Genetically Modified Food for Thought

     My colleague Lydia Penturf brings up an intriguing and hotly debated topic in her latest post, “GMO Labeling in Texas.” The question of whether or not food companies should be required by law to label products that contain GMOs has recently become of interest to consumers nationwide, and viable arguments have been produced by both proponents and opponents of labeling. Ms. Penturf is correct in stating that there are many things to learn before taking a side on the issue, but I cannot say that I agree with the side she takes in her post. She argues that consumers should have the right to know what is in the food they purchase, and in some respects this is a very good point. However, when the pros of labeling are weighed against the cons, it doesn’t seem worth it to require labeling, and many leading scientific organizations and  publications agree.

     Ms. Penturf’s facts are correct when she defines GMOs as organisms that have been altered by genetic engineering, and she is also correct that they constitute the vast majority of the crops we consume today. However, this is nothing new to the human race at all. In fact, since agriculture has existed humans have been consuming GMOs. The only thing “genetically modified” means is that an organism has been deliberately bred to produce a more desirable result, and humans have been selectively breeding both plants and animals for thousands of years. Without genetic modification, the yellow corn that is essentially the kingpin of our food industry would not exist. Apples would be smaller than our fists and unpleasantly tart. In this video, Neil DeGrasse Tyson further explains what exactly a GMO is.

     In Ms. Penturf’s editorial, she voices concern that there has not been enough research done on GMOs to qualify them as safe, but in fact there have been many studies, none of which could provide evidence that GMOs are harmful. Furthermore, there is extensive research behind the actual genetic modification process itself, making it a far more precise procedure than conventional selective breeding. The labs that produce GMOs have even been able to create foods that combat disease, such as Golden Rice which can prevent blindness by curbing vitamin A deficiency.

     The main question Ms. Penturf raises in her post is, “if you claim it is safe, why not just label them?” This is actually a very good question, and the central argument for advocates of GMO labeling. The first answer to this question is the unfounded hysteria and misinformation that would most likely be propagated by GMO labels. Similar to “Gluten Free” labels, they would imply a false sense of healthier choices to the unaware consumer. By requiring GMO labels, we would be implying that GMOs are actually something to avoid, which science has proven they are not. Consumers would gravitate heavily towards non-GMO products, which means most companies would remove GMOs from their products to appease customers. This leads to the second answer to the question: money. Conventional crops require more water and pesticides, and are more expensive to produce. Switching to non-GMO foods could add up to $400 to a family’s annual food bill, and could also mean companies decrease the wages of farm workers to make up for extra costs. In my opinion, if GMOs are safe, it is unnecessary to provide a label that will only cause confusion and cost average people more money.

Were They Even Listening?

     It did not take long for Texas’ Republican leaders to attack President Obama’s executive order after he announced it earlier this month. U.S. Senator John Cornyn spoke out against it on the Senate floor, and Governor-Elect Greg Abbott assured us all that he will “immediately challenge President Obama in court.” These reactions come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Texas conservatives, being that one of the most prevalent campaign promises made by Republicans during the 2014 midterms was to secure the border. However, based on what the President said in his speech, many aspects of the executive order are aimed at controlling the border more tightly and putting a halt on illegal immigration. One might wonder whether or not Texas Republicans were even listening to the speech. After all, why would a group who wants to control immigration be so eager to thwart an attempt to do exactly that? It seems as though the conservative backlash is less of a policy disagreement than it is a thinly veiled assertion of stubbornness.

     Senator Cornyn justified his disagreement with the executive order by contending that it is “a major boon to the cartels and other gangs” and that “it will almost certainly lead to thousands of people who’ve committed crimes in this country gaining legal status.” Yet it was made expressly clear in the President’s speech that the immigrants who will be eligible to gain temporary legal status do not include those who have committed crimes or are associated with the drug cartels. In fact, President Obama plainly stated that “if you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported.” Furthermore, part of the process of gaining legal status is passing a background check. Texas Republicans’ argument that the executive order will increase threats to Americans’ safety or facilitate cartel activity is completely unfounded.

     Cornyn’s other concern about the President’s action is that prospective illegal immigrants will take it as an indication that “it’s okay to come” into our country undocumented. However, Obama distinctly said that “if you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up.” One of the main points of his speech was that attempting to deport every undocumented immigrant in this country would be futile, and devoting the resources needed to do so would actually leave the borders more vulnerable to illegal crossings. By temporarily granting legal status to the non-threatening immigrants, the government is able to shift the focus to deporting criminals and increasing border security.

     Almost every reason Texas’ leaders cited for suing the President over this bill was directly addressed in the speech and proven groundless. It seems that if Abbott wanted to win this case his party would try a bit harder to form an argument based on logic rather than personal beliefs and fear. Texas Republicans have never been known for their kindness towards Hispanic immigrants, and this has become embarrassingly blatant in their dissent towards the President’s executive order. Their threat of a lawsuit is merely an attempt to flex their conservative muscles and will ultimately be a waste of everybody’s time.

Fighting Firearms With Firearms

     My colleague VyVy Ha addresses an important and concerning issue in her editorial blog post, cleverly titled “Oh Shoot! More Guns at School.” She discusses the Federal 1033 Program, which allows the Department of Defense to equip state and local law enforcement agencies with excess military equipment. The program has now made its way into public K-12 schools, supplying campus security officers with these highly powerful weapons.

     The legislation was created in response to school shootings, and Ms. Ha makes a valid point in connecting this reaction to George Gerbner’s Cultivation Theory. She contends that these shootings are highly publicized and magnified by the media, which strikes fear into the hearts of Americans who then feel that extreme actions such as the 1033 Program must be taken. While action does need to be taken to prevent school shootings, I agree that the media’s portrayal of the tragedies is leading people towards solutions that will make schools a less safe environment. The weapons used by the military are very powerful and potentially dangerous, and do not need to be carried around hundreds of young children.

     Ms. Ha adds that placing such heavily armed officers throughout public schools will normalize the presence of guns and teach children from a young age that it is acceptable to carry these types of weapons in public. I think this is very true, as children are easily influenced by others, particularly figures of authority. If a generation grows up believing that the only way to feel safe in a public space is to be protected by a military grade weapon, people in the future will be pushing for legislation that allows citizens to carry these weapons everywhere. To keep arming larger and larger portions of our society with increasingly powerful weapons is not an effective way to decrease gun violence.

     Like Ms. Ha, I believe that the 1033 Program is a very downstream attempt to solve the problem of gun violence in schools. Rather than prevent tragedy, it merely prepares people for the moment when a tragedy strikes. Ms. Ha suggests that legislators should focus more on implementing school programs aimed at counseling students and preventing violence. I think this is a much more productive idea. If children are taught to peacefully resolve conflicts and school counselors are able to work with students who have shown signs of mental illness, we will see a decrease in violence of all types in public schools. I think Ms. Ha did an excellent job of discussing the implications of the 1033 program. She makes several logical arguments about why it is not an effective solution to violence, and I agree with her that it will potentially create an unsafe environment in schools.

"Remember to Vote!" Said No Republican Ever

     Perhaps politics in Texas would be somewhat different if people were half as enthusiastic about lining up for the voting booth as they are about lining up outside Franklin Barbecue on a Saturday. Perhaps this is something the Republican dynasty is not only grateful, but responsible for. The truth, as embarrassing as it may be, is that our state largely does not vote. A recent study ranks Texas 48^th when it comes to being politically engaged, and I think the dominance of the Republican party has a lot to do with the disenchantment many Texans feel towards the voting process.

     Looking at the breakdown of party identification in Texas, there is actually much less disparity between the percentages of Republicans and Democrats than one might think. Why, then, is this state so consistently and overwhelmingly red when it comes to elections? Put plainly, the Democrats don’t vote, and the Republicans make sure of it. The most glaring evidence of this is the recent saga of the Voter ID Law. Republican leaders in Texas have been in strong support of a law that more or less disenfranchises about 600,000 registered voters who don’t possess an acceptable state-issued ID. This population of voters includes low-income citizens and racial minorities, two demographics that are statistically likely to vote Democrat.

     The Republicans have also been able to use their dominance of the legislature to rearrange voting districts in their favor. The Austin area, for example, is heavily concentrated with Democratic or liberal-leaning ideologies. Therefore, the Republicans have made sure to split it up and dilute each section with more conservative views during redistricting sessions. Texas does have a substantial population of Democrats, they are just not likely to win elections due to the distribution of partisanship within districts.

     While the Republicans’ aim is mainly to secure their control of the state and keep as many Democrats from voting as they can, I think this actually affects voter turnout as a whole. Survey research shows that one of the top reasons Texans give for not showing up to the voting booths is that they feel their vote will not make a difference, and in some respects this reasoning makes sense. If you’re a Democrat, even in an area as liberal as Austin, it’s difficult to be convinced that your views will ever actually be represented, and bothering to vote can seem like a waste of time. If you’re a Republican, it’s highly likely that your policies will prevail whether you cast a ballot or not, so again, voting seems unnecessary. Take these non-voters and add them to the 600,000 without state-issued IDs and it’s unsurprising that our state has an abysmal turnout for every election. If Texas became more of a two-party state with closer competition between candidates, more Texans would want to engage with politics and cast their vote. However, voters continue to stay home on election day, and Republicans couldn’t be happier about it.

A Feeble Attempt to Justify Homophobia

     An editorial titled, “It’s Not Bigotry, It’s Biology! Just Ask Greg Abbott”, was published recently by The Burnt Orange report in criticism of not only Abbott’s stance on same-sex marriage, but his reasoning behind it as well. The Texas gubernatorial candidate filed a brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last Friday attempting to defend Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage, which was struck down earlier this year. Abbott’s argument for this action was that a ban on same-sex marriage would encourage heterosexual marriages and yield more in-wedlock births, “which are needed to ensure economic growth and survival of the human race” (Abbott). The author of the editorial denounces Abbott’s reasoning as a thinly-veiled attempt at bigotry rather than concern for the future of the state.

     The author likely writes to an audience of people who are in support of same-sex marriage, as she uses a sarcastic tone when speaking of opponents to marriage equality. She inserts quotations from Abbott into the article and adds flippant commentary after them that belittles the argument Abbott is trying to make. This technique makes her article resonate well with an audience who is already opposed to Abbott and the ban on same-sex marriage, and will agree that his logic is flawed and absurd.

     While the author presents her criticism using a highly irreverent tone, she supports her argument credibly by citing multiple other articles and sources, and incorporating numerous quotations. When she references a ludicrous belief held by Abbott, she includes a quotation in which Abbott actually states that belief. This shows that she is not making inferences or exaggerations about Abbott’s bigotry, but that he actually made the arguments she is criticizing.

     The central purpose of the editorial is to point out Greg Abbott’s seemingly anti-gay stance and the fact that he is backing it with faulty logic. According to his brief, Abbott believes that Texas’ marriage laws uphold traditional marriages as more important, and that this encourages more heterosexual couples to get married and procreate. “Recognizing same-sex marriage”, says Abbott, “does not advance this interest because same-sex unions do not result in pregnancy.” The author retorts this idea by saying that the Texas Constitution is not what inspires people to get married, and that nobody places any more importance on heterosexual procreation simply because we have “a nine-year-old constitutional amendment that makes [marriage] an exclusive club.” She adds that the banning of same-sex marriage will not reduce out-of-wedlock births, rather it will be comprehensive sex education and improved family planning services that accomplishes this. 

      I personally agree with the author of this article. I believe there are many statistics to dispute Abbott’s logic on this issue, and there are countless alternative ways to reduce unplanned pregnancies other than banning same-sex marriage. From the arguments presented in this editorial, I feel it is obvious that Greg Abbott’s opposition to same-sex marriage stems from his personal values, not his interest in the economy or concern for our future as humankind. I feel it is apparent that he uses reasoning that makes little sense, and is not focusing on more important issues. Overall, I think this article is an informative read for anybody interested in marriage equality or even just human rights in general.

(Source: Genevieve Cato, "It's Not Bigotry, It's Biology! Just Ask Greg Abbott", Burnt Orange Report, 10-14-2014.)

Austin Loves History, But at a High Cost

     This recent editorial from the Austin American Statesman voices disapproval of the Austin City Council’s financial irresponsibility when it comes to preserving historical landmarks. The author points to the current attempt to declare mayor Lee Leffingwell’s childhood home a historical landmark, arguing that this “makes a mockery of a well-intended, but poorly managed, program”. The home is not currently owned by Leffingwell, and while it features historic style from the 1930s and 1940s, it’s hardly the only house in Austin to do so. For these reasons, the author doesn’t believe the house should be declared a historical landmark and granted a tax break.

    The editorial’s intended audience is not those who are opposed to Leffingwell himself, because the author credits him to be “a fine mayor,” but more so the people who are concerned with the way our city manages money. The city of Austin already had to revise its preservation program in 2009 for giving too many tax breaks to historical landmarks, but is still being criticized for its very loose criteria. People who would prefer the city to be stricter in giving tax breaks are likely to agree with this article.

     While the author has an obvious opinion, they show credibility by presenting both sides of the argument. The author shares factual evidence, tells the reader about the current criteria for historical landmarks, and lists the effects of the tax breaks on the city, its schools, and Travis County.

     I personally agree with the claim that the city needs to be more careful with the amount of tax breaks they give, and that while the Leffingwell house may be nostalgic to the mayor, it does not necessarily need to be preserved as historic. It is indeed a fine example of the bungalow and cottage styles of the World War II era, but countless other Austin homes and even neighborhoods can boast the same. Furthermore, the tax breaks not only affect the city, but Travis County, Austin Independent School District, and Austin Community College as well. Austin’s 580 historical landmarks cause the aforementioned entities to forgo $5 million in revenue each year, which is a figure too substantial to take lightly in my opinion. The author also brings up the important point that most other mayors just get a street or public area named after them, which I feel is a more reasonable way to go in this case. It’s not about denying Leffingwell his recognition, but about recognizing him in a way that doesn’t exploit the city’s programs. 

     Overall, I thought the editorial brought up some good points and showed readers the importance of being aware of the way our city manages money. It was evident that they fully researched the topic to form an educated and logical opinion about it.

(Source: Editorial Board, "Leffingwell is a Fine Mayor, But Boyhood Home is Not Historic", Austin American Statesman, 9-24-14)

Would Davis' Abortion Be Illegal Today?

   With the release of her memoir, Forgetting to be Afraid, state senator Wendy Davis has recently garnered attention from both sides of the political spectrum concerning her personal account of her two terminated pregnancies. The details of her 1997 abortion, which occurred late in the pregnancy, have become particularly relevant considering the provisions of House Bill 2. In this article from Texas Tribune, the bill’s rigid restrictions are discussed in relation to Davis’ experience, and it is brought to attention that it would likely be impossible for a woman in the same position to have that option today. The bill bans abortions later than 20 weeks after fertilization, and when severe fetal abnormalities are present, as in Davis’ case, abortions are usually still not allowed. It was predicted that Davis’ child would “likely” not survive, and if it did, it would be in a “permanent vegetative state.” According to House Bill 2, this does not matter. If the child will be able to survive on life support, it is required to be brought to term. I encourage you to read this article as it sheds light on what many women are unfairly struggling with, and how the provisions of the bill may provide more detriment than safety to the women and children it claims to protect.


(Source: Jay Root, "Davis' Abortion Draws Attention to New Restrictions", Texas Tribune, 9-11-14.)