocytogenes occurred in the Los Angeles area, causing 48 deaths, including twenty unborn children, out of 142 documented cases. Last year the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report published by the CDC linked 45 different epidemics of food-borne illness to unpasteurized milk, resulting in two deaths, 104 hospitalizations, and 1007 people in total becoming sick. The spread of salmonella is particularly traceable to milk products. According to Ms. Fallon, “[A]ll outbreaks of salmonella from contaminated milk in recent decades… have occurred in pasteurized milk.” However, the CDC identified twenty-nine cases of diarrhea from salmonella in February 2007 that were linked to the consumption of raw milk from one dairy in York County, Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture banned the sale of this raw milk three times. Before the restrictions on this dairy, the number of people affected by salmonella grew, but after the restrictions were imposed there was only one reported case of illness. The federal and state governments have successfully es-
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- Bioeconomy
Proponents of unpasteurized milk ignore the health risks because they argue that pasteurization is an artificial process.
tablished laws to regulate milk sanitation and distribution. The federal government bans the interstate trade in unpasteurized milk. Almost all of the states have passed a version of the standardized Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO). The ordinance regulates milk sanitation and distribution laws at the state level. For example, under section nine of the PMO, only pasteurized or processed milk can be distributed in stores or restaurants. As of January 1, 2008, the California Department of Food and Agriculture passed amendment AB1735 establishing a new standard for milk regulation. Now, all milk in California, raw or pasteurized, cannot have more than 10 coliform bacteria per milliliter. This law ensures the sanitary quality of both raw and pasteurized milk. To achieve this standard, according to wewantorganicfood. com, you must pasteurize milk. Similarly, the Kansas Department of Agriculture issued a release concerning safe milk consumption in 2006, stating, “The only method proven to reduce the risk of illness is the sanitary production and proper pasteurization of milk.” Despite these government restrictions, raw milk can still be legally bought in twenty-seven states and in Ohio raw milk can be drunk by individuals from his or her own cow. Also, four states have not passed any version of the PMO: Pennsylvania, Maryland, California, and New York. In addition, people have found a loophole to the federal law banning interstate trade in unpasteurized milk by “cow-leasing.” Cow leasing is the procedure where two people from different states share rights to a cow, so the person from each state is not buying the milk but theoretically using his or her own rightfully owned milk. Texas Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul sponsored a bill in the House of Representatives this year
addressing the interstate trade of unpasteurized milk. When introducing the bill, Paul said, “Many of these people have done their own research and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than pasteurized milk.” Clearly, unpasteurized milk is not “healthier.” As recently as 1998, the Virology Laboratory of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (VLMDPH) detected rabies in a dairy cow in Worcester County. Before the cow died, some of its unpasteurized milk was sold. Sixty-six people drank the raw milk from the rabid cow, and all of those people had to receive treatment for rabies. In 1996, another cow from Worcester County was determined to have rabies, and all fourteen people who drank the unpasteurized milk also had to receive rabies inoculations. Rabies inoculations are expensive; they cost on average $2,400 per person. On average, 150 cows each year since 1990 are reported to have rabies nationwide. Notwithstanding dramatic examples like these, Paul also said in his speech to the House, “Americans have the right to consume these products without having the federal government second-guess their judgment about what products best promote health.” Rather than being principally an issue of federal regulation, states already have chosen whether or not raw milk is legal within their state. Twenty-seven states allow the sale of raw milk as some states have only passed parts of the PMO. Many Americans crave a way to lose weight and to eat healthy food. This craving has promoted the notion that seemingly “organic” products are intrinsically healthy. As Judi McLeod, reporter in the Canada Free Press, wrote, “Only hype makes organic food healthier.” Despite the hope that raw milk is safe, the facts assembled by federal and state health authorities clearly demonstrate that pasteurization is necessary to eliminate milk-based illnesses.
Page 28
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
The Paradox of Russian Democracy By Dan Temel
D
ating back to the days of Czarist and Communist rule over Russia, the vast nation has been built and governed with strong-handed rule. Traditionally, one party has dominated Russian politics, controlling all aspects of Russian life and suppressing dissent. Both Czarist and Communist rule suffered from the weight of uncontrolled corruption, and many fear that the fledgling Russian democracy, barely 17 years old, will fall to the same foe. The recent presidential election has aroused concerns that the Russian government will continue to be ruled by President Vladimir Putin even though his term has expired. Putin, the very man who has been labeled as a champion against corruption, may end up leading the nation once again due to technicalities in the constitution and a dissent not strong enough to overcome the state-controlled media’s propaganda. As Vladimir Putin’s presidential term dwindles, a swift consolidation of power has ensured that his successor will represent the same fiercely authoritarian sentiments that Putin so fervently campaigned for. Dmitry Medvedev, a lawyer from Saint Petersburg and Putin’s former campaign manager, was selected to continue Putin’s legacy of cracking down on corruption and breaking away from Western influence. Appointed to the post of First
Page 29
Deputy Prime Minister in December 2005, Putin quickly took an interest in the young lawyer beyond his public relations skills, and officially declared him his preferred successor on December 10, 2007. Medvedev was officially hailed as the presidential nominee of the United Russia Party in late 2007, and presumptive winner of the nationwide by as early as January 2008,with polls suggesting support from 79% of voters two months before the election. Putin and his political allies work towards a cult of personality based on the charismatic and savvy Medvedev; the state controlled television stations covered only his campaign, championing him as a national hero. Furthermore, Putin and Medvedev have been pictured on campaign posters marked with the slogan “Together we will win.” Armed with an 81% approval rating, Putin’s support galvanized Russian citizens to vote for the young lawyer, a support certainly integral to Medvedev’s victory on March 7, 2008. Medvedev’s landslide victory has been challenged by many domestic voting advocacy groups claiming that his supporters, aided or condoned by government forces, jailed dissidents and consolidated votes by intimidating workers into voting away from local polling centers. Outspoken citizens such as former chess champion Garry Kasparov have been jailed for demonstrating against the party in power, and have appealed to Western media outlets to cov-
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- International er important issues of injustice and bureaucratic failure ignored by state controlled media. Instances of intimidation towards workers and solicitation for votes in the workplace by Medvedev supporters were revealed in the New York Times in early 2008; however,
“Medvedev’s landslide victory has been challenged by many domestic voting advocacy groups claiming that his supporters jailed dissidents and consolidated votes.” the Russian government continues to deny the reports and continually challenges Western sources to show documents proving these allegations true. The Times additionally reported that many small towns controlled by party bosses forced citizens to take absentee ballots and vote under unregulated conditions. Once again, Putin’s regime has challenged the sources, and even many Western voting rights groups have had to concede that irregularities might have been present during the election. None could be proved. While the Russian government has fervently denied these accusations, other conflicts of interest have arisen. Early speculation that Putin would be heavily involved during Medvedev’s reign was confirmed in early 2008 when the president-elect stated that Putin would be appointed to the position of Prime Minister as soon as his term as President expired. Minority parties such as the Communist Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party immediately challenged the results, claiming that such a consolidation of power was “undemocratic” and would result in the nation becoming a one-party state. The minority parties further speculated that Putin would eventually take over the Presidency for a third, inconsecutive term, also unconstitutional under Russian law. The Russian election has also drawn the attention of political bodies such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which sent observers to supervise the election. After heavy restrictions were placed on the group, they eventually decided to abandon the campaign, declaring the elections to “apparently be in the will of the people.” Many Russian citizens have denounced Western criticism of their sovereign elections. Responses to the New York Times article published in late February 2008 were strong. One blogger identifying himself as victor_aka stated, “Russia has always needed to have a czar who tells people how to live and condemns things that are not right.” Another blogger, who only gave the name happy_bra chastised the United States for its own hypocrisy, declaring that “It is funny to read this from people who, for 10 years, have invaded other countries, toppled the stable regimes that ruled and enforced their rules there…and completely funny when you recall how these people hanged the former president [of Iraq].” The blogger further declared, “Mr. Putin and his team are evil, of course. And only cattle vote for him. BUT these
No Western ruler has made an official statement challenging the elections, but the suspicions of a tampered election with consolidated power have driven recent resentment of current president Putin and his dealings with the crises in Kosovo and the possible inclusion of Ukraine in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Though the opposition has cried foul play in the elections, the peculiarities in the election of Medvedev is hardly unique in the rich character of Russian politics. Consolidation of power has been integral to the strong-handed rule of the Czarist, Communist, and even Democratic regimes of the early 1990s. In a nation as large as Russia, it is very difficult to have a true democracy with such varying agendas and opinions. While the Russian system of government is certainly not perfect and full of paradoxes, the nation continues on a recent track of economic prosperity and increased independence from Western political and social ideals. Russian citizens will be the first to declare that their nation is imperfect; however, intervention from the United States and other Western powers only ag-
“No Western ruler has made an official statement challenging the elections, but the suspicions of a tempered election have driven recent resentment of Putin.” gravates their delicate balance of power sharing. The presidency of Medvedev will certainly be integral to the success of Russian in the first half of the 21st century, and Putin’s involvement in the government will be a good indication of just how much the Russian people value the rules they set forth in their own constitution.
are OUR problems. And WE will sort them out.”
Page 30
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
Debt Row
Why Debt Cancellation may be Africa’s Last Lifeline
By Spencer Penn
N
early a billion innocent people suffer for debts they did not incur. 33 of the world’s 40 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC’s) are African. Their collective debt of well over $200 billion places an unremitting burden on the people of Africa. Governmental corruption and squandered economic development have buried African nations under an ever-increasing debt. It is the duty of creditor nations cancel or significantly reduce the debt in the continent of Africa, thereby stimulating economic and political progress in the region. The origin of this monetary disaster can be traced to the imperialistic era, when a great scramble for Africa during the early 20th century left the continent divided among the European super-powers. Even though these colonized African nations ultimately gained independence, years of dependence left these countries reliant on the European nations they had fought decades to separate from. Governmental corruption is arguably the greatest threat to sustainable development in Africa. Following the streak of independence in the 1960s, many countries descended into tyrannical rule. In years that ensued, many of these nations suffered from political instability as well as constant civil and international war. Dictatorship in Africa is particularly harmful to economic development because of the way it intervenes in the economy. Governments often seize monetary aid and foreign investment. Recent studies by non-governmental organizations have estimated that one-fifth of all aid that has been delivered to African countries for infrastructure purposes has alternatively been spent on arms. These factors, combined with the death toll of widespread HIV/AIDS and malaria, create an environment in which little economic growth is possible. Foreign investors, afraid of losing their assets to government or guerrilla seizure, are hesitant to invest in much of this poverty-stricken continent. As a result, there is little municipal infrastructure, such as schools, health-care, and other important services. The lack of industrialization
Page 31
and modernization leaves Africa in a protracted state of economic primitivism. In Africa, the vast majority of laborers are farmers; furthermore, 3 out of 5 farms produce subsistence solely for itself. Stolen and wasted money combined with very low economic output leaves African countries with outsized debts, perpetually growing. Monetary aid comes in one of three forms. Lending is the purview of the private sector. Individual companies or investors will loan money to a country at a specific interest rate. These lenders should, in a well-developed, credible nation, make up the largest percent of the debit. Unfortunately, private sector loans to HIPC’s are rarely repaid, and because of this, the only private sector loans that African countries receive is in the form of sub-prime loans, which usually charge an extremely high interest rate. The second type comes in the form of bilateral agreements. Here a lender nation provides a sum of monetary aid to a debtor nation. In the specific case of African debt, the interest rates are lower than are found in the private sector. Still, lender nations are often accused of taking advantage of developing countries in difficult economic positions by extracting economic or political concessions. The third form involves multilateral institutions. Several groups have formed in recent decades to combat poverty abroad, namely the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the African Development Bank, and the World Bank. The IMF created the Heavily Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) Initiative in 1996. In essence, the IMF would formulate a poverty reduction plan for a specific country. Further debt cancellation using IMF funds would follow if a given country reached a certain political or social benchmark. The HIPC Initiative, one of several very similar poverty-reduction programs, has not succeeded in Africa because it often required the political goals of purging the government of corruption and the instillation of democracy. Most tyrants, preferring to maintain power, dismiss the HIPC Initiative in favor of the nation remaining burdened with debt.
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- International
Moonbeammqueen
New York University
Jubilee Debt Campaign
Serious Seats Blog
Debt cancellation, regardless of whether or not it brings about stable democracy, is imperative for welfare of the people of Africa. Debt does not allow quality of life improvements because it prevents the building of needed infrastructure. Often, dictatorships and other tyrants incur debt; the debt should not be the burden of all the people, who were unfairly represented originally. In general, a government should fundamentally not tax its citizens in order to payoff its own purposeless debts. This is especially true when the loan goes into the leader’s pocket. Debtpayment taxation becomes injustice against the people. The relative amount of the debt is important to recognize when regarding the issue of its cancellation. The Jubilee Debt Campaign claims that the UK could pay off all the debt owed to it if each of its citizens paid £3 (about $6) annually for 10 years. Many NGO’s make the point that the relative size of the debt of the debtor nation is so small in regard to revenue of the lender nation that cancellation of debts would be significantly less costly than their repayment. The average person in Africa lives on less than $2 a day. If all African debt was canceled and the economy of these countries was to be improved, then the income of the average African could easily increase by many times, thereby significantly improving the quality of life. Money is better spent within the debtor nation rather than the lending nation. Immoral lending makes up a large portion of the overlying problem. Many will argue that debt cancellation will encourage immoral borrowing, developing into what economists refer to as a “moral hazard”; countries will intentionally borrow more money than they could repay, knowing that they can easily default on the payment. However, the bigger issue is not with the possibility of default on debt, or immoral borrowing, but immoral lending. Lending nations or institutions often times lend more money, at higher interest rates, than they know can be paid back. These sub-prime, high-risk loans employ extreme terms, un-payable by African nations. Furthermore, various debt stipulations undermine the innate sovereignty of nations. Creditors should be limited as to the amount of money they are allowed to loan to an HIPC. It is clear to a lender whether or not their monetary aid goes towards its intended cause, and furthermore whether or not the loan is repayable. Immoral lending is particularly heinous because it often times creates an “un-payable” debt. In developing countries debt places a burden on the economy, preventing it from functioning correctly. Economies grow when surplus revenue is reinvested into the country and the economy. This creates growth and prosperity. However, when all of the surplus revenue goes directly toward satisfying a debt, the economy is unable to function correctly and no substantial surplus can be created, thus no further payment of the debt can be made. A debt becomes “unpayable” because the little revenue generated in a defi-
cient economy is only able to satisfy the interest payments. So as the economy is in shambles, it is never able to pay off the actual debt, but rather only the ever-regenerating interest. Immoral lending leads to un-payable debts and, in theory, ever-lasting poverty—a vicious spiral downward. The first action that should be taken by the US is to immediately cancel all interest on debt owed to it. The US, which is also a debtor nation, may not be able to afford to completely cancel its outstanding debt, but rather only collect from debtors the initial value of the loan, not the interest accrued. Because the largest stake in the IMF as well as the World Bank is held by the US, this would most likely be able to influence others to take similar actions. In order to prevent immoral lending, a cornerstone cause of debt in Africa, the US, the members states of the Paris Club, which is comprised of 19 of the world’s wealthiest nations, and all multilateral creditors should place limits on the size of a prospective loan with regard to the GDP of a given aid recipient. In order to promote privatization, the mother of modernization, the US should provide better insurance policies to private sector investors. For example if an investor wanted to invest a given amount of money in an African country, for a proportional fee, the US government should insure that investment value. In the case of governmental seizure of the investor’s assets, the US should reimburse the investor’s full investment. Additionally, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, an agency of the government which serves a similar insurance purpose, should donate its $ 4 billion dollar reserve, gained from investment fees, to debt reduction. In order to benefit the African populous directly, the US could increase the issuance of micro-loans. These funds would be given directly to African people to develop infrastructure and the economy, thereby circumventing a potentially corrupt government. In this manner, economic improvement could be the segue into governmental stability. It is critical that the U.S., as well as other countries, act to alleviate the suffering of impoverished people. The issue of governmental corruption is one that will be solved in time, but preceded by the creation of sustainable economies in Africa. A two-part plan, the partial relief of African debt coupled with the promotion of privatization, will work to create more self-sufficient and diversified economies. The general improvement of Africa will yield a number of intended and unintended results. Debt will be relieved, international trade will be multiplied, and disease will be reduced. In addition, making Africa a more suitable living environment may relieve the tensions of overpopulation, provide a final-frontier of sorts, allowing people to migrate to the sparsely populated continent. But more importantly, these reforms will bring sustainable development to a continent overrun by corruption and debt, alleviating the need for future monetary aid to the region.
Page 32
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
The Victimized Candidate: Why Ralph Nader did not spoil the 2000 election By Jason Sunshine CBS News
C
onsumer advocate Ralph Nader, under the premise that most Americans are disenchanted with the Democrat and Republican Parties, launched his fifth presidential bid on February 28. Nader is noteworthy for his involvement in the 2000 pressidential election controversy, in which many Democrats labeled him a ‘spoiler,’ blaming him for taking Democratic votes away from Gore that would have given him the state and the presidency. For his 2008 campaign, he is voicing a familiar refrain, that none of the presidential candidates address ways to combat corporate crime, waste within the Pentagon, or labor rights. On “Meet the Press,” where Nader announced his candidacy, he proclaimed, “All the candidates – McCain, Obama, and Clinton – are against single payer health insurance, full Medicare for all.” He also stated that he wants to take on the “bloated military budget, labor law reform, repealing the Taft-Hartley Act [a law restricting the power of labor unions], and corporate crime.” He claims to be running not to win, but to open up a set of issues neglected by the mainstream candidates. Will Nader be the face of change in 2008, or has his time passed? Before his unsuccessful presidential runs, Nader had a long history of political activism, advocating for consumers rights and health and safety regulations. Under his umbrella non-governmental organization, Public Citizen, Nader was instrumental in establishing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. He is in large part responsible for mandated seatbelts and airbags
Page 33
Ilka Hartmann
in our cars and the reimbursement that people receive when bumped from an airline flight. Nader has always stood out, partially due to his claiming to be the only honest man in Washington. After he supposedly ‘lost’ the election for Gore in 2000, Democrats’ perceptions of him transformed from being an admirable social critic to a conniving, mal-intentioned old man. This is apparent in that in 2004, he received just .3% of the popular vote. However, just like in 2000, most of his votes were captured from Democrats disenchanted with the current state of politics, looking for change. While Kerry might not have been a face of change in 2004, Obama is considered a fresh young face capturing the votes of those disenchanted voters. Voters believe he represents change and a new start. There is simply not enough room for Nader. After Bush defeated Gore in the controversial 2001 Florida primary, Nader received of tremendous criticism. Democrats blamed him for putting Bush in office simply because he got more votes than the margin between Bush and Gore. The margin was a mere 537 votes. Those who blame Nader fail to take into account that Patrick Buchanan, Henry Brown, John Hagelin, and Howard Phillips, the other third party candidates on the ballot, received more than 537 votes. It is absurd to direct the blame at Nader. Instead of worrying about Nader’s 97,000 votes, why don’t Democrats worry Bush’s 3 million? Democrats must recognize that a number of factors contributed to Bush’s victory other than Nader’s presence. All major television networks made the incorrect assumption that all of Florida’s polls closed at 7 PM EST. The westernmost part of the state, which has been historically Republican, is part of the Central Time Zone. Since many of the networks announced at 7 that the polls were closed, people in western Florida lost an hour of vot-
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- Domestic ing time. A survey estimate by John McLaughlin & Associates put the number of voters who did not vote due to confusion as high as 15,000. Florida Secretary of State’s Office contracted a private firm, Database Technologies Inc., to identify convicted felons and remove them from Florida’s voting polls. The database compared lists of felons with the Florida voting rolls by looking for a rough match between names, date of birth, and race. Roughly 97% of people removed from the polls were innocent and removed by mistaken identity. They were overwhelmingly African-American Democrats. Al Gore never protested nor supported the voters’ lawsuit to regain their votes. The San Francisco Chronicle, on November 9th, 2000, published a survey that discovered, “Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush.” If
“The margin (between Bush and Gore) was a mere 537 votes.Those who blame Nader fail to take into account that the other third party candidates received more than 537 votes.” even one percent of those Democrats had voted for Gore, he would have become president. Half of registered Florida Democrats didn’t even bother showing up to the polls. Better yet, in his book “Crashing the Party,” Nader states, “In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore, and the rest would not have voted at all.” If Nader had not run in 2000, victory would be far from certain for Gore. To blame the entire election on any single factor, especially one third party candidate, is ridiculous. Nader’s candidacy for president election after election is important to the democratic process of our country. Cognizant of the fact that our republic was not meant to be a two party system, it is a disgrace that two equally corrupt parties have a complete and total monopoly over our electoral process. John Adams said, “There is nothing I dread so much as the division of the Republic into two great parties, each under its leader.’’ Even more disgraceful is that the parties criticize candidates such as Nader who refuse to be slaves to an agenda they may not agree with. During the 2004 election, Nader claims many wealthy Democratic donors told him they would donate tremendous amounts of money to his public action groups if he abstained from running. However, they refused to guarantee his issues would be heard in Washington. To this Nader responded, “Why should I spend all of your money working on issues that are just going to run into a brick wall in Washington?” Later in 2004, Nader and fellow presidential candidate John Kerry held a widely publicized meeting. Kerry was working to gain the support of Nader and his voters. In that meeting, Nader presented Kerry with 20-plus pages of issues he felt were important for Kerry to “put on the table.” According to Nader’s book “An Unreasonable Man,” the issues included the environment, labor, healthcare, tax reform, corporate crime, campaign finance reform and various consumer protection issues. Nader told Kerry that if he chose three of the issues and made them an important part of his campaign he would not only refrain from running but also throw Kerry his support. After several months passed and Kerry failed to adopt any of Nader’s issues, Nader announced he would proceed with his presidential campaign. Naturally, he was criticized repeatedly for that decision. Before he officially announced his candidacy for the 2008 election, Nader supported Democrat John Edwards. During an early 2007
Associated Press
Ron Moody
Other Third Party Candidates: Ross Perot (top left), Strom Thurmond (top right), George Wallace (middle) interview with Wolf Blitzer, he called Hillary Clinton a “panderer and a flatterer.” Later in the interview, he stated, “You know the two parties are still converging -- they don’t even debate the military budget anymore. I really think there needs to be more competition from outside the two parties.” This was the first of many signs of Nader’s discontent with the Democratic favorites. He was strongly urged not to run by leading Democrats. When he made the decision to set up an exploratory committee, a whole mess of editorials and blogs emerged questioning his intentions and claming the candidate running is not Nader but his “ego.” If Nader truly is looking to boost his ego, there are a million ways other than leading an unpopular campaign in an election he is bound to lose miserably. While Nader should continue to run as long as he has the support to get on the ballot, he should not be elected. The premise of his campaign is to fight corporate greed and take down corporations that take advantage of their workers. Naturally, this is all well and good. However, Nader rarely, if ever, mentions anything about the civil liberties that were trampled on during the Bush Administration. On his website, Nader asserts he wants Bush and Cheney to be impeached. However, he fails to touch upon how he is going rebalance the rela-
“If Nader truly is looking to boost his ego, there are a million ways other than leading an unpopular campaign in an election he is bound to lose miserably.” tionships between the three branches of government and restore civil liberties. If corporate control over the government was the only issue, Nader would be the man for the job. However, there is an array of issues more important that Nader does not address. Fortunately, Nader is not a serious candidate in the 2008 election, so people should stop worrying about him, questioning his intentions, and defacing his legacy. The man who put seatbelts in cars deserves much better.
Page 34
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
ew
C
N BS
s
The Double Standard of Satellite Destruction How China and the United States fight to advance their own space weaponry at any cost.
O
n January 11, 2007 China successfully obliterated an orbiting satellite, using a “groundbased, medium-range ballistic missile,” according to a spokesman for the United States National Security Council. The Chinese claimed that its satellite was not functioning correctly. The United States government was furious. CNN declared that the test could “undermine relations with the West and pose a threat to satellites important to the U.S. military.” Members of the international community including Japan and Australia joined the US in protest. “We are aware of it, and we are concerned,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said. This is the first time that China has demonstrated anti-satellite missile capabilities. Moreover, the test proved China’s ability to target areas of space that contain U.S. spy satellites and missile defense systems. China clearly wanted to demonstrate its military strength and challenge the US in space. Understandably it was regarded by the US as a hostile action that could fuel tension and threaten America’s security. What the United States is embarrassed to tell you, however, is that they have possessed this same technology for more than two de-
Page 35
By Justin Katiraei cades and have shown no qualms about using it. In fact, the US military conducted a test in 1985, which vaporized one of its own satellites, a situation almost identical to the recent China missile launch. In August 2007, President Bush issued a space policy which gave the United States “freedom of action in space” along with the right to “deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so.” On one hand the United States is claiming freedom in space for itself, but on the other hand it’s denying other countries that right. We don’t hold ourselves to the same standards as we hold China because then things would actually be fair. It was only a matter of time before the United States proved its hypocrisy which we hold China for fear of losing our technological advantages. On February 21, 2008, barely a year after the China scandal, the United States government shot down one of its own satellites as well. The media flooded the US in support. According to the Associated Press, “The State Department has instructed US diplomats around the world to inform their host governments that the operation…is aimed solely at protecting people that could be affected by about 1,000 pounds of toxic fuel on the bus-sized satellite now hurtling toward earth.” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, “It’s an attempt to try to protect populations on the ground.” How sweet of the United States government to come to the world’s rescue like that. The truth about why the test was conducted, however, is different from George Bush’s excuse of public safety.
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- international Grreg Baker
China Daily
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (left) encouraged more transparent military policies for China after its satellite destruction. Chinese Foregin Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao (right) denied that China called on the U.S to provide more information about its own test.
US officials claimed that the satellite was carrying hydrazine, a fuel that could injure or even kill people who are near it. And the White House wanted people to believe it was that reason alone which persuaded President Bush to order the shoot-down. Logically though, the United States would never spend 40 to 60 million dollars shooting down a satellite that was very unlikely to injure anyone at all.
“As a spy satellite, it would not be a stretch of the imagination to assume that the United States had sensitive technologies on this satellite which they did not want the rest of the world to see.” The operation is reminiscent of the earlier strike by the Chinese military, as both countries used the excuse of defunct satellites to launch a missile. Also, both nations decided to use missiles to take a non-explosive warhead into low-Earth orbit and steer it into the target. However, what is rarely discussed in the American media is that the American satellite was projected to land in an ocean if left undisturbed. The chances that the satellite’s landing would have hurt anyone were slim to none. USA 193, the now obliterated satellite, was launched in December 2006. The satellite’s central computer failed almost immediately afterward, leaving it uncontrollable, which the US government advertised as the justification for the satellite’s destruction. What the United States was less forthcoming about is the fact that it carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor. This can be discerned from the fact that it was a National Reconnaissance Office satellite and therefore a spy satellite. As a spy satellite, it would not be a stretch of the imagination to assume that the United States had sensitive technologies on this satellite which they did not want the rest of the world to see. Russia does not share views on this matter with the United States. Russia’s defense ministry claimed the US’ actions were an “attempt to move the arms race into space,” and that it “does not
look as innocent as [the United States government is] trying to present it.” In fact, the Russian ministry has gone so far as to say, “The impression arises that the United States is trying to use the accident with its satellite to test its national anti-missile defense system as a means of destroying satellites.” After weeks of discussion, Moscow and Beijing were proposing a new treaty banning the use of weapons in space. It seemed that China and Russia were taking the higher ground by seeking an end to this nuclear competition. However, according to the AP, the treaty was “immediately rejected by the White House.” Apparently, the space arms race is over. The consensus from scientists was that the objective of the U.S. missile launch was far less altruistic than to protect Americans from toxic fuel. According to space weapons experts interviewed by the Washington Post, “The Bush administration’s attempt to shoot down an out-of-control spy satellite…will help the military advance its anti-missile and anti-satellite planning and technology.” The Washington Post further noted that, “The attempted shoot-down will also enable the Pentagon to practice using, in an urgent scenario, key elements of its space defense apparatus, including the Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and its sophisticated space identification, tracking, and targeting system.” Furthermore, David Wright, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists said, “There’s a real concern among people here and in other nations that the U.S. is trying to develop space weapons in the guise of other systems.” It is understandable that countries will want to develop and use anti-satellite missile technology. But to lie directly to the face of the world about the rationale for such actions is wrong, and there should be consequences for the US and China’s dishonesty. What is even more astonishing is that the United States had the audacity to claim that China’s shoot-down was uncalled for, when they themselves have conducted the same shoot-downs. Meanwhile, in true hypocritical Western fashion, on his recent visit to China, Defense Secretary Robert Gates encouraged the Chinese to provide greater transparency regarding military procedures.
Page 36
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII New Open World Foundation
Turkey’s Hijab Heresy By Jackie McDougall
“The future of Turkey seems unclear. The issue currently in deliberation is the parliament’s recent lifting of the headscarf ban.” Page 37
W
alk down the street and you’ll see bobbing headscarves with ornate designs. Listen with a pious ear and you’ll hear the call to afternoon prayer. But search for justice and you will not see Islamic courts upholding centuries-old decrees from the time of the prophet Muhammad. In Turkey, unlike in most of today’s Middle Eastern countries, a constitutional court now stands in place of Sharia law. Bordering the Middle East and almost touching Europe by the Bosporus Straight, Turkey is as much a mixture of traditions as its location suggests. It contains a Muslim majority but a secular government. It hides religiously sanctioned honor killings in its rural areas, while flaunting efforts to delete justification for such misogyny from the second holiest book in Islam, the Hadith. Since it was founded in 1919, the modern republic of Turkey seems more Westernized than most Islamic countries, as its founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk gave Islam a backseat to secularization and pro-Western reform. It became democratic in 1940 when it gained a multiple party system, thereby further separating itself from its Middle Eastern neighbors and inching closer to integration with the European Union (EU). But democracy has always been a semi-settled matter in Turkey. Among issues such as freedom of speech and unfair minority treatment, frequent un-democratic intervention by Turkey’s military has been an EU concern. The military, which sees itself as the protector of secularism, has taken it upon itself the responsibility to overthrow any ruling party that might threaten Turkey’s
The Horace Mann Review
Issue 5- International secular establishment - a testament to Turkey’s commitment to keeping religion separate from politics. It is this type of commitment to secularism that is now threatening Turkey’s democracy. This march, senior members of Turkey’s secular establishment filed a lawsuit against the Justice and Development party (AKP), accusing it of “anti-secular activities” and calling to ban 71 of the members, including the prime minister and the president, from politics for five years. Turkey’s army-backed secular elite, who have long fought to keep religion out of politics (by corrupt means if necessary), failed to do that last year when the AKP, a group with Islamic roots, became the majority in parliament. In an effort to prevent the AKP’s ascent to power last July, the opposition embarked on a campaign of fear, using the media to send ominous ads about the consequences of an AKP victory. The campaign backfired, however. Painting the secularists as anti-democrats, it resulted in a landslide victory of 47% for the AKP. Recently, presented with concrete evidence of their fears, the secularist opposition – the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) – has wasted no time in striking again. The issue currently in deliberation is the parliament’s recent lifting of the headscarf ban. Western dress has always been encouraged over Islamic dress since Ataturk founded present-day Turkey. The country’s founder even made some forms of Islamic dress illegal. Turkey’s historical effort not only to keep religion separate from politics but also to minimize the role of Islam in Turkey is evident; as internationally acclaimed writer Elif Shafak observes, headscarves “do not fit into [a] picture of the idealized ‘modern Turkish women.’” However, tensions surrounding the issue are now mounting. As Turkey’s devout Muslim middle class expands, so does the number of women that can be seen wearing headscarves. Furthermore, in the election of the current president, Abdullah Gul, secularists had less of a problem with Gul’s Islamist roots than they did with his wife’s wearing of the headscarf. To the secular elite, not only did Mrs. Gul’s headscarf carry the threat of a greater visibility/prevalence of Islam in Turkey, it also stirred fears of a less secular government. Although the revocation of the ban is essentially a move
party has already suspended the drafting of a new constitution intended to be more liberal and grant greater rights to citizens. Moreover, while the party had previously professed its faith in the Constitutional Court and the judiciary, its members are now trying to evade the judiciary in order to alter the constitution. More specifically, they are trying to alter the law that al-
“If Turkey wants to sustain its title of democracy, it needs to throw aside its un-democratic partisan politics and increase the power of the dictating government by re-shaping its constitution.” lows the impeachment of political parties based on broadly defined abstractions like “secularism” and “Turkishness.” The future of Turkey seems unclear. While the secularist MHP will likely continue to lose support for its actions, the AKP is a growing threat to many Turks striving to preserve secularism. If Turkey wants to sustain its title of democracy, it needs to set aside its un-democratic partisan politics and increase the power of the dictating government. This can only be accomplished by re-shaping the temporarily put aside constitution.
“Although the revocation of the ban is essentially a move towards greater democracy in that it gives women greater choice, Turkey’s secularists see it as a step towards a repressive Islamic state.”
TypePad
towards greater democracy in that it gives women greater choice, Turkey’s secularists see it as a step towards a repressive Islamic state. The revocation has also given secularists the opportunity to continue their legacy of autocratic intervention in politics. The opposition’s fears and accusations are not unfounded. The president and the AKP came to power by appearing more capable of bringing democratic reform than their secular counterparts. However, after 7 months of presidential and parliamentary power, the AKP has done little in that direction. The
While women in the Middle East have gained more rights, some still are afraid to show their face in public. Countries like Turkey are split over the desire for securlarism and the tradition of religion that plays out in the political arena.
Page 38
Heading Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII
The Review is sponsored in part by
The Horace Mann Review 231 West 246th Street Riverdale, NY, 10471