The complexities of privilege and language

•20 March, 2012 • Leave a Comment

There has always been a bit of a stir about the idea of privilege. People do not like to acknowledge when they have it. Perhaps it’s because then they have to admit that they don’t deserve it anymore than anybody else. Or maybe it’s because then they have to accept that they shouldn’t have as much power as they do over others. It always takes a bit of personal growth to admit you have privilege. It’s like when a parent told you that you should not hit other children. First, you tried to defend yourself and your actions. It’s hard to admit when we’re wrong. But eventually you acknowledged that some behaviours are unacceptable. It’s the same with recognizing privilege.

Privilege is not synonymous with evil. Almost everybody has a form of privilege, whether it’s able-bodied privilege (you have power and privilege over disabled people), heterosexual privilege, white privilege, male privilege, cis* privilege, etc. Anybody who is not part of a marginalized class of people can have privilege.

A marginalized class is a class of people who are marginalized and oppressed on a societal scale. This doesn’t include white people who go to a primarily black school, or straight people at a Gay Pride parade. The societal scale is what makes all the difference. It has noted and observable effects on human psychology.

I am not upset when people tell me I have privilege. What upsets me is the fact that I have it. Not the fact that I have to ACKNOWLEDGE that I have it, but the fact that I have been born with undeserved advantages and power over other people, people who are just as good as me.

I am heterosexual, I am white, I am able-bodied, I am thin, I am middle-class, and I am cissexual and cisgender. Those are the areas where I have privilege. I am female, which is the main area where I am marginalized. I am also Jewish, which is a sticky subject which I tackle here. There are other things like mental health privilege, which is far more personal.

The power of language

This is where language comes in. Language is one of the most powerful tools that humans have. We use it to start wars, to start revolutions, to brainwash people, to fuel imagination, to break and mend hearts. Its psychological effects are also scientifically known. Cyber-bullying has become a recent epidemic, where kids are driven to suicide because of – you guessed it – language. But there are some things that at first may seem subtler than cyber-bullying that also have long-lasting effects. They are due to a lifelong accumulation of slurs, threats, and insults directed at marginalized people.

For example, the use of the term “gay” or “faggot,” to mean stupid or bad, is harmful. It is not harmful to straight people; if somebody called me a faggot, I wouldn’t bat an eye…at least not for myself. But I would be concerned about that person’s probable behaviour around gay people. In every country in the world, non-heterosexual people are treated like second-class citizens (to varying degrees, depending on the country). They are bullied, abused, and tortured even in so-called First World nations. People who choose to be open about their sexuality (or those who have been forcefully “outed”) sometimes get verbal abuse on a daily basis.

It is this accumulation of slurs that causes psychological harm. That is where the damage comes from. It is a socially ingrained belief that feminine men are disgusting or weak, that all gay men are feminine, that all gay women are either ugly and can’t get a man, or having sex with each other directly for men’s pleasure. They should stay in the closet; nobody should have to see that shit; they are unnatural, obscene, an abomination – that is what they are told every day by people, their governments, and the media. If heterosexuals can do anything to lessen that blow, then we should. We have no right to laugh off their objections; to silence their voices; or even to silence those who speak up for them.

The same goes with women. If I object to sexist language, do not mock me or shrug it off. Listen. Women are not listened to as much as men, and do not speak as much[pdf] (this goes against the pop-psych crap we’re fed about how women speak more than men and are more verbal; that simply isn’t true). In fact, even if we are made aware of our gender, our cognitive functions are decreased. This is a concept known as stereotype threat. It is a problem for people of colour as well, and probably all marginalized groups. So if, during a conversation, I become quieter and less able to think just because you casually mention my being female, imagine what telling rape jokes or calling me a “stupid bitch” would do. Imagine what seeing women objectified all over my environment would do.

I do not understand why people to this day still fail to see that, and cry “freedom of speech” every time somebody tells them that their language is unacceptable. Freedom of speech is a legal term. It does not protect you from criticism. It does not protect you from social pressures to behave decently.

Oppressive language within marginalized groups

I do not believe it is acceptable to police marginalized people’s language about themselves. This is not the same as saying I don’t think it can be problematic.

For example, if a gay person (or anybody not on the heterosexual end of the spectrm) makes a “faggot” joke, other gay people can deal with it. It is not my place, as a heterosexual who has rarely ever had to personally deal with homophobia, to tell that person what words they can use regarding his own sexuality.

I was in a related situation recently. On Tumblr, a post went up about women’s obligations. It said, “women don’t have to…” and then listed things like, “be thin,” and “have sex with you.” It also said, “have a vagina,” which created an uproar of transphobia and cissexism. I was responding to some of this uproar, when I came across one person who responded, “because, you know, trannies.”

I was going to call them out on the slur, but then realized, by looking at their profile description, that they themselves were trans*.  It was not my job to tell them not to use that language, not to reclaim language that had been used against them. If other trans* people felt it was inappropriate, then they could complain. But it was not my place.

So that is the difference. It is not a double-standard to say that privileged people cannot use oppressive language but marginalized people can use and reclaim it. They are two entirely different things. Marginalized people need to feel safe to let off steam, joke about and reclaim oppressive language. They do not need their discussions to be nit-picked and berated for every time they use a word that the poor, helpless privileged folk aren’t allowed to use.

And it is not oppressive to tell, or even pressure people into using non-oppressive language. The n-word is finally being accepted by a majority as being too horrible for a white person to use. Now let’s treat other words the same way.

*The asterisk after trans includes both transsexual and transgender people. Cis* refers to people who are both cissexual and cisgender – the opposite of trans*.

More resources:

White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack

“Differences of Opinion”

Microaggression and the role it plays in oppression

Freedom and tyranny in Cuba and the USA

•23 February, 2012 • 2 Comments

Ah, yes. The United States of America. The Greatest Country on Earth. Bastion of Freedom and Liberty (both); Great Land of Freedom of Speech™.

And Cuba. One of the most horrible, wretched countries in the world. All citizens are trapped, and are in poverty. The Evil Devil Dictator (AKA Fidel Castro) stole the wealth from the Productive Class to redistribute to the Lazy Class.

Let’s see what the differences really are.

Complaint #1: Medicine is in short supply in Cuba due to the embargo.

Yes it is. But if you have an emergency, you can still go to the emergency room without having your house foreclosed on you. You can get life-saving surgery without paying a cent. You get free therapy and mental health care, preventing many psychology-related health problems (like problems caused by stress).

The free health care, combined with the highest doctor-patient ratio in the world, means that Cuba has

1. A lower infant mortality rate than the US

2. Fewer overall deaths (per 1000 people per year), even though it has a higher median age

3. The life expectancy is lower in Cuba by 0.62 years (still having trouble wrapping my head around how this makes sense statistically)

So even though the average person in Cuba is slightly older than the average person in the US, a higher percentage of people still die in the US, and people are expected to live a similar lifespan. And Cuba doesn’t have access to nearly as many drugs as the US. So something must be seriously wrong with the US health system, no?

Also, if you look at the fact that Cuba rations food, so people are more likely to be malnourished, yet life expectancy is still not much lower than the US, and deaths are lower – it makes you wonder what the US is doing so wrong again.

Complaint #2: There is no freedom of speech or of the press in Cuba, and you are more likely to be put in prison.

The first part is true. People do speak against the government in conversation, but I do not believe they are allowed to publish their opinions.

The second part is pure rubbish. The US has the highest incarceration rate per capita in the world. It jails 743 people per every 100,000. Cuba is at number 7, with 487. Poor minorities are much, much more likely to be jailed in the US than wealthy white people. So how free is a country really when it puts more people in jail than any other country?

Also, considering the fact that university education isn’t an obstacle for anybody in Cuba (while it’s a huge obstacle for the poor in the US), knowledge is in some ways more free in Cuba than in the US.

The poor in the US are worse off than the poor in Cuba. Poor people in Cuba rarely get evicted from their houses or end up on the street, and they never die simply because they can’t afford health care or food. They are less likely to be incarcerated. The poor in Cuba can even get a free university education. I always measure a culture or society by how it treats its most powerless. Whether you are kept from leaving the country due to threat of prison, or insufficient funds, the result is the same: You’re trapped.

Cuba is not a great country (though I honestly can’t think of one that is), and I would never claim that it is socialist. But considering how much flack it’s gotten over the years, and how little criticism the US has gotten comparatively, I think it’s time to rethink what freedom and power really mean, where our priorities lie, and what we really need to fear.

 

Sources: CIA World Factbook, International Centre for Prison Studies, ICPS (pdf)

“I don’t want to be a feminist anymore”

•21 February, 2012 • 4 Comments

“Most of all, I am tired of knowing.

Knowing that my eyes have been opened, and that what has been seen cannot be unseen. I am tired of knowing it, when I see something that is wrong. I am tired of knowing that only speaking out can change it. I am tired of knowing exactly how hard and scary it can be to do so.  I am tired of knowing that if I am not careful, the fight will eat up my hope and strength, and leave me only with bitterness. I am tired of knowing that I can never turn back to not knowing.

I am tired of knowing that despite my fears and exhaustion, I am a feminist.”

—Line, from Feministing

The unsustainability of sustainability politics

•17 February, 2012 • 2 Comments

Forty years after the onset of environmentalism, even the largest, most powerful corporations and governments cannot ignore the natural environment in which we live. By this, of course, I mean that they cannot ignore that most people care about the environment now. It is no longer logical to fight against mainstream environmentalism. So what do these powerful bodies do to address people’s concerns?

Do they change their business models to protect the environment?

Do they begin to focus more on ecological health than profit?

Do they even stop practices that are the most detrimental to the environment?

No, of course not. You wouldn’t expect them to, would you?

A corporation is an organization with a corporate charter – a contract that legally binds the organization to prioritize profit (or, more accurately, shareholder returns) over absolutely everything else. Corporations are legally obligated to do anything within their power to prevent decrease in profit – this includes lying to the public, destroying communities and ecosystems, and ultimately breaking the law.

A government is an organization of powerful people who were (in a democratic nation) s/elected from a slightly larger pool of powerful people. The populace is given a choice between several evils, and tries to choose the lesser. Governments obey the laws of neo-classical economics; a system that prioritizes economic growth over all else. In other words, governments are beholden to the corporations that keep the economy going. This is why corporations frequently get away with breaking the law.

So, in order to placate the general populace’s newfound concerns about the environment, corporations and governments must use something called greenwashing. Greenwashing involves advertising and empty promises about environmental sustainability.

This is all made possible by our ages-old unnatural anthropocentric view of the world. It is one thing to instinctively value humans over other creatures – for example, if I saw a human child and a kitten in the middle of the street about to be hit by a car, and I had to make a choice, I’d save the child (though some might not). That’s a concept that I like to call “natural” anthropocentrism. But then there’s “unnatural” anthropocentrism – the view that humans are mostly disconnected from the rest of the universe. That is where sustainability comes in.

Starting with the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 and Kyoto Protocol of 1997, nations around the world began to promise to fight for environmental sustainability – or, more oxymoronically, what they like to call “sustainable development.” This involves continued economic growth and use of resources, using slightly less resource-intense materials and technologies. The idea is that we can be sustainable and not have to change the basic tenets of our economic system. And while sustainable development policy proposals, most notably Agenda 21 (which came out of the Rio Earth Summit), call for support for sustainable farming systems, they don’t highlight the most important aspect of sustainable farming: a move away from neo-classical economics.

This is all based around a new model of economics, also known as sustainable economics or sustainability politics. It looks like this:

Basically, they took their original economic ideas and squished another thing into it: “Lets make another circle. And call it ‘environment.’ “

Without me telling you, what is wrong with this picture?

…..

Okay, if you must know, the problem is that it is not representative of reality. In reality, we are a single species that is strongly interconnected to the rest of the world. Our environment is all around us, whether we like it or not. Every molecule we breathe, every gram of iron, milliliter of petroleum we use, comes from our environment. Everything in our economy comes from the environment; even our thoughts and services, which wouldn’t exist without the resources we need to survive. We come from the environment. It is inescapable. So rather than having a tiny fraction of our economic system overlap with the environment, economics is a small part of our larger world.

This is what the diagram should look like:

But imagine if economists and world leaders actually took this view. Every action would have to come with consideration of the impacts to the environment first, before even profit. After all, if we don’t have a planet, then we don’t have humans, and if we don’t have humans, we don’t have an economy. Then would come the realization that we’re all interconnected. What effect could this possibly have? People would no longer be able to treat other people, or other creatures, like simply exploitable objects and labour. All effects would have to be considered. The path of least harm would be taken, after serious thought and consideration. In essence, our economic system as we know it would disappear.

Even deeper – we would realize that there is no reason to trust a bunch of powerful, wealthy elites more than anybody else. The elites would step down anyway, because they would understand the detrimental effects of their authoritarian leadership, and that they are no more worthy of leadership than anybody else. Our system would lose its hierarchy.

We would become anarchists.

Everything is ███ fine. ██ ███ trust your government.

•16 November, 2011 • Leave a Comment

In honour of the E-PARASITE Internet censorship act. Stop the act here.

When “you’re beautiful” is no longer just a compliment

•12 November, 2011 • 12 Comments

**TW: Fetishization of women, racism

I lived in Patterson, New Jersey for four months when I was twenty-two. During the time I was there, men* would tell me that I was beautiful an average of ten times a day (though on some days it was as many as twenty). It became apparent fairly early on that they found me exotic and different, primarily because I was white (Paterson is primarily non-white). However, I still appreciated being told that I was beautiful, because it made me feel beautiful, though on a very superficial level.

About one month into my stay there, I began to feel snappy and overly annoyed at the men who would comment. I felt horribly guilty about my reaction towards them. They were being nice and giving me a compliment – what right did I have to be upset with them? I still said, “thank you,” to every single one, and tried to avoid eye contact so as not to encourage them.

Not long after I started getting annoyed, I realized that my saying “thank you” and avoiding eye contact was an indication that there was a problem. It was an indication that I felt two main things when I was complimented: Obligation and fear. I was obligated to be polite and thankful towards them for complimenting me. I owed them something. But I was afraid of encouraging them into thinking I was interested in them, and it sure as hell was easy to encourage them. All I had to do was look into their eyes for two seconds and they would try to chat me up.

At this point, I realized that I didn’t really owe them anything. These men were essentially paying me a currency – a compliment – and assumed that therefore I owed them a service – a polite response or a conversation. But I didn’t ask for this currency. Unlike with regular money, I couldn’t just hand it back to them. You can’t un-hear a compliment. So I did what I needed to do: I began to ignore them. And their response was exactly as I expected.

They became rude. No, there was nothing innocent or kind about their compliments to begin with. It was all a power play, to oblige me to pay attention to them. They may not have realized this consciously, but that didn’t change the facts. When I ignored them, most of them would first try to repeat themselves. Over and over again, they would say, “Hey, did you hear me, girl?” Once they realized I was ignoring them, they would call me a bitch.

I took this experience back with me into my own hometown. I realized that, though I no longer received the comments that I would get for being ethnically exotic, I still received comments that were unwelcome. All sexual comments from strangers brought with them obligation and fear.

The fetishization of women of colour

My experience was a tiny glimpse into the experiences of women* of colour, women who date other women, and fat women absolutely everywhere. Women of colour are frequently fetishized by white men; in other words, they are valued because they are different. Here are a few examples of what they have to put up with (via friends of mine and reports I’ve read on the Internet):

(To a black woman) “Ooh, gotta love that black booty!” ”Baby got back!” etc.

(To a Chinese woman) “Me love you long time!” (Reference to Full Metal Jacket, which was about Viet Nam, not China – but white men don’t give a shit). ”I love Asian food! You wanna make me a stir fry some time?” etc.

(To a Latina woman) “Aiaiaiaiai! Spicy hot!” etc.

The fetishization of fat women goes something like this: “Big and beautiful!”

And to lesbians: “Can I join in?” “Can I watch?” “This dick will straighten you out.” (These I’ve experienced first-hand)

Yes, it’s lovely being essentially told that the only reason you’re being noticed is because you’re different from the status quo, you’re “exotic.” And of course the same obligation always comes with any comment: You must respond in a polite way, and be thankful for the attention.

The fetishization of women in general

Like women of colour, women in general (or people who are perceived to be female) are fetishized. You are seen as exotic and exciting just for being female. This trend in our culture is reinforced by the media. Look at the average billboard, magazine, or TV commercial and you will see a scantily-clad woman being used to sell something. We are objects to be sold, used, and leered at. It is not healthy, and it hurts us psychologically. There is a constant fear and obligation that comes with being a woman.

So, people (especially men) who care: The next time you feel the need to compliment a woman who you have never spoken to before, don’t just think of your comment as an isolated incident. It is not. Even if you do not feel that women have any obligation towards you, even if you would never call a woman a “bitch” for ignoring you or speaking her mind, she is bombarded by reminders of what is expected from her all the time. You must consider everything she probably frequently experiences, instead of just what you are going to say once. Your comment is an addition to piles and piles of shit, and it is not needed.

A general rule of thumb: Think about what you’re about to say, and whether it is something that a woman would normally say to a man. Do women frequently go up to men and say, “you’re hot,” “you’re beautiful,” or “wanna fuck?” I’m not talking about the occasional incident, I’m talking on a day-to-day basis. If not, then don’t say it to a woman. Because your comment is going to have even more of an impact on a woman than a woman’s comment would have on a man. And think to yourself: Why is the idea of not harassing women such a burden? Do women find it difficult not to harass men?

Also, check out the Politics of “hello,” a similar subject that was written on the Feministe website. More on catcalling and other misogyny here. And yet more information on the Male occupation of public space.

*Note: When I say “women” I’m referring to people who are perceived by others to be female, and therefore receive comments based on that assumption. When I say “men,” I am referring to people who self-identify as male. Such problems do exist in the gay/lesbian community as well; however, our culture’s obsession is with heterosexual sex. Female-on-female objectification is horrible as well, as is the objectification of men and other genders. Our male-dominated culture is obsessed with people who are perceived as women especially, and that is what I chose to write about at this time.

Are GM crops necessary? Are they even practical?

•5 November, 2011 • 5 Comments

A common argument used in support of genetically modified crops is the possibly unfounded assumption that GM crops are needed to mitigate global hunger. In some of the literature that supports this supposition, no effort is made to evaluate whether or not farmers can continue to produce enough food to feed the world without this new technology. For example, one research review (Azadi and Ho, 2009) expresses concern about low productivity in developing nations. In another example, biotechnology giant Monsanto states on its website that “Food production will need to increase exponentially in order to meet population growth” (Monsanto, 2010). They assert that biotechnology is a fundamental facet of increasing yield. The first fundamental question to ask, then, is: Are genetically modified crops necessary in the fight against global hunger?

It is important to differentiate between famine and starvation. Famine is an actual scarcity of food (Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2011). Starvation, on the other hand, is simply a lack of food intake (Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2011 [II]). This can be because of famine, or for other reasons. So what are hungry people in the world experiencing now: famine, or another form of starvation? And will this be the same in 50 years?

If global hunger is not caused by scarcity, and is instead a question of unequal food distribution or other avoidable factors, then using genetically modified crop technology for its main purpose—to increase food production—is unnecessary. However, if global hunger is caused simply by famine, then genetically modified crops may be necessary, depending on whether or not there are other ways to increase food production and promote food security in famine conditions. In the latter case, the safety concerns associated with genetically modified crops (which will be mentioned later) would need to be weighed against the technology’s possible benefits.

The amount of food produced globally right now is enough to feed every human being on the planet between 2,640 and 4,380 Calories per day (McIntyre et al., 2009). In India, despite the fact that 21% of the country’s population is undernourished (FAO, 2010), they are the number one producer worldwide in 25 different food commodities, and one of the top three producers of at least another 25 commodities (FAOSTAT, 2011). In addition, the developing world alone produces considerable amounts of food in the form of animal products: For example, 50% of the world’s beef and 59% of the world’s pork are produced by the Third World (Swanepoel et al., 2010). If developing countries produce enough food to feed a large percentage of the world, then clearly they are not suffering from low production, and therefore their hunger is nor caused by famine. Somehow, food is just not being distributed to the hungry.

We are clearly not facing a famine today, but what about the next 50 years? Studies have shown that sustainable agriculture produces sufficient yield to sustain the world’s population at least into the next 50 years (Chaumet et al., 2009). It can produce higher yields than the currently widespread agricultural method known as industrialised agriculture (De Schutter, 2010; Pretty et al., 2006). Sustainable agriculture is generally defined as agriculture that uses methods such as intercropping, integrated pest management, cover-cropping, compost, and other inputs that are less likely to harm the soil and the ecosystems in the area. This as opposed to synthetic pesticides and fertilisers (especially petrochemical-based), monoculture, and other things that depend on petroleum or have been shown to degrade the soil, cause erosion, and destroy ecosystems (McIntyre, 2009).

Transgenic crops are clearly not necessary, but are they a practical way to alleviate global hunger? If GM crops decreased productivity and yield in any way, they would not be practical tools to help increase global food production. In addition, if GM crops created problems for the environment or public health, and other ways of providing food for the entire world didn’t involve the safety and environmental concerns associated with GM crops, then they would not be a practical tool for fighting global hunger.

Genetically modified crops have been shown to have adverse health effects in animal studies. For example, one study (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999) showed that GM potatoes caused precancerous growth in the small intestines of rats. Another study concluded that bedding made from GM corncob created endocrine disruption problems in female rats, and even stimulated breast cancer cell growth (Markaverich et al., 2005). In their review, Pryme and Lembcke (2003, p. 6) found it extraordinary that in several studies, “the experimental conditions were varied and several ways were found by which to demonstrate possible health effects of GM-foods.”

Another problem with GM crops is that they can have harmful effects on ecosystems. For example, transgenes from a virus (used to modify plants) can cause the modified plant to become susceptible to insect viruses that were never found in plants before, like in the study done by Dasgupta, Garcia, and Goodman (2001). GM crops can contaminate and hybridise with wild plants, effecting biodiversity (Warwick et al., 2003). In addition, Crops modified with toxic insecticides can contaminate the soil with the toxins (Accinelli, Screpanti, Vicari, and Catizone, 2003). GM crops also do not necessarily increase production, and can even decrease yield. In several different regions, GM crops were shown to have no yield increase, and in a very large study involving 8000 field trials, GM soybeans had a lower yield (Altiere and Rosset, 2002).

The global population’s food needs today and in the future can be fulfilled by sustainable agricultural practices that increase yield. Therefore, genetically modified crops are not necessary. They can also decrease yield in some circumstances, they pose real health risks for humans, and they have the capacity to be destructive to the environment. Sustainable agriculture does not have the risks associated with genetically modified crops. Hence, genetically modified crops are not the most practical option for alleviating global hunger now or in the next 50 years.

 


References

Accinelli, C., Screpanti, C., Vicari, A., & Pietro Catizone. (2003). Influence of insecticidal toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki on the degradation of glyphosate and glufosinate-ammonium in soil samples. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 103(3), 497-507.

Altiere, M. A., & Rosset, P. (2002). Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment, or reduce poverty in the developing world. In Sherlock, R., & Morrey, J. D., Ethical issues in biotechnology (pp. 175-182). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Dasgupta, R., Garcia, B. H. 2nd, & Goodman, R. M. (2001). Systemic spread of an RNA insect virus in plants expressing plant viral movement protein genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(9), 4910-4915.

Ewen, S. W. B., & Pusztai, A. (1999). Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. The Lancet, 354(9187), 1353-1354

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2010). Global hunger declining, but still unacceptably high. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2011). Food and Agricultural commodities production. Retrieved from http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx

Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2011). Famine. Retrieved from  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/famine

Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2011 [II]). Starvation. Retrieved from  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/starvation

Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique & Agricultural Research for Development. (2009). Agrimonde®: Scenarios and Challenges for Feeding the World in 2050. Paris: Chaumet, J. M., Delpeuch, F., Dorin, B. Ghersi, G., Hubert, B., Le Cotty, T., … Treyer, S.

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. (2009). Agriculture at a crossroads: Global report. Washington, DC: McIntyre, B. D., Herren, H. R., Wakhungu, J., & Watson, R. T.

Monsanto. (2011). Sustainable agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.monsanto.com/ourcommitments/Pages/sustainable-agriculture.aspx

Markaverich, B. M., Crowley, J. R., Alejandro, M. A., Shoulars, K., Casajuna, N., Mani, S., … Sharp, J. (2005). Leukotoxin diols from ground corncob bedding disrupt estrous cyclicity in rats and stimulate MCF-7 breast cancer cell proliferation. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(5), 1698-1704.

Pretty, J. N., Noble, A. D., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R. E., Penning de Vries, F. W., & Morison, J. I. L. (2006).  Resource-Conserving Agriculture Increases Yields in Developing Countries. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(4), 1114-1119.

Pryme, I. F., & Lembcke, R. (2003). In vivo studies on possible health consequences of genetically modified food and feed – with particular regard to ingredients consisting of genetically modified plant materials. Nutrition and Health, 17, 1-8.

The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA). (2010). The role of livestock in developing communities: Enhancing multifunctionality. Bloemfontein, South Africa: Swanepoel, F., Stroebel, A. and Moyo, S.

United Nations General Assembly. (2010). Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. De Schutter, O. (Ed.).

Warwick, S. I., Simard, M. J., Légère, A., Beckie, H. J., Braun, L., Zhu, B., … Stewart, C. N. (2003). Hybridization between transgenic Brassica napus L. and its wild relatives: Brassica rapa L., Raphanus raphanistrum L., Sinapis arvensis L., and Erucastrum gallicum (Willd.) O.E. Schulz. Theoretical Applied Genetics, 107(3), 528-539.

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.