HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Women's Rights & Issues (Group) » RADCLIFFE INSTITUTE FOR A...

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 03:29 PM

RADCLIFFE INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY: Women, Men, and Food - Putting Gender on the Table.

I haven't checked out the first link at all yet, but include it because it legitimizes the relevance of food to women/feminists. Do women control household spending, generally, and food spending, specifically? Inspired by the 'P&G salutes mothers' advertising theme during the Olympics, why don't women give the food issue the traction it needs to force responsible corporate change?



On April 12 and 13, 2007, the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University’s fifth annual gender conference explored the relationship between food and gender, from production, to preparation, to consumption. Panels considered the variety of ways in which men and women shape food, and how, in turn, food and foodways shape men and women. The extraordinary culinary collection of the Schlesinger Library provided inspiration for the conference and its investigation of such topics as cooking, eating, famine, nutrition, obesity, anorexia, food writing, and food studies.



Why a Major Food Organization Is Teaming Up With Monsanto and Friends to Block Your Right to Know What's in Your Food

By Ronnie Cummins
Alternet, July 31, 2012

Straight to the Source

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our California News page.

The California Ballot Initiative to label genetically engineered food is "a serious, long-term threat to the viability of agricultural biotechnology. Defeating the Initiative is GMA's single highest priority this year."
-- Pamela Bailey, President of Grocery Manufacturers Association, speech to the American Soybean Association, July 9, 2012

This November, Californians will vote for or against Prop 37 , the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. The outcome of that vote will likely determine whether the U.S. will one day join the nearly 50 other countries that allow their citizens to choose between genetically engineered and non-genetically engineered food through the enactment of laws requiring mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The election is three months away, but the battle lines were drawn months ago. Lining up against the consumer's right to know -- and throwing plenty of money into the fight -- is a long list of industry front groups, food conglomerates and biotech companies. Near the top of that list is the powerful Washington, DC-based Grocery Manufacturer's Association (GMA), a multi-billion-dollar trade association. The GMA represents America's $1.2 trillion "Big Food" industry, led by supermarket chains, Monsanto and other biotech companies, animal drug companies, multinational food manufacturers, and junk food restaurants -- all of whom rely on the use of dangerous chemicals, pesticides, animal drugs, and GMOs to produce cheap, contaminated food.



FSA Public Information on GM DNA in Food Out of Step with Science
GM Freeze, 31 Jul 2012



Feeding studies (peer reviewed journal publications) reported earlier this year by the international GMSAFood project found genes from GM Bt maize present in the blood of animals fed on the crop, as well as in the flesh of salmon fed on GM feed. [1] The project also found GM proteins and, critically, antibodies to those proteins, in the blood of rats fed Bt maize, indicating an immune response to the GM proteins.

This means current safety assessments of foods from animals fed a GM diet are not sufficiently rigorous to ensure safety – long-term feeding studies are not required for meat, milk or eggs from GM-fed animals.


Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:
"The FSA must keep its public information up-to-date and accurate or people will lose confidence in it. The latest research found whole genes and proteins in the blood and flesh of animals fed GM, so the FSA can't go on telling the public 'it is possible DNA fragments may occasionally be detected'. This is not the first time we have had to point out to the FSA its public information on GM is inaccurate.

"The worrying discovery of GM proteins and antibodies to those proteins, indicating an immune system response, means food safety testing must start looking at the long-term health implications of eating GM and eating animals that are fed GM. The current system simply doesn't look for such problems, so it's not surprising it doesn't find them.

"The FSA is supposed to be the public watchdog for food safety. It needs to be honest about the scientific uncertainties surrounding GM food and feed. If GM genes and proteins are getting into people's blood streams, we have a right to know."


1. GMSAFood Conference, Medical University of Vienna, 6-8 March 2012. "Genetically Modified Organisms GMO Safety and Post Market Monitoring." Professor Ashild Krogdahl of the Norwegian Veterinary School presents the research findings at a press conference via YouTube.

2. FSA, 11 April 2012. "GM Material in Animal Feed" (accessed 31 July 2012)

3. GM Freeze, 31 July 2012. "Food Standards Agency (FSA) position and public information on the presence of GM DNA material in animal products". (letter)


Post 134.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduces a GMO Labeling amendment to the Farm Bill
Posted: June 14th, 2012

3 replies, 2068 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply RADCLIFFE INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY: Women, Men, and Food - Putting Gender on the Table. (Original post)
proverbialwisdom Aug 2012 OP
Gormy Cuss Aug 2012 #1
proverbialwisdom Aug 2012 #2
proverbialwisdom Sep 2012 #3

Response to proverbialwisdom (Original post)

Thu Aug 9, 2012, 04:24 PM

1. Interesting topic area.

I can't wait to read the papers that come from this conference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to proverbialwisdom (Original post)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 12:33 PM

2. Gullible women are specifically being targeted in a campaign against GMO labeling in CA.

Last edited Sat Aug 25, 2012, 11:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Do feminists care? Should they?


How Do Bloggers Know When a Publicist is a Liar?

Posted by Jessica Gottlieb- featured yes on 37 blogger on August 08, 2012


Well, if I connect the dots appropriately I see that O’Malley Hansen Communications is inviting mom bloggers to be on camera asking scientists questions about farming on behalf of the Center for Food Integrity (CIF). Why wouldn’t they ask a FARMER about farming? Well, because farmers can’t answer questions about RNA and food safety and farmers are probably terrified of CIF because the members of CIF include giants like Monsanto that can make a farm disappear. Having a blogger ask the questions may look like an endorsement to the casual viewer. Mommy endorses GMOs! PR wins… health loses.

This is all very curious timing. Here in California we’ve put Prop 37 on the Ballot. Prop 37 would require packaged foods that contain GMOs to be labeled as such. KPCC has a list of folks who have donated money for and against Prop 37. There’s a bit of overlap between the two lists with Bimbo bakeries being the one with the largest overlap donation at $17,783.28. The CIF can’t help the con side without some level of disclosure so I’m sure that one has nothing to do with the other. I’m CERTAIN getting a news story placed about how GMOs are safe has nothing to do with the fact that Prop 37 has huge support here in California and no one is saying you can’t have GMOs, all they want is for consumers to know where they are.
Moms, what I’m telling you is that this isn’t a coincidence. Do NOT go on camera with a scientist to talk about food. Ask a farmer that doesn’t have a publicist. Promise them anonymity and get a real story. If you love your children (and I know you do) you won’t ignore the fact that $1,186,000 has been spent by The Council for Biotechnology Information, The Grocery Manufacturers Association, Dupont, and BASF Plant Science to prevent YOU THE CONSUMER from knowing when a Genetically Modified Organism is in your food.
If it didn’t matter would they spend the money?
Everyone knows that the moms matter. It’s an election year ladies, let’s stay smart and learn from Ryan Holiday about the publicists who are liars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to proverbialwisdom (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:03 PM

3. Indeed, it is fact (not sexism) that women are 'the primary shopping decision makers.'



With no labeling, few realize they are eating genetically modified foods
By Monica Eng, Tribune reporter
May 24, 2011, 8:28 p.m.

...In fact, a 2006 study for the Pew Initiative for Food and Biotechnology found that only 23 percent of women (the primary shopping decision makers) thought genetically modified foods were safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread