Yeah, Google "mile and somatic cell count" Keith Addison wrote:
>http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn_a_little_more_than_milk.060616.htm > >Rethinking Schools Online, June 1, 2006 > >Got A Little More Than Milk? > >Students get a glimpse into the corporate-controlled food system by >looking at the politics of food > >[Rachel's introduction: After several days of discussion, the 11th- >grade global studies class decided to follow the "precautionary >principle," http://www.precaution.org/lib/pp_def.htm which guides >policy in many European nations, and institute a worldwide moratorium >on genetically modified (GM) foods until they could be proven safe, >and to require labeling of any GM foods that were approved for >consumption. Furthermore, the summit voted to take away the right of >any person or corporation to patent food.] > >By Tim Swinehart > >"Got milk? Want strong bones? Drink milk. Want healthy teeth? Drink >milk. Want big muscles? Drink milk." > >"The glass of milk looks nice and cold and refreshing. If I had a >warm, homemade chocolate chip cookie, it would make my day. They go >perfect together." > >Ari and Colin could have been writing radio spots for the Oregon >Dairyman's Association, but instead they were writing about the glass >of milk I had set out moments earlier in the middle of the classroom. >My instructions to the students were simple: "Describe the glass of >milk sitting before you. What does it make you think of? Does it >bring back memories? Do you have any questions about the milk? An ode >to milk?" > > From the front row, Carl said, "Mmmmm... I'm thirsty. Can I drink it?" > >"Why don't you wait until the end of the period and then I'll check >back with you on that, Carl," I responded. > >We had spent the last couple weeks discussing the politics of food in >my untracked 11th grade global studies classes. And while students -- >mostly working class and European American -- were beginning to show >signs of an increased awareness about the implications of their own >food choices, I wanted to find an issue that they would be sure to >relate to on a personal level. One of my goals in designing a unit >about food was to give students the opportunity to make some intimate >connections between the social and cultural politics of globalization >and the choices we make as individual consumers and as a society as a >whole. A central organizing theme of the unit was choice, which we >examined from multiple perspectives: How much choice do you have >about the food that you eat? Do these choices matter? Does knowledge >about the source/history of our food affect our ability to make true >choices about our food? How does corporate control of the global food >supply affect our choices and the choices of people around the world? > >I wanted to encourage my students to continue asking critical >questions about the social and environmental issues surrounding food, >even outside the confines of the classroom. I wanted to develop a >lesson that would stick with them when they grabbed their afternoon >snack or sat down for their next meal, something they might even feel >compelled to tell their friends or family about. > >Milk turned out to have the sort of appeal I was looking for. For >almost all my students, milk embodies a sort of wholesome, pure >"goodness," an image propped up by millions of dollars of advertising >targeted especially toward children. My students had been ingrained >with the message that "milk does a body good" for most of their lives >and had been persuaded by parents, teachers, celebrities, and >cafeteria workers to include milk as a healthy part of their day. But >I believe that my students, along with the vast majority of the >American public, hasn't been getting the whole story about milk. I >wanted to introduce them to the idea that corporate interests -- >oftentimes at odds with their own personal health -- hid behind the >image of purity and health. > >Growth Hormones and Milk > >I wanted to help my students reexamine the images of purity and >health that milk evoked by presenting them with some unsettling >information about the Monsanto corporation's artificial growth >hormone, rBGH. Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH -- also known >as Bovine Somatrotropin, bST, or rBST) is a genetically engineered >version of the growth hormone naturally produced by cows, and was >approved by the federal Food and Drug Administra-tion (FDA) in 1993 >for the purpose of increasing a cow's milk production by an estimated >5 to 15 percent. Monsanto markets rBGH, under the trade name Posilac, >as a way "for dairy farmers to produce more milk with fewer cows, >thereby providing dairy farmers with additional economic security" >(see www.monsantodairy.com). But with an increased risk of health >problems for cows stressed from producing milk at unnaturally >enhanced levels -- including more udder infections and reproductive >problems -- critics argue that the only true economic security >resulting from the sale of Posilac (rBGH) is the $300-500 million a >year that Monsanto makes from the product. > >The human health risks posed by rBGH-treated milk have been an issue >of intense controversy since rBGH was introduced more than a decade >ago. Monsanto and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) say that >milk and meat from cows supplemented with bST are safe. On the other >hand, a number of peer-reviewed studies, most notably those of >University of Illinois School of Public Health Professor Samuel >Epstein, MD, have shown that rBGH-treated milk contains higher than >normal levels of Insulin-Like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1). Although IGF-1 >is a naturally occurring hormone-protein in cows and humans, when >increased above normal levels it has been linked to an increased risk >of breast, prostate, and colon cancers. Monsanto itself, in 1993, >admitted that rBGH milk often contains higher levels of IGF-1. The >uncertainty surrounding these health risks has led citizens and >governments in Canada, all 25 countries of the European Union, >Australia, New Zealand, and Japan to ban rBGH. > >The continued use of rBGH in the United States points to the >political influence of large corporations on the FDA's regulatory >process. When, in 1994, concerned dairy retailers responded to the >introduction of rBGH with labels indicating untreated milk as "rBGH >free," the FDA argued that there was no "significant" difference >between rBGH-treated milk and ordinary milk and warned retailers that >such labels were illegal. The FDA has since changed its position and >now allows producers to label rBGH-free milk. Paul Kingsnorth, >writing in The Ecologist magazine, offers one explanation for the >FDA's protection of rBGH: "The FDA official responsible for >developing this labeling policy was one Michael R. Taylor. Before >moving to the FDA, he was a partner in the law firm that represented >Monsanto as it applied for FDA approval for Posilac. He has since >moved back to work for Monsanto." Not an isolated incident, this >example illustrates what critics often refer to as the "revolving >door" between U.S. biotechnology corporations and the government >agencies responsible for regulating biotech products and the safety >of the nation's food. > >The story of rBGH in the United States encapsulates many of the worst >elements of today's corporate-controlled, industrial food system. >Despite the illusion of choice created by the thousands of items >available at the supermarket, consumers have little knowledge about >where food comes from and how it is produced. By uncovering the story >behind rBGH, I hoped students would begin asking questions about the >ways corporate consolidation and control of the world's food supply >has drastically limited the real choices and knowledge we have as >food consumers. > >To familiarize ourselves with Mon-santo's point of view, we spent a >day in the computer lab exploring the corporation's website >(www.monsanto.com). I asked students to look for arguments made in >favor of biotechnology and genetically modified foods: Why does >Monsanto argue that these technologies are important? What benefits >do they offer to humans and the environment? Some students were >impressed with a genetically engineered soybean designed to reduce >trans fats in processed food, others mentioned drought-resistant >crops that require less water. > >Drew, however, was skeptical of the language Monsanto used to >describe its research and products. "Why don't they ever use the >terms 'genetically modified' or 'genetically engineered' and always >use 'biotechnology product' instead? I find it ironic that Monsanto's >'pledge' is to uphold integrity in all that they do, even though >genetically modified foods threaten the integrity of people and the >environment." > >The Corporation > >Carl's request to drink the milk we had used as a writing prompt made >a nice segue into showing students a short clip about rBGH from the >documentary film The Corporation (from 29:15 to 32:30 on the DVD). As >we viewed the clip, which includes powerful images of cows with >swollen udders and compelling testimony from Dr. Samuel Epstein that >links rBGH to cancer, students reacted. "Is that a real cow?" >"Gross!" "Is that in our milk?" and "That's messed up, dude!" came >from various corners of the room. But while sick cows and potential >cancers risks are important, I was hoping to impress upon students >how the risks of rBGH have been ignored and hidden from public >knowledge by Monsanto and by those who license its use at the FDA. > >I showed the clip from The Corporation as a pre-reading strategy for >Paul Kingsnorth's article "Bovine Growth Hormones." The article is >technical and can be a difficult read for some students, so I hoped >to encourage their interest and give students a purpose for reading >before I passed it out. I asked students to list questions or >concerns as I paused the DVD. I was encouraged by their curiosity: >"Do hormones get into the milk and how do they affect us?" "Is there >pus in our milk?" "Is milk truly healthy for us?" "Why is rBGH >necessary, if we already have too much milk?" "If they knew that the >drug made cows sick, why do they still use it?" "What can we do about >it?" > >Then I passed out highlighters and told students to choose five >questions from our list and to read "Bovine Growth Hormones" with >those five questions in mind, highlighting as they come across >important information. The article is quite comprehensive, and >students were able to find answers to the majority of their >questions, including everyone's favorite: "Is there pus in our milk?" >Truth be told, all milk, including organic milk, has small amounts of >somatic cells or "pus" in it, but the FDA has strict quality >standards for the somatic cell count (SCC) above which milk may not >be sold to consumers. What students learn from the article -- and >what Monsanto's warning label accompanying all Posilac reads -- is >that cows treated with rBGH are more likely to produce milk with >increased SCCs due to the heightened risk for udder infections. > >With the information from the website, film, and article to draw >from, I wanted to give students another chance to respond to the >glass of milk still sitting at the center of the room. I asked them >each to draw a line under their initial descriptions and to write a >second response: "Do you feel any differently about the glass of >milk?" > >Ari had initially extolled the many health virtues of milk but now >seemed equally concerned about possible health risks: "Apparently, I >get calcium, pus, and an increased risk of uterine, breast, and >various kinds of cancers. Now, when I look at that glass half full of >milk, I see cancer in a glass with a thin layer of pus as a topping. >Now I don't think I can look at milk in the same way." > >Ari's comment brings up a legitimate concern that by teaching >students about rBGH, I am scaring them away from milk and toward less >attractive alternatives, including soda. Such risks were a constant >source of concern while teaching students about the myriad problems >associated with industrially produced foods. After learning about the >health and environmental risks of pesticides, herbicides, hormones, >and genetically modified food, I had more than one student ask in >exasperation: "But Mr. Swinehart, what can I eat?" > >We are fortunate in Portland, Ore., to have a vibrant local food >system that makes healthy, safe, and affordable food readily >available. Several Portland-area dairies, including Sunshine, >Alpenrose, and the nation's second largest producer of natural chunk >cheese, Tillamook, have all committed to producing only rBGH-free >milk products. Because these are not organic dairies, their rBGH-free >milk tends to be less expensive and a more reasonable alternative for >students than certified "organic" milk. Dairies in many other parts >of the country have made similar pledges (see >www.themeatrix.com/getinvolved/statepdfs/rbgh_list.html for an >interactive map to find rBGH-free products in your area). Being able >to recommend these local dairies not only presented students with a >viable alternative to giving up milk completely, but also gave them a >chance to apply their knowledge of controversial rBGH labeling during >the next trip to the grocery store. > >Compared to Ari, Eron wasn't too worried about rBGH's health risks, >but did express a willingness to rethink his decisions as a consumer: >"I still love milk and will drink it, but maybe I will make a change >and buy organic milk instead so that I don't get all of the health >risks. It seems this might benefit me the most and I will be happy >about the choices I made." Of course, many students will choose to >continue drinking milk regardless of where it comes from or what it >has in it, but their knowledge of rBGH and the corporate politics >behind unlabeled milk cartons, makes this a considerably more >informed choice than most U.S. consumers have. > >Eron's comment also raises one of my primary concerns in trying to >teach students about the global politics of food. I was confident >going into the unit that students would react strongly to issues >surrounding the health of animals and their own personal health, but >my goals for the unit were larger than this. While I was encouraged >to see Eron thinking about the effects of rBGH on his own personal >health, I also wanted students to make broader connections to ways >the corporate control of the food system takes knowledge and power >out of the hands of small food producers and consumers around the >world. Do some countries and corporations benefit more from a global >industrial food system than others? Do the environmental costs of >this same food system pose a substantially greater risk for the >world's poor, who still depend on a direct connection to the earth >for their means of sustenance? > >Patents on Life? > >Since students' comments during the milk lesson seemed to focus on >personal choices, I realized that we needed to broaden our focus from >the politics of health surrounding rBGH to include an exploration of >how a global food system, increasingly controlled by a few >multinational agribusiness corporations, is affecting lives and >cultures around the world. I wanted students to look at how >corporations are changing the nature of food. Through the science of >genetic engineering, biotechnology companies are experimenting with >the biological foundations of what is arguably the world's most >important life form: the seed. Biotech companies tend to downplay the >revolutionary nature of this new science by suggesting that humans >have influenced plant genetics, through selective breeding and >hybridization, since the dawn of agriculture. > >But because genetic engineering allows for the DNA of one organism, >including animal and virus DNA, to be placed in a completely >unrelated plant species, it crosses natural barriers that were never >breached by traditional plant breeding. Without adequate testing or >knowledge of long-term consequences, genetically modified (GM) crops >are now grown around the world, posing what many argue is a serious >threat to global food security. Through the natural and highly >uncontrollable process of cross-pollination, GM crops have the >potential to contaminate the genetic code of the traditional crops >that have provided people with food for thousands of years. > >It is not, however, just the seed itself that is changed through the >process of genetic engineering, but the very idea of the seed is >transformed as well. By altering the DNA of traditional seeds, >biotech companies are able to claim the new seed as an "invention" >and secure their right to ownership through the legal system of >patents. Global production of biotech crops and the number of >corporate-owned patents on seed have increased dramatically over the >last two decades. Monsanto alone owns more than 11,000 seed patents. > >To help students grapple with the international politics of seed >patenting and GM foods, I designed a role play that would encourage >them to confront the often unequal effects of the global food system >and the global economy in which it operates. I set up the role play >as a special meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the >primary governing body for international trade law. I asked students >to debate how GM foods should be regulated internationally by taking >on the following roles: farmers from India, U.S. Trade >representatives, European Union commissioners, U.S. consumers, >Greenpeace, and Monsanto. I asked them to reconsider WTO rules that >set U.S. patent law as the de facto international standard for >determining who has "ownership" of certain foods. In the introduction >to the role play handout, I explained the following: > >You are delegates to a special summit of the World Trade Organization >(WTO). This meeting has been called to debate genetic engineering and >patenting of foods. Due to worldwide resistance to genetically >modified (GM) foods and the patenting of seeds, the WTO has been >forced to reconsider its position on patents and the rights of >multinational corporations to trade GM foods and seeds.... > >Your task for this summit is to determine to what extent GM foods >deserve regulation, who should be responsible for any regulations >that are necessary, and what these rules should look like. > >This "special" meeting included voices that would never be heard at >the actual, much-more-exclusive meetings of the WTO, but I wanted >students to make their decisions in the role play based on a fuller >representation of international perspectives. > >To encourage students to begin thinking about the issues at stake in >the role play, I asked them to write interior monologues -- >statements where they imagined details about family, background, >hopes, dreams, and fears, all from the perspective of their roles. I >wanted to give students the opportunity to create personal >connections to the characters they would embody during the role play, >while also engaging with the critical issues surrounding GM foods and >seed patenting. > >Julia's monologue from the perspective of an Indian Farmer was >particularly insightful: > >I don't have the heart to tell my mother about TRIPS (Trade Related >Intellectual Property Rights), because I don't think her body could >handle the stress. TRIPS is an agreement of the World Trade >Organization, an organization I could have cared less about until a >few years ago. TRIPS requires member countries to protect patents on >all kinds of life. This means that if someone was to put a patent on >the type of rice that I am growing, I would be unable to grow and >sell my crop without a payment to the patent holder. In addition, I >wouldn't be able to save my seeds from one year to another -- >something every generation in my family has done as far back as >anyone can remember.... By saving our seed, we become acquainted with >every plant on our field. I know that some of the seeds that I have >stored away date back to my father's time. When I plant my saved >seed, I plant not only rice, but my heritage. > >Of course, not all my students displayed such a sophisticated >understanding of something as abstract and complex as international >patent law. Looking back on it, I may have taken on a little too much >with the content of the role play. Many students struggled to >understand exactly how the specific concerns of their characters >should translate to recommendations at the WTO meeting. There were >times when I felt ill-prepared to answer students' questions about >the international debate surrounding genetically modified foods or >the current status of WTO trade laws. I found myself struggling to >stay a step ahead of them. But when it came time to discuss the >issues at our meeting, I was encouraged by the students' ability to >not only articulate the perspective of their own roles, but to ask >the sort of questions of one another that showed a solid grasp of the >various concerns represented around the room. > >Will, speaking as the U.S. trade representative, said: > >It's our belief that the companies that create GM foods are the most >capable of testing them for safety. Companies like Monsanto spend >millions of dollars each year on research, so they have an expertise >that an international testing body wouldn't. And as far as saying >that people may have allergic reactions to GM foods -- well, we just >don't feel that this is a sufficient reason for banning them >completely. I mean, look at how many people are allergic to peanuts, >but we don't ban peanut butter, do we? > >Amber chimed in as the Monsanto representative: > >Yeah, if you think about it, it's in our interest to produce safe >foods. I mean, we want people to keep eating them, right? And I'd >like to remind you that the FDA fully approves all of the GMOs that >are used in food in the United States. > >Colin, representing Greenpeace, said: > >But isn't it true that there are some GMOs that are not approved for >use in food for humans? Mix-ups occur. How can we be sure what we are >eating? If GM foods aren't labeled, how can consumers protect >themselves? > >And Julia, as an Indian farmer, said: > >It's not just allergies that we're worried about. There are countries >in Africa that have refused GM food from the United States because >they are afraid that it will mix with native crops and contaminate >them. Farmers from my country are worried about the same thing. You >tell us that these things are safe, but you're the same people that >made Agent Orange into a pesticide to use on food. How can we trust >you? > >Although we finished the role play with a long list of ideas for how >it could be improved next time, the discussion showed me that my >students were leaving with an understanding of the politics of food. >They had gained knowledge of the issues of GM foods and patenting and >how they can play out on a global scale, privileging a few powerful >agribusiness corporations at the expense of the world's food >consumers and small, local farmers. > >After several days of discussion, the class decided to follow the >"precautionary principle," which guides policy in many European >nations, and institute a worldwide moratorium on GM foods until they >could be proven safe, and to require labeling of any GM foods that >were approved for consumption. Furthermore, the summit voted to take >away the right of any person or corporation to patent food. > >Of course, in the real world, the voices of traditional Indian >farmers are not heard in the same conference room as those >representing the world's largest corporations. Furthermore, the WTO >is not likely to institute a ban on GMOs or radically reform patent >laws any time in the near future. In this respect, the role play >failed to result in any truly practical solutions to the problems >facing farmers and consumers of food around the world. Part of me >worries that this does a disservice to students. But after spending >close to a month studying the crises of our global food system, I >believe that I would be doing students a greater disservice if I >didn't prompt them to consider what a more equitable and sustainable >food economy could look like. > >When starting the unit several weeks earlier, most students had been >unable to see beyond how the choices we make about food affect >anything other than personal health. The milk lesson was intended as >a hook to reach students through their concerns about personal health >with the hope of transforming this concern into a broader >appreciation for our fundamental right to know and control where our >food comes from and how it is produced. The current state of the >industrial food economy, as Julia wrote in her final paper, "results >in a public denied of their right to knowledge and proper choices >about their food." Changing this economy will require the sort of >resistance embodied in the role play by the farmers of India and the >advocacy of groups like Greenpeace. > >One of my greatest hopes in teaching students about food is to foster >an understanding of the important role food plays in today's global >economy and the even more important role it will play in creating >more local, more democratic, and more sustainable economies of the >future. > >Tim Swinehart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) was a student teacher at >Franklin High School in Portland, Ore., when he taught this unit. He >currently teaches at Evergreen High School in Vancouver, Wash. In >2002, Swinehart and his wife, Emily Lethenstrom, founded the >Flagstaff Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) project in Arizona. > >Additional Teaching Resources "Just a Cup of Coffee?" by Alan Thein >Durning. A short piece available in Rethinking Globalization that >encourages students to think about the long, complex path our food >follows before getting to us and the environmental costs along the >way. > >The True Cost of Food. An entertaining short (15 min.) cartoon >produced by the Sierra Club (available at www.truecostoffood.org) >that presents the hidden social and environmental costs of >factory-farmed, industrialy produced food. > >Resources for Teaching About rBGH and Genetically Modified Food >Physicians for Social Responsibility, Oregon chapter >www.oregonpsr.org/programs/campaignSafeFood.html "Monsanto vs. the >Milkman" www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/01/12_401.html >Monsanto's Posilac (rBST/rBGH) Homepage www.monsantodairy.com Center >for Food Safety www.centerforfoodsafety.org Organic Consumers >Association www.organicconsumers.org > >Copyright 2002 Rethinking Schools * 1001 E. Keefe Avenue, Milwaukee, >WI 53212 * Phone(414) 964-9646, or (800) 669-4192, FAX: (414) >964-7220 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >_______________________________________________ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
