Proposition 37

As a scientist and a foodie, I am happy Proposition 37 failed. While I understand that the campaign against it was funded by Monsanto (a company with policies I would consider questionable, at best), it was not a good proposition. The argument for it was funded by an anti-vaccine nut, and the parallels are obvious. Study after study has shown that GMO foods are no different than "regular" food (and I put regular in quotes for a reason), however the argument says that just because we say something's safe now doesn't mean it's actually safe. Scientists don't speak in absolutes, which is frustrating to the public and leaves room for them to grab on and present a counterargument.

Now, what exactly is the difference between GMO food and what we consider "regular" food? a few dozen years. Much of the food we eat has been genetically modified in some way or another--that's what cross-breeding is. Why is your tomato uniformly red, rather than tasty? They were bred that way. Tomato breeders found that certain tomatoes turned red more uniformly, and genetically selected those. Those tomatoes have a genetic mutation that we've selected for. We also do the same thing with pest-resitant crops. In the early days of agriculture, our ancestors would notice that some crops just weren't tasty to bugs, and select for those. How is that different than finding a gene that makes our plants taste icky to bugs and inserting it straight in the DNA? It's the same process, just quicker. I'd rather that than ingest questionable amounts of chemical pesticides.

That's my scientific reasoning, but I'm also interested in food and the quality of my food, so I do understand why people are against Monsanto. Monoculture is highly damaging to the environment, and the way our food is treated is terrible. Unfortunately, there are too many people on this planet for everyone to eat organically and locally. And while you can argue about overpopulation and how the best way to handle it is, the reality is that right now we have 7 billion people to feed.

Mark Bittman and Michael Pollan argue that if only people knew what they eating and how bad it was for them they would shop solely at the farmer's market, eat only locally sourced, organic food, and spend time crafting home-cooked meals for the whole family to eat together. This is just not realistic for many people. It's hard for me, and I have the luxury of money and time. My farmer's market is on Thursday afternoon until sundown, and only runs from June until October. I have to plan ahead and leave work earlier than usual. In the summer, that's fine, since the sun sets late here in Boston. Come October, it's a no-go. For a person with a desk job, that might not work. And then there are the food deserts. Some people don't even have a reasonable grocery store, much less a farmer's market. Some people work two jobs and don't have time to cook. Yes, it might be cheaper in the long run to make home-cooked meals, but you don't account for the time it takes. That's time someone could be getting paid.

We need to seriously think about how we use our resources in the United States. If you really want to fight Monsanto, we need to entirely overhaul agribusiness. If we stop subsidizing corn and soy, food prices across the board will go up. The price of food in other countries is significantly higher in other countries than it is in the US, which I think many people here are unwilling to pay. Yes, let's educate people about food, but let's also make it easier for people to make good choices. Let's address the growing inequality between the rich and the poor so that everyone has the opportunity to eat in a sustainable manner. Let's all eat more vegetables and less meat to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses produced. We need to change the way we think about how wasteful we are as a country, not just when it comes to food but in regards to everything. Do you need a new car every year? A new iPad? New clothes that you're going to toss after three months because they're no longer "in style"? Addressing these questions is hard, and won't be fixed by slapping a vague label on a can of spaghetti-o's.

Here are a couple of articles on the subject, if you're interested:
GMOs are OK
Why Activists Need to Stop Stoking Scientifically Baseless Fears About GMOs for Political Purposes

Vaccines

I wrote this for facebook, but I thought I'd put it here, too.
I have three main issues with the vaccine "debate."
1. It compromises herd immunity, both delaying vaccines and outright refusing them. As Brokk said above, delaying vaccines leaves children vulnerable for a longer period of time. Some parents don't finish the scheduled course, leaving children open to contracting these diseases, as well as passing them along to others who can't be vaccinated for various health reasons.

2. It's based on faulty science. This is why I don't think it's unfair to lump delayed vaccine and anti-vaccine people into the same category. Additionally, delayed vaccination is a way for anti-vaccine people to move the goal posts. Jenny McCarthy originally started with the vaccine/autism link. When that was disproved, she went to delayed vaccination. The idea that babies' immune systems are overloaded with antigens is false. From the CDC: "From the time they are born, babies are exposed to thousands of germs and other antigens in the environment and their immune systems are readily able to respond to these large numbers of antigenic stimuli.  An infant’s immune system is more than ready to respond to the very small number of antigens in vaccines."
Many people don't want to vaccinate because of a gut feeling, or Andrew Wakefield's report on the connection between autism and vaccines (which he completely falsified), or they don't want to see their special snowflake child suffer from the pain of a shot the kid won't even remember, or vaccines aren't natural and being exposed to the actual disease provides better immunity. That would be like someone coming up to me and saying, "I know evidence falls pretty squarely in line with the big bang theory, but I don't believe it." Note this is not the same as going to the doctor and saying, I have these symptoms, I think they might be associated with xyz. I have not had issues with poor medical care and misdiagnosis, so it's hard for me to speak to that, but it's not the same thing. Discussion is fine, blatant disregard for science is where I draw the line.

3. There is an incredible amount of privilege inherent in even having a discussion about whether or not to vaccinate. The reason that we don't have diseases like polio in the US is because of concerted vaccination efforts. To not vaccinate (or delay vaccination) because everyone else is vaccinated is selfish and eventually destroys herd immunity. Diseases like whooping cough are on the rise because of this, and the people that get sick and die are not just those who chose not to get vaccinated. The elderly, babies, and individuals who CAN'T get vaccinated because their immune systems are compromised are also affected, and the ones more likely to die. In countries where vaccination isn't prevalent, these diseases still affect the general population, and these diseases are deadly.

I have had more vaccines than most people, since I have done a lot of international travel. I get a flu shot every year. For me, there is nothing to think about. When I take the T, I don't know if the baby next to me has been vaccinated. I don't know if the woman next to me is immunocompromised. Being vaccinated protects them. Being vaccinated protects my elderly grandparents. I hate getting shots. I refuse to get my blood drawn. But since vaccines aren't just for my health, I do it anyway.

Politics as Usual

Ah, Barack Obama, bringer of change. Except not so much. And I am not surprised, as it has been clear from the start that he is no different from any other politician. Today he has decided to pander to the right on gay marriage by supporting the Defense of Marriage Act (Article Here). This shouldn't come as a surprise, though, since it's not like he supports gay marriage. Which he has publicly stated. Because he is Christian. Did you know he's Christian? Not Muslim, Christian. Which shouldn't matter, but apparently separation of Church and State is no longer applicable. If you're not a Christian, you don't matter in this country. Everything that politicians do is to keep Christians happy. Guess what. Not everyone is Christian. Also, going back to marriage for a second, apparently there are quite a few people who think that the point of marriage is procreation. Newsflash--women can get pregnant without being married. There is no magical force that keeps you from getting pregnant before that ring is on your finger. Also, what about couples that can't have or don't want kids? That union is still a marriage. I'm not sure how people can logically argue that one, but I also don't think they get asked about it all that much. There are also those that think homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Yes, I'm sure people like to choose lifestyles that provokes such intense hatred. I know I love it when people spew vitriol at me and discriminate against me. Who wouldn't choose such a lifestyle? For more on Obama's exploits, see Bill Maher's rant.

Also, it really bothers me that Obama took a private jet (and maybe 3, I'm not sure on that) for his "date night" in New York. Aren't we supposed to be saving the environment? And he went to the Blue Hill Restaurant, which prides itself on local, sustainable food. They have their own farm. Don't tell me that you support cutting back on emissions and then take a private jet. Washington DC is an amazing place. It is my second favorite American city, after Los Angeles. There is so much to do there. Stay there for your date! Next time I go out with Carl, I'm going to document every second and put it up everywhere on the internet. Do you care? No. So why would I care about what Obama does on his dates. I don't. Fix the country. Then have a nice date.

Oh, and PS. Gun control is kind of important. Stop pandering and do something about it. Guns do kill people.