Tuesday, April 13, 2010

the many uses for "purpose bred animals"

I recently read this article in the Willamette Week about the controversy surrounding OHSU's primate research facility. After discussing the article with a friend, we came to the conclusion that while certain scientific research on animals (such as hair products or cosmetics) is absolutely unacceptable, other research has played a heavy role in our current understanding and treatment of many illnesses. I don't like any of it, personally, but I can't deny that people dying of cancer should have access to the most effective scientific scientific research possible. When my grandmother had cancer her most effective treatment at M.D. Anderson was a study that injected tumors into rats and then used different methods of chemotherapy and radiation to see what would decrease the size of the tumor. Even now, how could I side with a rat over my grandmother, the kindest, most wonderful person I have ever known? over anyone's grandmother?

One of the problems I had with the WWeek article, which was essentially an interview with the Animal Scientists, was that they referred to the animals not as macaques or even monkeys, but as 'purpose bred animals'. Yes, it is probably easier to perform operations on unnamed generic animals, but to me this term implies a lack of respect for the creature that is essentially donating its life to science. It is also a pathetic way to avoid inciting the public, who would probably flinch at the thought of performing operations on monkeys. If you believe in what you are doing, then stand behind it.

I also didn't like one of the scientists' avoidance of the subject of pain. When the interviewer asks her if by minimizing costs, she means the animals pain or discomfort, she replies that pain is tricky because there are very few studies actually studying pain. So we need to study the effects of pain on animals in order to recognize that it is there? She does add that the animals undergo the same process of anesthesia as a human would before surgery is performed. At least they aren't awake.

Anyway, I understand the need to use monkeys (primates), specifically, for some areas of scientific research (although I do not agree with using animals for fertility studies, as they do currently at OHSU). However, are there not times when anything substituted for a human being is going to lead to incredibly flawed results? I came across this article in the New York Times / Science Blog, describing a study that was recently done with the macaque population at OHSU:

PORTLAND, Ore -- Newly-published research by scientists at Oregon Health & Science University demonstrates that simply reducing caloric intake is not enough to promote significant weight loss. This appears to be due to a natural compensatory mechanism that reduces a person's physical activity in response to a reduction in calories. The research is published in the April edition of the American Journal of Physiology -- Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology.

Beyond the question of whether any of these findings are relevant (and if so, how much so), considering they are being performed on monkeys and applied to humans - yes, it is a closer connection that snakes, but still - is the question of whether it is truly ethical to use captive monkeys for this type of study, which could easily be performed on a human being. Yes, it is more difficult to keep a person in a completely controlled environment where their food intake, exercise, sleep, bodily functions, etc... could all be monitored, but this study is not really giving us any information that can save humanity. We already know that the healthiest lifestyle involves both a nutritious diet as well as exercise. We don't need a study on monkeys to tell us that.

Finally, this brings me to the real subject of this post, which is if course a book I'm reading, In Defense of Food - An Eater's Manifesto by Michael Pollan. It's the one where he says "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.," which I was hesitant to pick up because I thought it might be a continuation or a summary of the already incredibly long Omnivore's Dilemma. In fact, it is a quick and easy read that gives a brief history of the development of the processed food as a staple in our diet and the rise of "Nutritionism" and Americans' unhealthy obsession with being healthy. More on this later when i finish the book!

Have a lovely day!

Monday, March 29, 2010

Why the Republicans Have Their Panties in a Twist

Supposedly it's about health care reform, but this article makes a really great point about what some of this underlying anger (which is turning into truly destructive outrage) is really stemming from. The reality is, our demographics as a country are changing. Obama and much of his staff exemplify this fact and our nation's conservative, white population is up in arms to stop them.

Monday, March 15, 2010

An incredibly scary thought...

Right wing conservative Christian fundamentalists from Texas are controlling what goes into grade school text books. And yes, I did mean to use that many adjectives in a sentence because I think that each one is essential to the horror I felt upon reading this article (watch the video as well).

It makes me want to become a teacher, just so that I can make a difference in a few kids' lives, teach them to think critically and not take what they are being told at face value. I don't remember any of my high school teachers ever once mentioning to us that what we were being taught was in some cases extremely one sided. Sure, there was some vague notion of history being written by the winners, but that doesn't mean we ever heard the losers' story.

I definitely think we need to be more selective about who gets to decide what makes history and what doesn't. The problem is, there are so many of these crazy people out there! And they tend to vote a lot more rigorously for school board officials and such than other groups. I think that religious fundamentalism is seriously damaging our country. We lose respect from other nations (I found this was often the case when I was abroad) and we are doing our children a disservice by not teaching them the things they should obviously be learning about (i.e. evolution and sex ed.). Just for the record, I am not talking about religious people in general, but about the Christian fundamentalists who hold so much sway over our nation. It is truly disturbing.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

puppy love? or puppy porn?


The Mercury's BlogtownPDX posted a link to SSENSE (an artsy clothing line)'s risque photo series, involving a scantily clad model and a dog. As seen from the comments on these photos, the rich people who buy this clothing were more than a little disturbed. Personally, i don't see why it's a problem to let a dog lick your thigh (apparently they used carefully placed peanut butter) and there is absolutely nothing sexual (in the sense of actual sexual acts) going on between the dog and the human in these photos. These commenters are more disturbed by the perverse implications of the photographs than the art itself. Would it be any less offensive to them if it was a human being wearing that collar? They might claim that it would be, but I seriously doubt it. Just accept that the dog had a fun day in the studio, licking peanut butter off of a model, and leave it at that.

That said, there are definitely moral questions at stake here but these people are anthropomorphising the dog, believing that he feels shame or was somehow taken advantage of in this situation, when that is not the case. I think a lot about animal ethics and human beings' relationship to animals and I vehemently oppose not only animal cruelty, but the use of animals for our own pleasures (whether that be an exhilarating bull fight or a chicken nugget). However, I think it is equally important to consider these animals on their own terms. Thus my opinion that while these photographs are disturbing because they make us think about what could be happening, they are not actually committing any morally questionable acts.

What I do have a problem with, however, is when people use/abuse animals as a vehicle for abusing women (or children, people of color, LGBT persons, etc...) and vice versa. Like calling your dog a bitch "because it's true, hahahaha" or calling your wife a bitch (which implies she is a dog) or beating your wife's dog to show her who's boss. There are all kinds of fucked up things you can go into on that subject, and if you read some of the comments on the website, you will get a taste...

39. HAVING SEX WITH DOGS IS COOL, MY WIFE DID IT ONCE, THEN I HAD TO HAVE HER PUT DOWN.

Posted by Jon Smallberries on January 11th, 2010 at 12:00pm

And this one is just funny...

60. im pretty sure no one was hurt during this shoot and the dog was chilling like a villian!!! its just weird looking at a dog get that close to a girls cooter!!!

Posted by boom boom on January 18th, 2010 at 00:12am


So yeah...if you want to get all animal rights on something, check out PETA's Meet Your Meat video or maybe think about the animals that had to die for your fancy clothes, but leave the photography out of it (at least in this case). Good art makes us think. Let's leave it at that.

Monday, March 8, 2010

The New American Diet

Not surprisingly, the newest trend to try to get Americans to eat healthier is to package all the components of a healthy lifestyle into a set of rules that can be bound and sold for $39.95. Specifically, eating organic, avoiding pesticides and plasticides, and aiming for grass-fed meat is all part of the New American Diet, where "you can eat STEAK, BURGERS, CHOCOLATE, and ICE CREAM and still lose fat (starting with belly fat)!"

The New American Diet aside, this related article offers some specifics as to how natural and synthetic chemicals play a role in weight gain and what we can do to avoid these chemicals as much as possible. Some highlights:

The 12 fruits and vegetables you should always try to buy organic (they contain the highest levels of pesticides) listed from highest to lowest:
  • peaches, apples, bell peppers, celery, nectarines, strawberries, cherries, kale, lettuce, imported grapes, carrots, and pears
The "clean fifteen" on the other hand have the lowest levels of pesticide residue:
  • onions, avocados, sweet corn, pineapples, mangoes, asparagus, sweet peas, kiwis, cabbages, eggplants, papayas, watermelons, broccoli, tomatoes, and sweet potatoes
Other interesting points:
  • Natural EDC's (endocrine disrupting chemicals) are those hormones found naturally in soy. I'm no expert on this subject, but it seems to me that those estrogen producing chemicals in soy, frequently cited for reducing the risk of certain cancers, can also be a contributing factor in hormone disruption and therefore weight gain (among a ton of other side effects such as early development in girls). I'm sure that naturally and in moderate amounts, soy is probably really good for us, however, I'm wary of anything that a. the government has started subsidizing (i.e. corn) and b. we are likely ingesting in all kinds of invisible ways (through the meat that we eat and in numerous products where it has replaced high fructose corn syurp). Anyway, didn't mean to go off on soy, just found it to be an interesting, if underdeveloped, component in this article.
  • Don't ever heat up plastic and avoid drinking hot things out of plastic. Side note: my roommate, Missy, just took a class on natural cleaners and household poisons and she said that we get the highest amount of phthalates from our shower curtain. Apparently, high amounts of phthalates (another chemical found in plastic) have been shown to corrolate to disruptive behavior, a topic that is very dear to her heart as she is a pre-school teacher.
  • Finally, and I am sure I am being redundant to anyone who reads this blog regularly, try to avoid eating animals that have been given hormones during their lifetime or fed on diets of corn and soy. Instead, aim to eat grass-fed "organic" meat. Also, avoid high fructose corn syrup at all costs.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

CocoRosie

sisters. they are so beautiful and i love their photographs. this one is a slide show, for the full song click here.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

10,000 school children die. 1 man goes to jail.

This is a really interesting article that touches on the incredibly destructive earthquake in China last year and the continued silence of dissidents within the country.

Also, I am really interested to see the HBO documentary, "China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province," which received an Oscar nomination (not mentioned in the Chinese Oscars). The filmmakers are not allowed back into China. The website of the film is also blocked in China.

Monday, February 8, 2010

dairy corporations win again...

This is the new Food Guide Pyramid, released this year by the U.S. Department of agriculture. Please note that the "milk" section is pretty much the same size as the vegetable section. MILK IS NOT THAT GOOD FOR YOU. It is a trick.

Also, where are all the cute little drawings of food? I don't like this one. Once again, here is Harvard's recommended food pyramid.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

chicken thief!

Thought this article was in the vein of what I have been thinking and writing about lately. Brought to you by the lovely Ms. Swoope, a proud Reed alumnus.

Eating Animals, Sustainable Food, and The Vegetarian Myth

I am 3/4's of the way through Eating Animals by Jonathan Saffran Foer and very much enjoying this book. Not sure if enjoying is an appropriate word choice there, but I think this blogger sums it up when she says, "I have read more food books than I can count, many of which touch on, or even focus on, factory farming. I have formally studied nutrition and am well versed in the health risks and benefits of eating meat. So JSF didn’t teach me anything, well, he didn’t teach me much, I didn’t already know. But he said it in a way that touched me unexpectedly. He is eloquent and real. He’s smart and funny and occasionally crass. He’s someone I think I could be friends with." That doesn't exactly apply to me...my only point was that I knew what I was getting into and I am really impressed with his writing and his arguments. I have also learned a lot about the brains and bodies of different farm/farmed (fish as well) animals. More to come on that when I have time to quote from the book. Some of these facts are blowing my mind.

Anyway, on the subject of food, I would like to point out that the blog quoted above, Sustainable Food Center, is a grassroots organization in Austin, TX that focuses on educating people about nutrition and working to make local, sustainable food available to everyone. Pretty awesome. This is the type of organization I would like to work for/with if I decide to get a Masters degree in Nutrition.

Lastly, a book that I am interested in reading: The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability by Lierre Keith. Here is a brief review and an interview that I have not had the chance to listen to yet. LK was a vegan for 20 years before she realized that her diet was destroying her health. Now she tries to eat a sustainable, "paleo" type diet that includes completely organic, farm raised animal products and is low in processed foods. She says that many vegetarians are blinded by their ideology and that there is much more wrong with our food system than just factory farming. Everything that we purchase from a grocery store supports one or another company or corporation and there needs to be more involved in activism than just saying no to meat. As usual, I am interested to read about the health aspects of her diet change.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Wo shi su! - more thoughts on food

I've been doing a little research on what it is like to be a vegetarian in China and there seem to be opinions across the board on this topic. On the one hand, China was a Buddhist country for several hundred years, meaning a huge part of the population did not eat meat for religious reasons. However, this is no longer the case in modern China. Also, many poor people in China cannot afford to eat much (if any) meat. Yet this does not mean they understand someone who chooses to not eat meat. If anything, the absence of meat almost deifies it, undermining their involuntary vegetarianism.

The main conclusion that I have come to is that it is not going to be all that difficult to eat (mostly) vegetarian in China, especially considering my exceptionally loose definition of the term. It just involves being flexible and knowing a little Chinese. This website has been pretty helpful. I think I will ask my Mandarin teacher as well.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Eating Animals

This is an interview with author Jonathan Safran Foer (Everything is Illuminated) about his new book, Eating Animals which I really REALLY want to read.

I'm sure it is preachy to some extent and probably revolting to a larger extent, as he goes into a lot of the details of factory farming. However, rather than trying to convince everyone to be vegetarian, Foer simply wants humans to "be informed and take responsibility"...whatever that may mean to you. More importantly, he explores the "human costs" of eating factory farmed meat and claims that while it might be cheaper initially than eating humanely raised animals the long term health and environmental effects are extremely costly.

Natalie Portman makes a really interesting remark when she says that 'what Foer most bravely details is how eating animals pollutes not only our backyards, but also our beliefs'. A lifelong vegetarian, she says that Foer's book has turned her into a vegan activist. I also like this comment she made about The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan:

'I say that Foer's ethical charge against animal eating is brave because not only is it unpopular, it has also been characterized as unmanly, inconsiderate, and juvenile. But he reminds us that being a man, and a human, takes more thought than just "This is tasty, and that's why I do it." He posits that consideration, as promoted by Michael Pollan in The Omnivore's Dilemma, which has more to do with being polite to your tablemates than sticking to your own ideals, would be absurd if applied to any other belief (e.g., I don't believe in rape, but if it's what it takes to please my dinner hosts, then so be it).'

Anyway, just some food for thought.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

voila la voile

This has nothing to do with China, but is a really insightful article concerning the impending burqa ban in France.

This article gives more specifics on the new law. It also examines the French 'identity crisis' in more depth, which is of course the central issue at stake in this argument.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Also!

I got accepted into the Teach in Shenzhen program! So barring any unforeseen obstacles (and assuming I can come up with the $$), I will be traveling to China in August 2010. Yay!

No absolute free flow of information

An opinion piece from the China Daily website reveals an extremely interesting perspective on Chinese censorship of the internet.

Is the U.S. just using this face off between China and Google to once again intervene in our own "big brother knows best" style? While I don't think it is in any way acceptable for the Chinese government to hack into the gmail accounts of Chinese (or foreign) activists, and I support Google pulling out of China if it continues to extensively censor the flow of information over the interwebs, I think the U. S. needs to recognize that there is not much else we can do besides make a big fuss about it. It is not our place to intervene no matter how much we think we know better. Besides, I am positive that the United States government censors our interwebs as well, just not to the same extent. Moderation is key.

Monday, January 25, 2010

two articles about China

In an effort to do some research about China before I leave for Shenzhen in August (this is still pending but I am assuming that I will go one way or another) I am going to read and blog about one article a day that relates in some way to China or Chinese language/culture/people.

Today I have read two, both panel discussions from the New York Times. The first, Will China Achieve Science Supremacy, discusses the merits and obstacles of scientific research in China. Several of the panelists commented on how constant political campaigning interferes with scientific growth.

"Hu Jintao, the current supremo, has reinvigorated Marxist instruction in schools and universities. At the very least, incessant campaigns are a distraction from real research and study. Every month spent on understanding “the primary stage of socialism” or “the important thought of the Three Represents” is one fewer month devoted to the periodic table or sub-atomic particles. Of course, the new ideological indoctrination stifles free thinking across the board."
-Gordon G. Chang, author of “The Coming Collapse of China” and a columnist at Forbes.com.

There was also significant mention of recent academic frauds in China. This is attributed to pressure on scientists for more "visible," published and highly quantitative (rather than qualitative) results. In that same vein, one panelist notes that China is "pursuing a brute force strategy" when it comes to investing in the country's scientific future.

"[China is] creating many new institutions of higher education that in turn will produce a large number of new scientists and engineers. The underlying assumption seems to be that quantity will lead to quality; in other words, world class achievement will emerge when the 'installed base' of talent reaches a critical mass."
-John Kao, the chairman and founder of the Institute for Large Scale Innovation, has been an adviser to many organizations involved in developing innovation strategies and capabilities. A former Harvard Business School professor, he is the author of “Jamming” and “Innovation Nation.”

The implications of this article are that China is working hard to create a foundation for scientific thought and innovation in today's society. However, there will have to be some necessary changes in both government views and policy, as well as a fundamental change in direction in order for this scientific drive to flourish. There cannot be innovation without creativity and freedom from internal (i.e. Chinese govt) pressures to produce quantitative results.


The second article is (very tellingly so) much less meaty than the first and concerns perceptions of race in China. Aside from talking about China's history of diversity and a few recent issues of public identity questioning (taking place on a Chinese 'American Idol' type show), none of the panelists really addresses directly or extensively the subject of how different races are perceived or treated in China. Perhaps this is because "Chinese people" are by self-definition multi-ethnic, with the majority being Han and the countless other ethnicities considered minorities. This would obviously create a completely different perception of race than for example an American point of view. However, it is also apparent from this article that not much (scholarly or otherwise) attention has been given to the impact of racial diversity in China and with the country's increasingly global and international environment, this is going to be a hugely important issue before too long.