Genetic Roulette Just Became Less Risky For the FrankenFood Producers

          Bio-tech companies have been systematically poisoning our food, and recently they got more protections from liability for any harm caused by their genetically modified foods. How did this get by without much resistance and press? Well while this bill was being passed through the legislature and signed by the president most activists and liberally inclined people were busy changing their profile pictures to the red equal sign. Along with gluing their eyes to Supreme Court coverage. An already profitable yet harmful company got further protections under the law. This law which was passed was unofficially dubbed the Monsanto Protection Act. This law gives the Monsanto corporation immunity regarding any harm which comes from eating their GMOs (genetically modified organisms) even if health risks were to emerge as a consequence of eating genetically modified food. This protection comes even as Monsanto is extremely profitable, due in no small part to their aggressive and morally questionable business model. Reading this if you are new to the topic you may think I’m coming down too hard on Monsanto. I mean... they feed the world, right?

          Most people would respond to this with an uncaring response like “doesn't affect me so I don't care”. As I mentioned earlier, 80 percent (and likely more due to cross-pollination) of the crops I mentioned are genetically modified. These crops are also then fed to livestock (and the livestock may also have been genetically modified). Here is a TED talk about seeds, and how important they are in our everyday diets. So the food you eat is likely unless otherwise stated, genetically modified. There are not a lot of studies conclusively stating that these foods harm us. Although many of the studies which do not state there is harm are funded by or conducted by patent holders of the genetically modified seeds. There are many other processes our food goes through which are not proven to be bad or good for us, but those are still labeled. Here is a TED talk about our lack of labels for genetically modified food. So, this iffy modification which has not conclusively been proven to be safe to ingest has had a prolific adoption by our farmers and is not labeled. That should scare everyone.

          While growing more and more food per acre and providing technological advancements to agriculture are good. Monsanto has abused their patents and essentially bully all those who are not paying for their patented seeds on a yearly bases. I think the best example of this would be their lawsuit against organic farmers whose crop was cross-pollinated without their consent or knowledge with neighboring farmer’s Monsanto seed based plants. Organic farmers have no definitive way of knowing their crops had been cross-pollinated, and no practical way to stop it. Over 80 percent of: soybeans, corn, cotton, sugar beets, and canola seeds are genetically modified. The scenario of an organic farmer being entirely surrounded by GMO plants entirely plausible. At the very least it is likely an organic farmer has a neighboring farm or two with genetically modified seeds. This passive and practically inevitable infringement will not stop Monsanto from harassing farmers.      

          Essentially, I am trying to call attention to this over protected and potentially harmful industry. Our politicians are in the pocket of powerful bio-tech companies like Monsanto, we need to have a counter-acting force telling them enough is enough. These companies have too much legal power; and don't have enough independent high quality studies of their processes to remain hidden in our food, and they too aggressive to organic farmers.

To find your house representative's contact information go here.

For our congressional representatives, click on Al Franken's name to contact him or Amy Klobuchar to contact her (if you're from Minnesota).

LG and B Take a Step Forward; Yet Trans* is Held Back

     If I were to tell you that the repeal of DADT was flawed you would probably give me a funny look and ask why. Considering I identify as a queer transwoman you would think that I would be all for the repeal. Though, it's not about what happened with the repeal but what didn't happen. From December 21, 1993 until September 20, 2011 gays, lesbians, and bisexuals were explicitly not allowed to openly serve in the military. The arguments that were used to keep gays out were flaky and based on bigoted and dated views from uptight ignorant conservatives. Thankfully, this institutional discrimination pertaining to sexual orientation has been stopped at least officially. However, transgender people are still restricted from military service due to other Department of Defense restrictions on gender identity. What was thought of as a legislative victory that would allow everyone to serve in the military, and likely labeled as an LGBT legislative victory, was really just an LGB victory. This is now viewed as an issue over and done with by too many activists. 

     Stories like Morgan Wade’s beg to differ. She came into the Navy presenting as male. Later on, she discovered she was a transgender female and also began dating. She came out to her girlfriend who ended up being very supportive, and got married in 2007. Afterwords Morgan began taking hormones to transition; she went to therapists and doctors outside the military’s network so as not to be caught on to. This was however risky due to it being against the rules and punishable by administrative discharge. After being on hormones she started struggling to deal with the misogynistic jokes in the locker-room, Morgan left the Navy and the sense of pride that came with the job she loved, along with a possibility of a large promotion. She later after Don’t Ask Don’t Tells’ repeal Morgan applied to be let back in and resume doing what she loved, diving. After many tests to test her psychologically and mentally, they all came back giving her a clean bill of mental health. She was however denied acceptance into the Navy, the reason for being denied was left blank. As I mentioned earlier, there are restrictions on gender identity. I would love to get into what these are so I could pick away at what exactly is a problem however these regulations seem to be ambiguous (though they are explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia) yet enforced. It is likely due to the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders) classifying non-cis identified people as having Gender Identity Disorder. Yet this does not explain Why Morgan was still denied acceptance into the military after numerous tests pertaining to her psychological well-being turned out just fine. As mentioned earlier this is seen as a case of discrimination that is over and done with. Trans* acceptance in our military, as well as other LGBT civil rights laws (employment discrimination comes to mind) requires more attention. We can’t disingenuously slap a T on LGB and call it good, we need real language in legislation to stop discrimination based on gender identity in our military.

Abstinence Lies

     I believe of all the feminist issues: abortion, equal pay for equal work, misogyny perpetrated by elected officials that abstinence education is an overlooked issue. Considering how prolific anti-sex advocates have been with implementing it in thirty-seven states which require sex education that includes abstinence. Twenty-six of which put an emphasis on it as the best method. Not only do teens have sex with or without being taught abstinence, it shames the sex they will have and makes it less likely for them to use contraceptives. Furthermore, these programs often lie to help persuade and shame teens away from sex. I believe abstinence should be a minimal part, or a side note to a comprehensive sex education program. For those who will have sex regardless, they will do it safely. Of course the steps preceding intercourse would be discussed since no one regardless of age should rush into something that can change (and yes if done recklessly, ruin) a relationship. For those who want to wait until marriage to have sex, they can wait until marriage.

While choosing to be abstinent can be the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and STIs (since no sex means no way to transfer or initiate any of those circumstances). Abstinence based sex-ed is the most ineffective method of preventing STIs, teenage pregnancy, and well sex (since there are many more teens who choose to engage in sexual behavior than abstain). A teen is sixty percent less likely to get themselves or another person pregnant if they are taught some kind of comprehensive sex education. Also sex, the act the people in place are trying to prevent is not impacted by abstinence based education. So, why do we continue to teach abstinence when it not only fails in it's mission to prevent sex, but also increases teenage pregnancy. This then feeds into the issue of abortion which many of these same abstinence-only pushers believe is never an option.

A contact for an article relating to the subject came to the conclusion that not only does abstinence-only sex education not lower pregnancies she also went on to say... "Advocates for continued abstinence-only education need to ask themselves: If teens don't learn about human reproduction, including safe sexual health practices to prevent unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, as well as how to plan their reproductive adult life in school, then when should they learn it and from whom?" This brings up the excellent point since this is often left unanswered by the pro-abstinence side. Typically their argument is “if we teach kids not to have sex they won't have sex... Until marriage!”.

We need to stop misinforming our kids. If we continue down this path of sex-shaming, “just don't do it” approach we will end up with... Teens learning about sex from the wrong outlets, more abortions (which pro life or choice, you don't want), more intimacy and sex issues (even for those who wait until marriage). All because an otherwise well intentioned program which doesn't work was accepted as commonplace in our schools.

Sources

http://news.uga.edu/releases/article/abstinence-only-education-does-not-lead-to-abstinent-behavior/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6xuW_xhPn4

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/?mobile=nc