Thursday, April 28, 2016

My last late post, I promise.

Chapter 76 

The final chapter in the globalization leader reads as a good wrap up in the opening paragraphs mentioning a lot of parts that belong to our worlds globalization that until the class I knew nothing about. One of the things I noticed in this article brings me to a term paper that I just wrote on a historiography of the American New Left of the 1960s. That movement had three main ideas being anti-scholastic, utopian, and activist. Anti scholastic refers to a way of thinking that the perceived normal way was not the best, utopian referred to having a world where economic problems and abuse of minorities would not exist, and of course activism being the people protesting the ways of those in charge to bring new ideas to the forefront. This to me describes the backlash of the corporate globalists who see themselves as creators of job and wealth and by default overall good for the worlds economic state.  The article also states that in recent years the corporate salary has reached a point of 500 plus times the amount of the common worker.  The author discusses ten principles of for democratic and sustainable societies the first being new democracy that brings me back to the ideals of the 1960s in the New Left. Another of the principles is human rights and right after that is talking about jobs and livelihood. The author states that livelihood is a means of living and as we all have been taught in grade school this countries founders gave us the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If these are the rights governments are supposed to protect then this new global order that has seem to come from globalization and the growth of corporations is the very definition of  the governments all around the world losing touch with the very thing they were created to protect. The author urges in the final paragraph of the article that policies of localization are the only way to take the power back from these corporations. He says that democratic control of the economy by communities or nation states is the way to take back the world from these corporations and it could lead to the rebuilding of self sustainability nationally.  The article really drives in what the class was about and seems to be the total culmination of what we were taught. Sadly the days of children being thrilled by simplistic toys like a ball in a cup or a simple hand made doll are long behind us and localization seems an impossible pipe dream when you look at car companies from around the world all pandering to different markets across the world but this article gives hope that eventually enough power can be taken from these corporations and we can breath new life into stagnant economies when it comes to production and take away a bit from larger nations becoming purely consumers and going back to a healthy mix of consumer and producer. 

Conserving Communities 

This article looks at the way that certain local communities have been seemingly wiped out by their global counterparts in the never ending story of "the man" looking to find cheaper ways of producing incredible amounts of goods. The author also goes into the way smaller banks have been bought out by larger banks and small business owners and farmers find it harder and harder to get the loans they need to keep up with business because they have been reduced to numbers in a machine in a city they've never been to. The author, like in the last chapter, talks about the importance of local in fighting the turn that big businesses and world economies have pushed on those who are not as fortunate to have immense power in economic situations. 

Global to Local

Reading this article reminds me of chapter 76 and how in my response to it I talked about 60s activism. The whole idea of that activism was that if you started to do things the way you think it should be done eventually others would follow. This article talks about ways that you as a consumer can manipulate big business into changing the way they practice by being a smart consumer and understanding where your products come from. This article doesn't just stop at consumerism. It talks about ways you can make a difference as a worker, an investor, and as various types of citizens such as local, national, and even global. The way it's structured out it tries to show you that there is no reason to believe in the rhetoric that started the new world order of globalization in the 1980s and that its continuation is depended on all of us. Globalization will dominate as it has for the past 30 years unless we as citizens of the world fight against its injustices and don't sit idly by. 

Last post

Chapter 76
This chapter deals with two ways in which companies may see themselves as far as globalization. On one hand, they see themselves as the ones who are supporting the foundation in which keeps the world going. On the other hand, they see what impacts of globalization have affected on people. There were many points in which were raised when it was talking about the damage that has been caused by these big corporations. Some of the points that were brought up, I do agree with. Such as, ecological sustainability, common heritage, and food security and food safety. I think that even though there is much to be done to help fix many issues that are going on in today's society that basic needs are sometimes forgotten or not deemed as top priority.

Global to Local
In this article it starts off by telling ways in which you as a consumer can help with getting the most for what you spend. It talks about how instead of blindly spending money on food or products in which part of that money ends up in some corporate CEO's pocket that you should have some knowledge about where your products are coming from. It also states to buy locally and to support local farmers. Supporting fair trade was another point in which I do agree with. Fair trade eliminates much of the middleman and you know that farmers are being taken care of in more ways than just the products that they are growing. Some of the farmers are given health care, and tips on how to grow their products better. Joining CSA was another tip that was given which I think they are good programs to get involved with. They have many positive aspects. The next area of the article talks about how you can takes steps as a worker. Exercise your pension and supporting worker-owned corporations are a few things that someone can do. I do think that worker-owned corporations are good and that there should be more of them. The last part talks about what you can do as a citizen. There are many things that you can do to help that range from attending city council meetings to joining organizations that support food safety or to encourage the green movement. I think that all of these ways to help support globalization are good but to do so in a way that helps the daily living of people.

Conserving Communities
For many years there have been many little rural towns along with their landscape everywhere that hold some sort of history. Maybe not a history that is known worldwide, but has history that is known to only the locals. With the changing of times, these rural towns and landscape are slowly being taken over by big businesses. An example would be the one stated in the article about the rape and run logging industry in Montana. The fact that the logging just left without replenishing the trees that were cut down not only hurt that town but the environment as well. Many people were left without jobs and became poor if that was their livelihood. I do believe that it is not good to an extent in which some businesses work like the one just mentioned. The two types of parties that were mentioned were global party and the community party. The global party are the large companies that are wealthy and organized. The community party are the local people who make with living off the land, who stay away from "dog-eat-dog" type of living. All in all it ends with talking about how local support of local farmers and to support those small mom and pop stores that bring farm to table styles. Natural resources may not be around forever and the land itself is one of them.

Last Blog!

                The article was broken down into chapters describing globalization and the need for a more localized centralization because only locals knowing what their communities need economically, politically and socially; putting the power in the hands of many rather than the few elites. Although we’ve been talking about all the negatives of globalization and how it’s in the hands of a few with the consequence affecting many. The International Forum on Globalization lays out a plan in how to give the power back to the people. The main focus in the article is all about democracy, and giving the people a voice through localized power. Democracy can happen in multiple ways such as protesting which has been happening more over the past decade with people from United States to Malaysia ensuring their voice is heard. Citizens creating their own constitutions and treaties such as the Rio de Janerio in 1992, which is interesting because I never thought of citizen drafting their own policies. This article gave citizens many ways to empower themselves, most of which I never thought of such as drafting treaties, favor local policies, and protecting rights of all workers. I also liked that it is explained what is globalization, which four is given, such as merging all economic activity of all countries into a homogenized model. By understanding what globalization is we can take out what local citizens don’t necessarily like.
                Global to local completely opposes big corporation and what they call the “old model” of governance in the world; claiming the transition wouldn’t be as hard as people may believe because the author believes that there is a failing legitimacy of global corporations around the world. I, however disagree, although NGOs and people’s voices are being more heard, especially with multimedia platforms anyone can use, corporations such as Nike or Disney still do control people and the economy, whether people notice this or not. I also disagree with that fact that people should identify themselves with their community rather than an American or their ethnicity; I believe the idea of thinking too locally could have negative effects on the country which we need for protection, stability, etc. Hopeful, the author provides individual ways people can contribute to localizing rule rather than global rule, such as buying organic produce from local farmers, or buy things labeled with Fair Trade, or to something as small as using local banks. I like how this article also brought up the power of knowledge which most people overlook even though it’s the most obvious form of power you can have.  I’m a political science minor and I think it’s great that the article brought up the importance of not only being a good citizen to your country, but also when it comes to your local elections which could affect you the most but people forget about easily.
                Berry follows the trend of these anti-globalization and giving back to the local communities. He brings up the main focus of the issue with local farmers who have been declining over the recent years due to the government and banks refusing to side with small loans, planning, and help. He complains that big businesses aren’t coming to create jobs but creating jobs as long as it’s cheaper than machines, which we have seen many examples of this throughout the class. Interestingly Berry brings up two different kinds of parties rather than the normally thought of parties, that being the global economy and local communities, which is the newest form and has a more neighborly, friendly view; setting out a ground work of rules such as always include local nature as a way to achieve this local community. 

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

ch 76 and Ereserves

Ch 76

This chapter seemed fitting for the end.  I felt like as i was reading it was summarizing a lot of the major points we talked about during the semester. The author went into the conflict between corporate and democratic and how the two worlds differ.  Corporations are in it for the money and they don't care about the millions of children who go hungry.  the author also goes into the key ingredients for economic globalization and the ten principles for democratic and sustainable societies. the next section goes into weather certain goods should not be traded or patented.  how corporations privatize heritage resources like water and genetic codes.  i did find it funny how we just read about how local is not always better and this chapter talks about the economic system should favor local production.

Global to Local

 this article was about offering new ways to help make a better world. the author goes into how people meet at malls instead of at parks or library's and for that they are being under funded. he said that there are several ways that you can to show that what you spends reflects your values.  you need to  buy local food. I believe the Author is saying that you need to act now to help your community. only you can help start making the world a better place.  I find this to be true. nothing is going to change unless you actively do something about it.

Conserving Communities

This article is about the farmers.  how they do not count and are statistically insignificant. how corporations exploited Montana for its natural resource. mining companies leaving the areas destroyed and taking all the money with them.  this article talked about the same problem we have been reading about. how the corporations do not care about anything but the money they are making.  but the author also provided a list of ideas on how you community can flourish. they all seem like good ideas but is it possible?

Last Post

The first reading was chapter 76 which discusses how two main areas effect globalization and have impacts on the world. The first view the author talks about is how corporations have an impact, and the other is the way the citizens have an impact. This chapter is something that I think many people do not realize the impact corporations have and how much of the wealth and power in our country and economy is really in a very very small percentage of the hands of the people. Corporations seem to time and time again have only the interest of the company and their profits in mind, and do not seem to care about their decisions may impact millions of people. Another thing talked about is the food safety and the way natural resources are used for profit. Food safety is something that is very important to most people I think and is something that is a very big issue in some parts of the world. The way natural resources are used for profit such as water is something I don't think most people realize is even happening, and is something that once again is only used for profit without concern for anyone else.

The e reserves were focused on thing local citizens can do to better sustain and preserve their local communities they live in. I think the concepts discussed are very good and should be practiced by many, but unfortunately I don't think a lot of what is discussed is practical. Another point that I think is very true is the fact that huge corporations do not care about how they impact the environment, or the communities they are choosing to do business in. I think that in order to get chug done in our own community, its going to take a figurehead of some sort to initiate the change. It ink the idea of CSA's are something that everyone should be aware of and should be accessible in all available parts of the country so the idea of being local can truly be incorporated by everyone. This class is amazing and Dr. Schnell is the best professor ever.

The Last Post. #sadface

Chapter 76:

This article discusses two different worlds that stemmed out of globalization: a world where companies are seen as worrying about themselves only, and a world with movements made my people who focus on individual impacts that globalization has had on them. These two worlds have some heavy contrast between each other, as one would probably expect based on what they believe. Those who consider themselves as corporate globalists see the progress of globalization as a good thing, even though they're fueling the 1%. They see themselves as innovators. The author then goes on to talk about some of the larger entities in the world of globalization, like the WTO and IMF. These organizations are criticized as not being democratic and destructive to the world. As the article goes on, Ten Principles for a Democratic and Sustainable Society are discussed; these are the means to reconstruct our society, according to the author. I agreed pretty strongly with a few of these principles: ecological sustainability, food security and food safety, human rights, and equity. The main gist of these principles is that there should be more equity between people in the societies of the world; the large gap between class statuses and pay gaps should be narrowed. People also should have security with their food, especially those who cannot farm for themselves.


These last two articles go hand in hand in explaining how people can make a change on the local level to preserve the community they know. A big focus these reading had was the idea of environmental sustainability. While the environment is not on the front burner for any large corporation out there, so it is imperative that people take matters into their own hands. Communal CSA farms are excellent examples of a community coming together to promote local farming and to support local businesses.


The very last three readings all related to one another in the sense that they have all laid out ideas and strategies to changing the way we impact the world through globalization. In a broad sense these strategies aim to reverse the damage that has already been done.

Chapter 76 brought up some very good points in terms of the 2 different worlds that have evolved through globalization. One being the ideas and beliefs brought about through the corporate companies who are only looking to support their own wallets. The other being the citizen movements that focus on the impact globalization has upon individuals. Of course the corporate globalists would think that the progress is good, they have blinders on to the fact that anything bad can come out of what they are doing. This is exemplified in the notation that CEO’s are now paid on average 517 times more than the workers. Of course they would have no conscience as to how they are impacting the world- they see dollar signs, not problems. He also discusses the Ten Principles for Democratic and sustainable society. I agreed with the ecological sustainability, human rights, and the food security and food safety the most. I feel people should have rights to food safety to insure that chemicals which can cause health issues aren’t being spread on their food just so that the global agribusiness firms can assure production.

The one thing that I really, still can’t, understand is how we can privatize natural resources. I guess I never really understood the problems this has caused until I took this class. Water for example; I just can’t see how it can be privatized.  Along with the fact of the life science issues, where genetic structures of human beings are becoming privatized – this is absurd to me. This all relates back to the Piracy or Patent article we read.

The two articles we read go very much hand in hand. One describes what we can do at a local level to change the current impact on the world by preserving our communities. The other discusses the several levels that we can make a difference. I agreed a lot with what Berry brings up. Many of the rules he discusses would be ideal…in a perfect world. But I don’t believe that they are achievable any time soon. It is a matter that concerns every living being on this planet. And I personally don’t see large CEO’s changing their ways when they are getting paid millions. I get the sense that in some of his points, he is rather sarcastic. He talks about being liberated from land ownership and self-employment, but I personally think that these ARE liberating. To own your own land, and to farm your own food, would give one a true sense of freedom.  He also makes the very valid point that most of these corporations come in, destroy what they can, make a profit, and leave without any regards to what they have just done. All that matters to them is the dollar. That’s really what is all about. One thing he says that stands out, and I really liked, was that these supranational corporations and the governments are only looking for their own convenience, and the inconvenience for the rest of us. I also agreed with his discussion on how factory farms literally disregard the ecology of the landscape and could care less about the natural biological components of the land they are using for profit. Just as long as they can make their money. When he talks about how any nation or region can justify the destruction of a local productive capacity, the answer is basically, MONEY. Its justified by the dollars sign. One thing he mentions that doesn’t even make logical sense to me is the fact that the common belief is that corporations make their plea that damaging  the present environment is justified in order to make a better future….i do NOT agree. While going through the rest of the article , as I have said, he brings up great points and much of what he says, speaks a lot to someone such as myself who sees the environmental impact of globalization, but I personally feel that it is a very farfetched idea to get everyone on the same page. Another thing he talks about is getting industries that are NON POLLUTING. Considering that companies were allowed to pay and sell their polluting rights, which allowed them to pollute a certain amount into the Chesapeake bay, and then sell them to other companies who could potentially pollute even more dangerous toxins into the bay, I don’t see “NON POLLUTING” industries in our future other than the ones that strive for environmental stewardship.

The Global to Local article looked at levels where change can be implemented. This class, in general, has touched base on every single one of these ideas. He looks at ways that a consumer can make a change through being informed and buying local, supporting fair trade and potentially joining a CSA. I, personally try to do all of this when I’m shopping (with the exception of joining a CSA- however, potentially in the near future). He also talks about steps we can take as employees. Some of these I have seen implemented within certain places I have worked, even though he talks about them under the Co-op. The environmental center I worked for did a lot to adopt policies that reflect social and environmental values. Of course it did though, it was an environmental center. But by implementing those concepts at the work place, I also try to implement them at home.

His last two focus points talk about taking steps as an investor and as a citizen. I really liked his bullet points on the local citizen level, where he talked about simply taking action. Getting the ideas of a sustainable community out there and bringing them up to the community leaders. This is really how things can get done. I think over all the local community can be the most important in making any type of change. People tend to follow trends and when entire communities come together and do something that makes such an impact, other communities will follow. All of this while still seeing the big picture in terms of positive global impact. As individuals we have a voice, but as communities, we have strength in numbers. I’m reminded of the time that Wal-Mart came into Kutztown to try and put a store in between the one that is already in Trexlertown, and the college. Honestly it was the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard…. I was a student when the petition went around. That petition, while just a piece of paper, was backed by the voices of the community. They came together and in the end, Wal-Mart backed down over the 99 stipulations that the community had agreed upon. This is a perfect example as to why change at the local level is so important.


Chapter 76: A Better World is Possible!

I love the positive title; it puts all the other doom and gloom readings to shame! This chapter focused on the two competing worlds: corporations and democracies. The author explains the qualities each world contains. I was very surprised to read that the corporate globalists believe they are innovators and creators of wealth. Creators of wealth for 1%!! I really enjoyed how the author described the IMF, WTO, and the World Bank. I agree with him when he says they are outmoded, undemocratic , inefficient, and destructive. Honestly, this whole chapter focuses on the many negative aspects of corporate globalization including the widening gap of the rich and poor and endanger communities of people and the environment. The author goes on to describe ten principles that will build a sustainable society. All of the principles were of high importance, but the common heritage one spoke to me. The author touched on this subject of common heritage later on in the chapter within his issues of commodification of the commons. I agree wholeheartedly with the author, "the process of privatizing, monopolizing, and commodifying common heritage resources and turning public services into corporate profit centers and the protection of this process within global trade agreements, must be halted at once. " It is unethical and needs to stop. Our article on the neem tree is connected to this issue. Corporate globalization has done enough to hurt the ones at the bottom. The author's solution is to focus the power to the lowest unit appropriate for a particular goal. Basically, the people should have the power to make decisions, not multinational corporations. Throughout this chapter, I wondered if this had something to do with the local trap. Was the author assuming local was intrinsically better because corporate globalization has destroyed so many lives? I don't know, but it crossed my mind.

E-Reserve: Conserving Communities

This e-reserve had some very good points on how our government has actively destroyed the agriculture class of America. The statistic of how many famers there were in the US in 1991. I had always thought there were so many more than that. Although, if the atmosphere to be a farmer is favorable to industrial farming rather than family farming, then the numbers will decrease. It is really sad how large, distant corporations come into an area, exploit their resources, and leave once the area is of no use to them. It destroys families and futures. The author suggested that we are in a post-agriculture world where our larger society does not value nature and rural life; however, there is hope within the masses of people who value the environment, human culture, and local community. The author puts forth 15 principles that will lead to a sustainable community. I really like all of his proposed rules, but I am a bit biased a already since I would consider myself in support of the local (I have yet to achieve putting my desire of local into full on action). I really liked how the author pointed out this, "of course, no food economy can or ought to be only local". This demonstrates that they are not falling into the local trap. This is the only article where I saw that the author was overtly stating that local is not intrinsically good. For us to move forward with a better future, the author feels that it is imperative for us to focus on our local communities. It will reverse a lot of the damage done by corporate globalization.

E-Reserve: Global to Local

This was a great last read for the semester. It was a, "so you don't like what is going, well, here is what YOU, the individual, can do." It even broke the advice up into categories which consisted of consumer, worker, citizen, and depositor and investor. I'd say a large majority of people are all three of these, so we have a wealth of information on what to do to fight against the global economic system. I think one of the most important topics in the consumer category is being an informed consumer. Education is how we enhance ourselves in this world. Just as the author has suggested, the more we become informed consumers...the more successful we will be in choosing products that benefit, rather than harm, our world. Fair trade is part of this education. Instead of buying the generic, cheap brand that exploits workers and destroys the environment, buy the brand that has values consistent with your own. When I was browsing through the citizen category, I noticed that the verbs the author was using were all about being proactive in your community. It's like voting, if you don't vote, you can't complain. If you don't like the present situation, do something about it! The author gives so many concrete, easy ways to fight back. This is the only life you will have, don't settle for below average. As the author has said, "Now is the time to join the growing political struggle that will embrace new pathways..." Now go forth and change the world!

Ch 76, CC, G to L

The last book article attempts to end on high note because the whole rest of the book was a giant hissy fit about how everybody sucks.  In all seriousness, I thought it was a good closing chapter because it was trying to say "Hey we understand the world sucks but it isn't beyond repair!".  I think it will take a crisis to make people get their act together but that is another story.  One part that sparked some thought was part c where 500 million children under are underweight and I am thinking about all of the people that are overweight.  Also, 800 million go to sleep hungry, as I'm sitting at my desk eating Pop-Tarts and Fruit Gushers because of the spoiled, entitled American I am.  It did make me feel awful but they tasted so good it masked the guilt.  Another part I found interesting and extremely hilarious was in Chapter 2, part a with the "New Democracy".  The author talks about the Seattle protests to symbolize a sort of rebellion against the current system so I put a twist on it: "democracy flourishes when people organize to..." vote for Donald Trump.  I'm not trying to call everybody an idiot who votes for him, but I thought it was funny because we are seeing, in both parties, a rebellion against the system that people think is rigged and not for them.  There is supposed to be a main person who leads the charge against the "establishment", and that person is: Donald Trump.  I'm going to take a minute to let that sink in because it is a turning point but nothing that anybody expected.
The first thing I thought of while reading the first part of this paper is the old coal/mining industry that was a staple of many northern states including Pennsylvania.  Although I admit I don't know much about it because I learned Georgia history in school, but I do know that when the coal companies left, it devastated the communities.  That shows itself when Berry talks about companies coming in, getting what they want and then leaving (especially the logging companies).  It is rather obnoxious that companies love to have a "dog-year relationship" with every city they want, leaving many people out of work, the environment trashed, etc.  It is unfortunate that these practices keep happening, but there really doesn't seem to be any end in sight because what they are doing is so profitable.  I saw it especially where I used to live in GA.  It seemed like every week they were building a new strip mall, a new store opened, then it was gone.  Not sure if that is the idea that is being discussed in this paper but that is how I see it so BACK OFF.  Another part of the article is the list of actions locals have with business and I connected this to last week's readings with the CSA leaders having to live close to the businesses they operate.  The local's actions were concerned with the effects on their community.
G to L:
This article is gonna be called "So You Wanna Be A Local".  I thought of this article as a career description for being a local leader.  Beyond that, I didn't think it was that interesting.  I felt like it was an echo of other things we have read.  I did think the main idea to remember that this article did was that it tried to reinforce that getting involved with green companies is a good thing.

Friday, April 22, 2016


Piracy by Patent

this article is about piracy of local seeds.  It is not fair what the untied states is doing to these farmers that they stole the seeds from.  they are taking the seed that the farmers have been growing for a long time and then patenting it. they are forcing the farmers to pay for these seeds now that once used to be theirs. not only are they making them pay for it but they are also manipulating just a little bit so they can claim it as theirs. when the farmers try to grow the original seed they are charged with piracy

Avoiding the local trap

this article the author talks about how buying local produce is a trap.  they talk about how it is healthier but in actuality you may be able to get healthier food the was imported. the author goes on to talk about how their are a lot of chemicals in local foods to preserve them and that the imported foods are refrigerated and shipped faster.

Food Miles

this article was what i believe is the most interesting of the 3 articles. it is about how far your food travels to reach your local market.  it also talks about CSA's and how they connect people to place.  I never new about the CSA before.  it kind of reminds me of farmers markets. even though it does sound interesting and a good idea i probably wont be joining on any time soon.  maybe a little bit longer down the road. but as of right now i am fine with getting produce at the local store.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

E-reserve readings

Avoiding the Local Trap:

As the title states, one must avoid falling into said "local trap," AKA the assumption that locally grown food is inherently good, meaning that buying this type of food is more beneficial to the economy and can healthier. While some people hold on to this assumption, it may not always be correct, according to the author. It was interesting to read an article that had some negative things to say against CSAs and the local food movement. While I disagree with how negative the author is about local food, I do believe that everything that is up for purchase should be taken with a grain of salt. Helping your local economy and local farmers is great and all, but if you haven't grown the food, you don't know exactly how the growing process went. This anxiety may be slightly helped out by purchasing food directly from the farmers themselves rather than in the "organic" section of your local grocery store. Either way, I believe it's always good to have a healthy distrust of people, especially those you only conduct business transactions with.

Food Miles:

This article explained the fallacy that is on average, the food we eat travels around 1,500 miles to get to us. I thought it was pretty interesting where exactly that number came from and how restricted the study to calculate that number was. This article also explored why people participate in CSAs, asking these questions via interview. People love the idea of knowing where their food comes from and the sense of community that comes with joining a local CSA. While you get extremely fresh food at lower prices, CSA members get to know the farmers and other members to the CSA through events that are held at the farm. This sense of place and community really enhances the experience and makes the entry fee worth every cent.


Piracy by Patent 

This article discusses the effects international patent laws have on the third world and discusses what developed countries like the United States claim the third world does to them. Twenty years ago international copyright laws were being used to patent seeds as well as living organisms. Because of this the farmers of India would have to pay to have seeds to plant whereas in the past seeds were free. This ordeal goes farther to the point that specific things extracted from the neem tree were being patented causing for the value of the seeds to go up as well as allowing for their availability to the Indian people to go down. The author says that according to pending patent laws cattle that come from genetically engineered parents could have a royalty put on them causing for farmers in the third world to have to pay even more money. 

Avoiding the local trap 

The local trap in this article refers to the way that people are lead to believe local grown foods as the new economically beneficial and healthier option.  According to the Author the truth is that local food is not always the best for you as far as nutrients and that mass farmed food May in fact be healthier.  The author discusses that although it's easier for local growers to get food to you faster, oversea growers have the means and necessity to ship as fast as possible and refrigerate while shipping. 

Food miles

This article is all about the idea of food miles and how long it takes for food to get from the farm to market. The article details the tracing of two generally accepted numbers for the average distance of miles food travels and thoroughly looks at where they came from, one being from 1969 and the effects of nuclear war on population and food supply and the other from 2001 that came from a study that was only true for a specific part of Chicago's terminal produce market. In fact the average fruit travels 2500 miles and not all miles are the same when it comes to the type of energy that is required like it said in the last article about local shippers using trucks and the environmental effects of fossil fuels.  The article ends with a distinction between the difference of what it means to buy local and the idea of food miles. Local is really meant for those who look at a connection between what they buy and who grew it. Food miles only worries about distance. 

Wednesday, April 20, 2016


E-Reserve 1: This was the piracy article and the "modifier" countries really ticked me off because their viewpoint was so technical, it was almost childish.  The way I see it, the "original" countries should have the most say because it was still their original seed.  The example I think of is if you take my 10 page globalization paper on Microsoft and change one word and try to pass it off as your own, you would be plagiarizing.  While the modifier countries can be right on a technicality because yes it isn't the same seed, but you still had to have the original seed to do your genetic modification.  Assuming the author is not biased and she is telling the real story (which I doubt), but I'll assume she is for the sake of argument, and then the originals should win in this case.  I think that the little game they play with patenting is quite childish as well.  The fact that they have to race each other to patent every little thing just to make a buck is the reason so many people hate big business.  It goes back to the idea that a business is in for the profit, but when they get overly greedy and trigger happy with schemes to nickel and dime, people get mad, then protest like they did here.
E-Reserve 2: I'm gonna call this the tiny font article.  The Local Trap talks about the local trap which does get a lot of people.  I'm not sure I could say the same for myself because I don't really grocery shop.  When I did go, my mother always preached about organic and this and that so I guess she had one foot in and one foot out and shook it all about.  There is a partly false narrative the word "local" brings about which is somehow that it is better.  My thinking is unless you actually grow something yourself, you will never know what is in it so you should always be skeptical and ask questions.  The preservatives and all the other junk they put on our food is poison to us, the environment, etc.  Part of the argument is that it is local then it is better which is pretty elitist to say the least because we could attribute that to people and that would be racist.  So I could jokingly say we are now "food-ist" because of that thought process.
E-Reserve 3: Food Miles is Dr. Schnell's paper and they cited him incorrectly on page 7.  It is supposed to be (Schnell, 2007) for a proper author-date in-text citation.  The concept of food miles is kind of cool.  Hey your orange has an odometer on it and it reads 1,130 miles (the distance from PA to FLA).  The idea sounds really cool, but admittedly I don't give a second of thought as to how far my food has travelled.  Yeah it sounds terrible that it seems like something so trivial but not very many people give it any thought whatsoever.  The article also went into the CSAs, pretty much like Monday's class and I saw some of that in the videos we watched in class as well.

E Reserves

Rarely is local food production seen in a negative light, especially in places like Pennsylvania where farmers can be seen anyone and local food is particularly available. Thus it was surprising to me to read the two articles critically analyzing something so intrinsically thought of as good. Perhaps I am a victim of the local trap, and am too unwilling to change my views but I disagreed with many of the points the articles brought up.  Feeling as if they were trying too hard to be argumentative, bringing up much of the same points over and over again such as their point on the definition of local.
                “Locavore” was named the word of the year, showing the very deep support for local food. Focusing primarily on the idea of food miles, going as far as coming up with a “hundred-mile diet.” I don’t understand why not wanting to eat food from far away is an issue. Obviously not all food can be got from local markets, especially depending on where you live but to put an effort into giving back to your community. Which the author does admit that local food consumption does give people a connection to their community, giving a face to their food. The author focuses too much on the term local, criticize people for thinking it as a set-in-stone definition, although I think it’s the author whom is giving the term “local food” a specific definition and not the people. It’s common sense that local food would be different for everyone and no one is measuring how far they can go to reach their “hundred-mile diet.” People use these terms, like myself, as nothing more than a gauge of where they want their food to come from rather than a limit. The author also argues that people say they are so concerned with the food mileage and environment, while CSA farmers don’t give this reason for joining. Many join the CSA to connect with the community, rather than environmental cost. Although the CSA farmers don’t see food mileage as a reason to join, doesn’t mean buyers can’t have the food mileage a reason to buy locally.
                Branden Born and Mark Purcell bring up the idea of the local trap, claiming food activist and researchers have the tendency to assume anything grown on the local scale is inherently desirable and good. They argue that local food as become the end rather than the means of meeting the goals of citizens, such as a healthy environment, nutritious food and so on. Although I agree with this valid point, that local food has become an end rather than the means, doesn’t make the promotion of local food bad. It is clear that it’s not possible for every location and every one to receive local food and that local food isn’t necessarily the desirability of all people, there is no need to research to see that this is true. I don’t understand how just because everyone doesn’t agree with locally grown food, means it’s any less important to many other people. Another local trap is that scalar option might be more effective in achieving a desired outcome; meaning too much focus on local production may take away from the needs, laws, and regulation of large scale food production that feeds much more people. Although I don’t think a focus on local food scale production does anything of the such. Large scale food production, has and will continue to be more powerful than local farms, thus policies do not go on hold for local farmers. On the contrary even with the more want for local foods corporation still take control and hold lots of power, like their ability to sue local farmers and under take them easily with genetically modified seeds.
                I agree with Born and Purcell that we do hear all the bad from industrial-capitalist nature of food production such as environmental cost, chemicals, genetically modified engineering. Ignoring the that in order to feed the global population we need these fast ways of food production and there are positives to large scale food production. However, concerns listed above may be blown out of proportion these bias feels do not come out of thin air, and are real concerns. Food is not necessarily always better from local farms because it may travel and sit in a hot truck before being sold at your local farmer’s market, but I’m sure this is a slight downside that most people who buy locally grown food would rather take than ingesting pesticides. I understand the harm of assuming every solution is automatically local, but this should not take away from the good local production does have on the environment, socially and economically. Born and Purcell also argue that these local farmers are able to raise the prices that people will pay based off of the prestige that it is locally grown; but like the “Piracy By Patent” article money is not necessarily the primary focus as many corporations like to think.
                Shiva and Holla-Bhar show the downside to globalization of farming, using the example of the neem tree in India. This tree has provided medicine, toiletries, contraception, timber, fuel, and agriculture. The tree is also a sacred part of India culture, and is important to farmers and Indian society as a whole. Although Western states have historically put their nose up at Indian local practices, recently with the want of less chemicals the West as began to look at Eastern traditions. As a result, the United States in typical fashion has felt entitlement for local resources as they have in African and the rainforests in South America, to India as well. W.R. Grace and Co. have been trying to convince India for a while the benefits of neem tree being up for market grabs claiming India economy will be helped with jobs being created for the burst of production need for the United States. I can see why Indian farmers, and even the Indian people themselves, do not think the jobs and money is worth it; for I see this becoming like Africa where the workers will become exploited and