Frankenstein food remains unpopular

Public attitudes to genetically modified (GM) agriculture are not changing with most people still uncomfortable with the technology, according to a study conducted by Swinburne University’s Centre for Emerging Technologies and Society.

The random study conducted interviews of 1000 people who were asked how comfortable they were with genetically modified food crops. On a scale of 10, with zero being ‘not at all comfortable’ the average score or degree of comfort was found to be 3.9. This negative perception of GM foods has remained fairly constant over recent years, with one of the authors of the study, Professor Michael Gilding stating that the level of comfort “was 4.2 in 2003; 3.8 in 2004, 4.0 in 2005; 4.2 in 2006; 4.1 in 2007; and 3.9 in 2008.

That the public’s perception of GM foods has remained constant does not surprise Gilding. “In the late 1990s, most people formed their views about genetic manipulation of agriculture. Negative views regarding new technologies such as GM are shaped early on among the larger part of the population, and these people have stayed with this view,” claims Gilding.

The Swinburne study found that the public’s reaction to GM is not due to ignorance about the technology, but rather because of a lack of trust in the institutions responsible for the technology’s commercialization. The research also highlights the growing importance of trust in our public institutions, as more and more of our daily lives are informed by science and technology. “If people have confidence in scientific organizations, such as universities and hospitals, they tend to believe in GM agriculture, whereas people who trust the environment movement are more likely to distrust GM agriculture,” said Gilding. “In the past we were much more likely to trust authorities on matters of food and health. However, we are seeing a broad change in society where people are far more skeptical of these new technologies,” he added.

The director of Gene Ethics, Bob Phelps, states that “a major target of public mistrust is Monsanto, the world's biggest seed company that owns patents on over 90% of all commercial GM soy, corn, canola and cotton crops that are grown.” Monsanto has recently been ranked last among 581 transnational companies for its reputation by the Geneva-based Covalence reputation index. "Monsanto's management and shareholders should be ashamed of ranking absolutely last,” says Phelps who heads the non-profit network which envisages a safer, more equitable, and more sustainable GM-free society.

"Monsanto must behave much more ethically if it hopes to win public confidence and trust around the world, says Phelps. The company needs to spend the enormous money that is spent on research and development, not on genetically modified food, in order to capture control of the world’s food supply as they are doing, but on making world agriculture more sustainable.” He says that the promises of feeding the world and of a cornucopia of new drought tolerant, and salt tolerant crop plants are empty claims. “Monsanto has attempted to use the patent system in order to impose its own will and its profit making motives on the worlds food supply.”

Over the past few decades, multinational chemical companies such as Monsanto, along with Bayer and Syngenta have been genetically engineering new food crops which could never have occurred in nature and include corn that produces its own insecticide and canola which is immune to toxic sprays. Whereas traditional forms of breeding involve using organisms within the same species, gene technology moves genes from one life form forcing them often into quite different species, resulting in novel crops, which are then processed into food and sold in shops, mostly unlabelled.

In Australia, the labelling of GM food is extremely limited and excludes products such as meat, milk, and eggs produced by animals that have been fed GM stock feed. Neither do our current labelling laws apply to processed foods containing cooking oils produced from GM crops. “For the last 20 years the public has been surveyed about genetically manipulated food crops, with around 90% of Australians saying they want labelling of all foods produced using the technology,” explains Phelps.

On the 9^th February, in a surprise move, described by Phelps as ‘a victory for democracy’, the Indian government stopped the release of its first genetically modified vegetable due to concerns over its safety. The decision to stop the proposed commercialization of GM eggplant was welcomed by anti-GM campaigners, farmers and shoppers worldwide. The Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh said that the evidence as to the safety and environmental impacts have not been ascertained and the moratorium will be in place until all tests are carried out to the satisfaction of everyone. One of the reasons that the Indian Government has moved to stop the release of GM eggplant is that a director of Monsanto India has broken ranks, and publicly stated that the company has used fake scientific data.

The Director of Gene Ethics, Bob Phelps shares his condemnation asserting that ‘this is a warning to regulators around the world that they need to take another look at the health and safety of all GM crops.’ “We know that some GM crops are unsafe for the experimental and farm animals and so we can reasonably assume that some of these GM crops are not safe for humans either.”

Leading health bodies, such as the Public Health Association of Australia have concerns about GM foods. These include the fact that there are likely to be increased pesticide residues in our food and there is concern about the ingestion of new proteins and allergens, plus the unknown effects arising from the use of antibiotic-resistance genes in GE plants.

“The community doesn’t want it, and there is no evidence at all that as a result of the expenditure of several billions of dollars of over the last two decades by Australian governments, that there has been any benefit, either economically or for the public good. Gene Ethics is calling for a vigorous review of the research and development priorities with a view to downscaling and perhaps even eliminating expenditure on genetic manipulation technologies. “They don’t work, they’re a ‘dud’ and it’s time that governments realize that, declared Phelps.

‘Work till you drop’

“Old age ain't no place for sissies,” declared Bette Davis, once upon a time. I would have to agree with the first lady of the American Screen about the formidable rigors of ageing. This final stage of the human condition is to become even more uncomfortable as the demands for baby boomers to extend their working lives increase. The mantra alleging that baby boomers are a hefty burden on the younger generation is frequently recited and its purpose is intentional. The country can’t afford to keep us in the manner to which we have become accustomed. Our meagre superannuation savings mandate that we work more and play less, with the average superannuation account being about $85,000, and much less for many women, who have taken time away from paid work to care for families.

This latest piece of social engineering has attracted the wit of cartoonist Michael Leunig who depicts the end of retirement with his scrawny, haggard character, tethered scarecrow-like, over the veggies. ‘It’s not a real scarecrow. That’s our grandma. We’ve got her back into the workforce to make use of her considerable talents,’ read the caption. Craig from Tasmania, in a letter to The Age, wrote that he’s a 55 year old with no jobs prospects. As he doesn’t want to be a burden on society he suggests that euthanasia could be a solution. But even here his option is thwarted, and while we wait for the euthanasia legislation to catch up with the fiscal realities of an ageing society, what are we older baby boomers supposed to do but keep healthy and work.

Many older Australians do not have access to bountiful super funds and face the work challenge for another 5 to 10 years. Ray is a critical care nurse who finding himself in this situation, knows he has little choice but to continually work at keeping mentally and physically active. “In my job I need a lot of stamina,” states the trim 64 year old nurse who attends his local fitness centre three times a week. “Regular weight training maintains my strength so I can keep up with the demands of an increasingly stressful workplace.”

Rick Taranto knows well the benefits of regular exercise and fitness for the over 50s. The 58 year-old is a gym instructor and personal trainer at Fitness in Sussex, situated in the northern Melbourne suburb of Pascoe Vale. “Most people think that gym is just for weight lifting or weight loss, but there’s another important element that’s to do with your inner health, such as the benefits of weight training for blood pressure and blood sugar control.” Taranto stresses that gym work regulates these vital bodily functions, and keeps us healthy longer into our senior years. The long-time gym enthusiast practices what he preaches and whilst the rest of us soak up the sun, wine and dine, and otherwise amuse ourselves, on weekends he will be working out, anxious to maintain the fitness that was eagerly sought, and diligently acquired over the last forty years, whilst being involved in the health and fitness industry.

“Interestingly, the growth in the industry is in the under 18s and the over 50s” Taranto says. The fitness centre of the 21^st century is a modern day health club vastly different to the gymnasiums of the 1950s where lifting weights was regarded as rather odd behavior. Equipped with just a few basics such as a lat pull-down, a leg extension device, a vertical leg press, and maybe a couple of basic wall pulley arrangements, gyms were primarily the terrain of muscle-bound bodybuilders. Gyms of today’s world are part of a multi-billion dollar industry embraced by a demographic, spanning teens to seniors who are chasing fitness, weight-loss, and the odd tip on nutrition and stress-reduction.

When you sign up as a member of the gym you are encouraged to work out at least three times a week commencing each session with an aerobic exercise such as the treadmill or the stationary bike. This aerobic activity promotes efficient oxygen usage in the muscles and improves the function of vital organs such as the heart and lungs. Once the body is well oxygenated it’s time for the strength or resistance training, whereby lifting with appropriate weights, muscles are strengthened, reducing the risk of injuries, a common hazard for the elderly. For the ageing among us, weight training and exercise in general have the added bonus of stimulating brain function; a welcome change from the endless crosswords dutifully completed as we seek to prevent the dreaded dementia.

I’ve just turned 60 and three times a week doggedly, yet reservedly, I too make my way to the local gym; smelly sneakers afoot and water bottle in hand. At the gym I meet Colleen, an indomitable 80 year old and a fine example of the benefits of exercise and resistance training, having recently undergone a successful shoulder replacement. “I try to get here three times a week, love,” says Colleen, in between her restorative breaths. “I’ve been coming here for over 30 years and hope to be here for a few more. I’m still fit and healthy and I’m sure it’s the gym work.”

As I work out, I cast my eye in the direction of a middle-aged, rather obese looking man who is sweating it out on the bike. I become concerned when suddenly he clutches his chest. Little beads of perspiration are forming all over his balding head and dripping down onto his ample cheeks. Although he is rapidly losing colour from his face he shows no sign of stopping. For that matter, neither do the baby boomers as they struggle to earn enough money to provide for their aged future.

‘Work till you drop’ takes on a whole new reality in 2010. One where euthanasia may not be needed after all!

Smile Or Die by Barbara Ehrenreich

Smile Or Die

In Smile Or Die, author Barbara Ehrenreich documents her personal agonizing encounter with an ideological force –one that she asserts encourages us to deny reality and submit cheerfully to misfortune, and blame only ourselves for our fate.

After a routine mammogram picked up her cancer cells, Ehrenreich promptly discovered the dearth of choices when it came to the management of the dreaded disease. Her diagnosis duly documented, she was on the predictable and well - trodden treadmill; one that would lead to a mutilating mastectomy or to a simple lumpectomy, inevitably followed by radiation or chemotherapy.

As her breast cancer career progressed, to her utmost surprise, Ehrenreich found that many women did not view the disease with the horror and dread that supposedly accompanies the malady. Instead the attitude towards the deadly affliction was upbeat and even eagerly acquisitive. Ehrenreich documents the fact that there are between 2 and 3 million American women in various stages of breast cancer treatment making up a market for all things breast cancer: pink breast cancer t- shirts, assortments of pyjamas, lingerie, scarves, caps and numerous commodities that brighten the patient's home including cuddly teddy bears, candles, coffee mugs, and the list goes on.

In Smile Or Die, this approach to the disease is described as an ultra feminine theme of breast cancer…an infantilizing trope with Ehrenreich asserting that she doubt that men with prostate cancer would receive matchbox cars. As her quest for information about the disease, its course and treatments progressed, her isolation grew - for few sufferers shared her sense of outrage over the disease itself, its causation and its pitiful ways of addressing the progress.

Her rage focussed on the lack of attention given to the causes of the now decades old breast cancer epidemic. There were a number of factors thought to be involved such as overly-processed diets, modern lifestyles, genetic factors and toxic environments, just to name a few. The author of Smile Or Die, asserts that amongst the breast cancer community there is scant attention given, nor enough anger expressed, over the painful and inadequate treatments that form the bulk of available therapies. In the place of justified anger there is countless pity and passivity: the victim becomes a survivor and those who die become our lost sisters.

Ehrenreich describes the cheerfulness of the breast cancer culture and how there those in the community who regard the disease as a gift, a rite of passage. As a breast cancer patient, Ehrenreich was encouraged to think positively and embrace cancer with a smile. Her analysis of such sugar-coating is that this comes at a great cost which is the denial of one's true feelings of fear and anger.

This author’s anger is with the cancer industry along with the medical and pharmaceutical institutions for her breast cancer was iatrogenic - she had been taking HRT or hormone replacement therapy for just under 8 years. The Women’s Health Initiative trial in 2002 found that the popular hormone therapy caused increases in the cases of breast cancer and in 2008, The Medical Journal of Australia, reported that the reduction in breast cancer among women over 50 years is mostly due to the decrease in the use of HRT, the drug which was given to post menopausal women for relief of hot flushes and to ensure they stayed forever young.

Smile Or Die by Barbara Ehrenreich will stimulate the public conversation that has not taken place – what causes the disease and why there is such a lack of outrage amongst breast cancer sufferers and the community itself. Where is the anger?

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of many books including Nickle and Dimmed and Global women: nannies, maids and sex workers.

The ABC takes a long summer break!

I was barely awake, but even so I recall the unmistakable voice of the local ABC summer breakfast presenter mouthing polite platitudes of sympathy for the thousands of Haitians killed in the massive earthquake which hit the capital, Port-au-Prince on the 13th January. The journalistic imperatives of what, where, and who were barely mentioned, with the crucial how and why, the object of neglect. In their place, the early morning summer listeners were urged to partake in an aural orgy detailing their own most frightening life event.

Such was the state of current affairs over the summer break. If ABC news and analysis is so crucial and demanding of our listenership during the year then how is it that our loyalty is so badly rewarded over summer? The case of Haiti and the resultant pitiful media response stands as a poignant example of the neglectful state of our ABC and in particular its practice over the summer break.

Take the TV coverage of the Haiti earthquake as an example: the reports from the ABC’s correspondent, stationed in the capital Port-au-Prince show many miraculous images of grateful people, bravely rescued after spending numerous days under rubble and carnage emerging seemingly lifeless, but alive. There are frightening visuals, of gangs of looters being gunned down, and starving and begging survivors fighting to get their hands on the token food aid. But are we really to believe that the devastation inflicted on the Haitians is just the natural outcome of an earthquake and not the result of unbridled exploitation that placed profit above all else?
There is scant reference to the history of this poverty-stricken country which has endured centuries of colonialism, slavery, violence and patriarchy. The ABC is failing its charter which dictates that it educates its audience and therefore has a duty to relate the history of US-Haiti relations which bear direct responsibility for present crisis confronting the Haitian people. Such an omission risks the United States being seen as the saviour coming to the aid of the Haitians in the form of rescue teams, money and most of all food.

To her surprise, Associate Professor Bronwyn Winter, from the Department of French Studies at The University of Sydney found herself being asked to provide expert commentary on Haiti, after one interstate media outlet failed to unearth any other academic commentator with suitable expertise. The Adelaide Advertiser learned of Winter’s interest in the country and its history, about which she has lectured, and which she visited on a research trip in 2000. Winter says that the Advertiser’s difficulty in finding an academic able to comment reminds her sadly of the scale of neglect of Haiti, that is entirely the circumstance of the poverty stricken Caribbean island nation even in normal times. Bronwyn Winter’s article leaves no room for doubt over the past and present predicament of Haiti: “a little over two centuries ago, Haiti was the Jewel of the Antilles, largely thanks to the colonial trade in sugar and indigo. It is now the region's poorest country.” Yet she also comments that at the end of the eighteenth century, this nation of slaves was the first in the world to rise up against western colonialism: an independence for which it has continued to pay dearly ever since.

It may be too late to expect that the ABC’s current affairs programs will take up the challenge with Chris Masters, the former producer of the ABC’s Four Corners program telling the audience at The Friends of the ABC, that by the time he left the program, he had no assistance for the investigative research, that was needed to be undertaken in order to produce the former high quality program. Masters left the ABC 12 months ago, after working for the national broadcaster for over 40 years. He spoke of his time as producer of Four Corners with its hallmark of original research and confrontation on the difficult subjects. He laments the past and says that these days ‘the news industry is about being first and fast – not thorough and accurate.’ Rather than doing investigative research these days, news he says is about the least possible amount of investigative research. He urged his audience to find some way to pay for thorough research and said that ‘ all journalism should be investigative.’

Just this week the Managing Director of the ABC, Mark Scott, announced a 24-hour rolling news channel that would feature continuous news coverage. Jason Wilson from New Matilda.com asserts that the new channel will cater for the ‘political junkies’. However, he asks if it can assist in the restoration of ABC current affairs which are currently inadequate. His assessment is that it will be watched by ‘a niche market which is already well-catered for.’ We need to ask should the ABC be spending money on this new 24 hour channel or could the money be better spent on improving what we already have in the way of current affairs programs. Wilson outlines the dismal state of television current affairs and calls local radio to task for its underperformance.

Dr. Joseph Toscano, the convener of The Anarchist Media Institute is not surprised at the state of news and analysis at the ABC. The AMI was established in 1986 to counteract the celebrity driven media and the self censoring which excludes any alternative view. “I don’t blame the presenters for the current state of programming because there are set editorial guidelines”. Before each program they have certain guidelines set along with directives on what the presenter will be able to say in regard to the breadth of the subject. The presenter is a presenter.” Toscano explains that this has much to do with the type of middle management appointed during the Howard years to gut the ABC of ideas.

Although ideas as well as information have been absent on our ABC this summer, I was not left uninformed and the best analysis of the Haiti situation came from Dr Ralph Newmark who is one of the presenters on the Latin American Update program on community radio 3CR. Newmark clearly loves the Haitian culture which he describes as extraordinary and in between tracks of Haitian music he explains that centuries of colonization, dispossession, genocide, and slavery resulted in turning Haiti into the poorest country in the Americas: one where buildings were so poorly built as to crumble in the wake of mother nature, and so devoid of the necessary infrastructure that aid to the victims was not possible. Newmark concluded his discussion by declaring that “the world is at least reminded, if it didn't know before, that the conditions in this country are an absolute disgrace to humanity, and historically the west should feel utterly ashamed of how this country has turned out.”

Now that the ABC has concluded its summer break and the regular presenters and producers are back behind their desks and microphones, I wonder if I will be informed and stimulated by ideas, or merely titillated and entertained by talk back callers with mundane details about their western, privileged existences.

Unnecessary CT scans are giving people cancer!

You’ve been complaining about the pain in your abdomen that just won’t go away and your doctor lines you up for a cat scan. You lie on the narrow table that slides in and out of the overhead tunnel, whilst x-ray beams rotate and produce sliced images of your very interior.

Such commonplace imaging should not be taken lightly or performed as often as it does, with recent research revealing that radiation from CT scans can cause cancer decades after patient exposure. The research, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine states that the doses delivered by the CT scanners were higher than previously thought, and were in fact extremely variable lacking the rigors of standardization across the industry.

This is of increasing concern due to the escalating use of computed tomography both in symptomatic patients and more recently in the screening of asymptomatic patients. The popularity of this diagnostic procedure has increased over the past few decades, with the number of annual CT procedures performed in the United States rising from 3 million in 1980, to approximately 70 million in 2007.

Computed tomography, commonly referred to as a CT scan, plays a vital part in modern medicine, transforming medical imaging by providing three-dimensional views of the body. However, it does so by delivering extremely large doses of radiation with a CT scan of the chest bombarding the body with more than 100 times the radiation than a routine chest x-ray. Delivering even more radiation, is the CT coronary angiogram which is capable of submitting the patient to the equivalent of 309 chest X-rays leading to the conclusion that one 40-year-old woman out of 270 who underwent a CT scan of coronary arteries would develop cancer as a result of the test.

The authors of the study criticize the increasing use of CT screening for healthy patients and suggest that the risk of carcinogenesis outweighs any diagnostic value. The risks of CT scanning are greatest for the young because they are naturally more radiosensitive, and because they have more remaining years of life during which a radiation-induced cancer could develop.

The increase in CT scanning is driven by many factors, including the ever growing availability of the scanners, and the technology’s expanding detection qualities. Also contributing to the increase in CT usage is the rise in defensive medicine, resulting in physicians ordering unnecessary imaging to avoid expensive lawsuits.

It is estimated that about one-third of all CT scans are not needed. The authors of the study into the risks associated with CT scanning, claim that there is growing consensus that the risks to patients from radiation via cat scans need to be reduced. They argue for the levels of radiation to be standardized across the industry and for a reduction in the number of scans performed. Another method of curtailing the abuse would be the introduction of an electronic tracking system to record the radiation dosage of individual cat scans.

The CT imaging of your abdomen is now over. You are relieved and glad that it was quick and painless. You are soon on your way, ready to carry on your day’s activities.

Let’s hope the risk was worth it!