Many people believe that our food system is being attacked. In a short essay, support this argument.
Without food, we would not be able to live much longer, and big business is taking it upon itself to patent the life that sustains us. Whether straight to our mouth or from the meat we consume, the seed is the beginning of what we need. The seeds not only bring life, but carry with them a host of tradition. Through the seed, knowledge is passed, culture is preserved, and social interaction is encouraged. All of this grows from the seed. In the name of business and money, these values are being compromised in front of our eyes at an alarming rate. The last article analyzed looks critically at how legislation is being used to rub out indigenous knowledge and push for dirty agriculture. Seeds are the most simple and best form of rebellion from this system. This privilege is being torn from us through patents and laws that say some are entitled to ownership over what is for everyone. One reformation of the agriculture system, the Green Revolution, helped to shape to landscape of legislating the food we consume as seeds. There have been strong movements to counter the intrusion, but with victory comes loss and some were not as successful. As we see big business push its way into our lives, we see how our health detioriates. Growing food no longer is about health for them, it is all profit. People who have passed down countless generations of information are being made to believe that is inferior to the GM seeds pushed down their throats. The direct assault on the human population is alarming. The laws are aggressive, stringent, complex, and ignore a right we should all be guaranteed-clean, fresh food. They benefit those at the top and demolish those at the bottom who we rely on for our food. Those in power are taking a stance that they think they know what we need, when in fact they are completely wrong. Big companies are dominating the seed market, and appear to be getting stronger. Names we all recognize-Monsanto and Dow for example-are taking hold of what is property of no one. Peasants being punished for using local or non-approved seeds are being jailed and charged in criminal courts for simply growing food. It seems that these companies are trying to stamp out rural culture and replace it with corporate greed. No consideration for how these seeds build communities or sustain life is even taken into account. For them, if it doesn’t make dollars, it doesn’t make sense. Laws like marketing laws, intellectual property laws, plant variety protection, trade and investment agreements, plant health and biosafety laws all put control of our food in the hands of a few filthy rich companies who will stop at nothing to ensure what they say goes. Their seeds are all the same. They decrease biodiversity, ruin the soil, and ensure that people will have to continue to buy them if they want to make a living. These companies keep us in an invisible prison by deciding what it is that we will eat. The farmers are treated like criminals when they are simply choosing not to conform. It is clear that these companies crossing borders and spreading around the world have their hand everywhere, trying to impose themselves on the entire human population as if they should be in control of the entire seed bank that exists. This article broke down their intrusions by continent. Anything that is slow, local, clean, or anything else we want in food is what these companies want to eliminate. In Tanzania, criminal charges await anyone who unlawfully uses seeds. In Brazil, traditional maize replaced with GM maize robbed a part of the culture. Here at home, Monsanto has a dedicated department with millions of dollars focused entirely on discovering patent infringement. In India, they attacked native rice varieties. Europe faces a host of problems, like in Greece where subsidies encouraged growth, but were only for those who used certified seeds. The list goes on and on in plenty of countries. Some have risen up and fought the atrocity, and the victories are gladly embraced where they are achieved. Everything has to start somewhere, and these cracks in the foundation may be the way in to take back what is rightfully ours.
Our food system, in every aspect, is currently being critically questioned and examined. How is the shift toward more sustainable practices echoed through the practice of gardening, and upheld by those who engage in it?
The global food system is being assaulted at the hands of large corporations who place emphasis on monetary gains received from agriculture, stripping it of its meaning and purpose. Through various forms of gardening, world citizens demonstrate how they are working against this system. Numerous movements have been tested around the globe, all concerning themselves with different aspects of the food system. What is common to all of them is the commitment to return to or maintain what gardening represents. These programs address sustainability, environmental quality, quality of life, social and cultural capital, and changing how we view policy and its consequences for the food system. Gardening in its many forms represents many things to a number of people, but they all share in common the goal of clean living. In what seems to echo an archaic revival, the garden has become a platform for social change. Pumping the brakes on the modern agricultural system, a shift toward slow, organic, sustainable growing is pervasive in the gardening community. Commitment to the cause fosters better understanding of how culture is linked to the food system and how they shape each other. Losing one will lead to the demise of the other. The roots of gardening run deep.
If a search warrant if approved by a neutral judge, is it the responsibility of the officer serving the warrant to ensure it is sufficient under the Fourth Amendment?
According to the Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. Sheppard, the officer is responsible. This ruling was based on the fact that a police officer does not need to question a judge. Officer O'Malley was assured the warrant that was issued would be adjusted; based on this information,any reasonable officer would feel justified in issuing a warrant approved by a judge. The court felt that it is not the responsibility of an officer to not trust the magistrate who approved the warrant if they said it was good, especially if the warrant is approved after informing said judge of the problems with it.