Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Portland observer. (Portland, Or.) 1970-current | View Entire Issue (May 18, 2016)
Page 6 May 18, 2016 O PINION Opinion articles do not necessarily represent the views of the Portland Observer. We welcome reader essays, photos and story ideas. Submit to news@portlandobserver.com. Good Food Movement Needs Science, Too We can move forward sustainably J ill r iChardson Perhaps you’ve heard some organic food advocates say, “We should just roll back the clock and farm the way we used to” — before modern science gave us factory farms and genetically modiied ingredi- ents. Others disagree, saying that we’d all starve if we didn’t use science and technology in farm- ing. It’s a big debate. But maybe the turning of a clock isn’t the right metaphor. Instead, I thought recently of an old Chinese saying: “Draw snake, add legs.” It refers to when some- by one gets so carried away in doing something that they carry it too far, ruining it by adding extra, use- less things. A study of how our food sys- tem developed over the last cen- tury appears to be a clear case of drawing a snake and adding legs. My master’s thesis is on chickens. I’ve dug into historical docu- ments going back to the late 1800s to learn how Americans raised chick- ens over time. It’s not a pretty pic- ture. At the start of the 20th cen- tury, breeders bred chickens for aesthetic qualities that would win chicken shows. They took no no- tice of whether their chickens were any good at laying eggs or valuable for meat. That might be nice if awards from chicken shows put food on the table, but I think eggs and meat taste better than blue ribbons. It wasn’t a great deal for the chickens, either. A 1918 study found some American city dwellers keeping up to 200 chickens in their back- yards as for-proit ventures. The researchers reported that each per- son interviewed claimed to take good care of their chickens. Yet examinations found the birds cov- ered in lice. In one instance, a woman had 60 more chickens in her yard than could it in her coop. In an- other case, some of the chickens died and the owner left them to rot in the yard. A few times, the researcher noted the smell was so bad he could barely tolerate stay- ing long enough to conduct the interview. As late as the 1950s, scientists still didn’t know everything there was to know about chicken nutri- tion. Chickens survived because they foraged outside to meet their nutritional needs. Diseases that are now rare were common. Early incubators served to spread germs, so that one infected chick spread disease to all of the others as they hatched. Have science and technology improved these conditions? Abso- lutely. Did we take it too far? Did we draw legs on a snake? I would say so. Once scientists igured out how to cope with disease and provide for all of a chicken’s nutrition- al needs in a manufactured feed, they found they could keep them in coninement. The cooped-up birds went from having four to ive square feet each in the early 20th century to just half a square foot apiece by 1966. Stressed by coninement, chick- ens began pecking one another — sometimes to death. A solution, devised in 1942, was de-beaking. Breeders found that if they re- moved the tip of each bird’s beak, this kind of stress-induced peck- ing became less lethal. The answer to science that leads to animal cruelty and envi- ronmental degradation, however, isn’t less science. It’s better sci- ence. There’s no need to turn back the clock on progress, or to erase the snake and start over. Today’s science tells us that eggs are more healthful when hens are allowed to forage on bugs and grass. And odds are, if you want to keep backyard chickens, you’ll be grateful for a century of work eradicating parasites and disease. So will your neighbors. If we use our judgment, we can ind a way to move forward sus- tainably, healthfully, humanely — and scientiically. OtherWords columnist Jill Richardson is the author of Recipe for America: Why Our Food Sys- tem Is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix It. OtherWords.org. Changing the Conversation when it comes to Gender Fighting the Trump insult method of debate l aura f inley The “woman card.” It’s so much non- sense. Donald Trump is merely the latest to accuse a woman of playing identity pol- itics because she, well, actually discussed the fact that the U.S. still has much to improve in terms of gender equality. Trump alleges that Clinton is discussing women’s issues so she by can win the votes of women. The nerve of her, trying to win the sup- port of more than 50 percent of the population! It’s like she’s run- ning for the highest ofice in the country or something. Clinton’s response was terriic: “If ighting for women’s health care and paid family leave and equal pay is playing the woman card, then deal me in.” Other responses to Trump’s comments both- ered me, though. Elizabeth Warren said that Trump “wears the sexism out front for everyone to see,” which is undeniably true. More than just one man’s sexism, though, the whole affair is a stark remind- er that we really need to change the he Law Oices of Patrick John Sweeney, P.C. Patrick John Sweeney Attorney at Law 1549 SE Ladd, Portland, Oregon Portland: Hillsoboro: Facsimile: Email: (503) 244-2080 (503) 244-2081 (503) 244-2084 Sweeney@PDXLawyer.com conversation when it comes to gen- der. And, doing so has to go beyond attacking people for the same things women abhor—emphasizing our looks more than our words. For instance, Warren made fun of Trump’s hair in her response to his comments. There’s no need to play that same game; his remarks would be no more palatable were he to shave his head or sport a cause of the antiquated notion that men can’t be feminists. Likewise, advocacy for gender equality should not be marginal- ized because the proponent hap- pens to be attractive or even sexy, as is often the case when female celebrities like Beyonce speak out. Similarly, when we disagree with a sexist remark, like those made by Trump, we have to resist shifting who is the oppressor or the oppressed does not challenge structural inequality. Birth control and reproductive freedom, for instance, are not “women’s issues,” they are con- cerns for anyone who wants to (or does not want to) have children, not about males or females. Paid family leave is about families, re- gardless of the gender of both par- Birth control and reproductive freedom, for instance, are not “women’s issues,” they are concerns for anyone who wants to (or does not want to) have children, not about males or females. Paid family leave is about families, regardless of the gender of both parents. Domestic violence is not a women’s issue, it’s a public health concern that costs the country an estimated $8.3 billion annually. mullet. Likewise, Clinton’s recog- nition of the importance of equal pay would mean no less were she a supermodel. Too often, advocates of gender equality are marginalized because of how they appear. It is way past time that we worry about some- one’s actions, not the package in which they are wrapped. Femi- nists come in so many varieties, and their work shouldn’t be triv- ialized because someone doesn’t like their voice or pantsuit or be- the urge to comment on his ap- pearance, as it also shifts the focus and entrenches us into the same duel mentality. It’s unbelievable that issues af- fecting all of us are even still called “women’s issues.” In this patriar- chal society, labeling something a woman’s issue reinforces the same binary way of thinking about gen- der that produces the problem in the irst place. Like Gloria Steinem argued decades ago in her classic piece “If Men Could Menstruate,” ents. Domestic violence is not a women’s issue, it’s a public health concern that costs the country an estimated $8.3 billion annually. These are issues of justice and of human rights. But, it will be im- possible to change the way we view these problems until we stop using the same tactics that the sex- ists use. Laura Finley, Ph.D., teaches in the Barry University Department of Sociology & Criminology and is syndicated by PeaceVoice.