When I woke up this morning, I was outraged to discover that $3,050 in Truman State University funds (taken from the non-optional “student activity fee” charged to all Truman students) was taken to hire one of the most prolific Islamophobes alive, Robert Spencer, to give a talk called “Exposed: The Truth About Radical Islam” despite his purported neo-Nazi ties and the fact that he has been banned from the United Kingdom for his radical agenda to defame Islam and spread hate and misinformation. This event is being funded by the University and hosted by the College Republicans and being held April 13th, 8:00pm in Violette Hall, Room 1000.

A quick google search of Robert Spencer reveals his “extremist profile” on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website. They state that “As the director of the Jihad Watch blog and co-founder of Stop Islamization of America, Robert Spencer is one of America’s most prolific and vociferous anti-Muslim propagandists.” Continuing, they explain that Robert “insists, despite his lack of academic training in Islam, that the religion is inherently violent and that radical jihadists who commit acts of terror are simply following its dictates.” His writing was cited dozens of times in a manifesto written by the Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik. Spencer was banned from the United Kingdom as an extremist in July 2013” (Southern Poverty Law Center).

So, despite the fact that the United Kingdom has banned this man from entering their country because his views on Islam are incorrect and hateful, Truman State has not only invited, but is PAYING him to come our campus, using thousands of dollars in University funding. The FAC (Funds Allotment Council) has public records which prove that this funding was in fact, provided to the College Republican club to host this event. Those records can be found here: https://fac.truman.edu/slates/ under Spring 2017.

While outraged students have been writing letters to school administration and planning ways to stage nonviolent and peaceful protest at the event, which is scheduled for April 13th, 2017 at 8pm, online threats have recently surfaced advocating for the shooting, lobotomization, imprisonment and expulsion of students who disagree with Spencer or plan to protest. Attached below is an image of one such comment, however, it is just one of many. The rest can be seen on Robert Spencer’s personal website, here: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/04/truman-state-university-student-calls-for-violence-ahead-of-robert-spencer-lecture.

Many of these comments are also incredibly transphobic. Several Truman students are calling the event “tone-deaf” especially given the ongoing mental health crisis being experienced at Truman’s campus, with our current suicide rate 6.25x that of the national average at other Universities. A Truman student committed suicide just last week and with such a fragile and stressful campus environment at present, the last thing our University needs is additional stressors and events which incite violence, stress, and promote hate.

Furthermore, following Trump’s Muslim travel ban, University President Dr. Sue Thomas sent out an email ensuring that minority students would be protected and supported, yet by allowing and funding anti-Islamic speakers like Robert Spencer, they are doing precisely the opposite. Truman claims to promote an atmosphere in which diversity is respected and students of every creed, color, religion and culture can feel protected and safe. But their actions (and lack thereof) demonstrate otherwise.

While College Republicans and campus leadership (including University President Dr. Sue Thomas) argue that Spencer’s talk on campus falls under free speech, student Breanna Rigger stated in a public Facebook status,

“Look, it’s unethical to give fascists a platform. It’s not intolerant or hypocritical to deny them speech on campus. These people manipulate others with fear to support horrible policies and discrimination towards others. This fear can lead to violence towards targeted groups. If you use your first amendment rights to spread fears, lies, and violence then you shouldn’t have a platform.”

Furthermore, Robert’s rhetoric and platform has been characterized as “hate-speech” in the past which many feel should not fall under the definition of “free speech.” Furthermore, such speech is not appropriate on a campus that has falsely promised to stand up for minority students and help them feel safe and protected.

As a student who is personally concerned, I have reported the shooting threats to the proper authorities and expressed my concerns regarding the inappropriate nature of spending student activity fee money on hate speech, yet Truman State refuses to take action, telling students that this will promote “academic discourse.”

If the event is not canceled despite violent threats towards peaceful protesters and students who disagree with Spencer’s extremist, bigoted stance, there will be nonviolent protests staged by students who are standing in solidarity with our fellow Muslim brothers and sisters.

By continuing to host this event, despite an outpouring of outrage from the student body, Truman State is alienating and actively oppressing their Muslim student body. I would urge any Truman alumni to immediately call Truman and ask to be taken off donor lists and any high schoolers considering attending Truman State to keep the actions of the University at this time in mind.

The post Tension mounts with Islamophobic speaker scheduled at Truman State appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been an outspoken feminist since my awkward middle-school years. I own multiple shirts proclaiming “This is What a Feminist Looks Like” and my daily actions and in fact, my entire (self-designed) college major (Social Justice & Activism) is oriented around identifying broader systems of oppression in our society and trying to figure out how address them. For as long as I remember, I’ve been quick to remind anti-feminist keyboard warriors that the definition of feminism is the belief in equality for all, regardless of gender, sex, ability, race, class, culture, religion, etc. This intersectional view of feminism puts me on the more progressive spectrum of “feminism,” but it’s the most inclusive, accurate (albeit, *ethical*) platform a self-proclaimed “feminist” can take. If you call yourself a feminist and show up to the Women’s March on Washington but not a Black Lives Matter protest then you aren’t really committed to equality, you’re committed to equality for *certain* women, women who match your particular privileged demographic.

So why do I, a-self-proclaimed progressive, intersectional feminist oppose amending selective service drafting laws which would require both men and women to be equally called upon to serve their country? For me, it boils down to the sexist standards we use when we assess an individual’s fitness to join the army in the first place.

Just to be clear, while there were attempts by both the Senate and the House to pass a bill last year which would force men and women to both register for the draft, it is currently not the law of the land. However, with a president as trigger-happy as Trump (especially when it comes to his “Tweet” button), as a young adult who would likely qualify for the draft, it is an issue that sits at the back of my mind and bothers me every once in a while, should it come back up for a vote.

As it currently stands, the armed forces have different physical requirements for men and women wishing to join the armed forces. I’d like to quote Kate Germano, a Lt. Colonel in the Marine Corps from an article she wrote in 2015 urging the Marines to make the standards for men and women equal. Germano states “Right from the start, women are held to a lower standard for achievement, which explains why their failure rate on the initial physical fitness test at boot camp is nine times greater and their discharge rate is double that of men. It also explains why we have such a problem with sexual assault in the Marine Corps. There is no level playing field established for men and women in terms of respect, conduct, performance and expectations” (Germano, 2015).

Germano’s viewpoint is not exclusive to women serving in the Marine Corps branch of the military. In Military Review, Jude Eden expressly outlines that having lower physical standards for women and men in the army perpetuates a sexist culture within the military in which “army strong” isn’t exactly true across the board. Eden argues that there are certainly women who can perform physically at the same level as their male counterparts and not having gender-neutral standards leads to discrimination and sexism including the fact that “Women aren’t encouraged to establish the same mental toughness as men – rather, they’re told they can’t compete. Men, meanwhile, are encouraged to perceive women as weak” (Eden).

While having different physical standards for men and women in the armed forces clearly has created a troubling set of issues already even without making the draft mandatory for women, should the draft become mandatory for both sexes and eventually enforced, it would be a catastrophe. Here’s why: allowing physically “weaker” men to avoid the draft simply because they don’t identify as female or weren’t born female is incredibly unfair while women who meet a lower physical standard than their male counterparts would be forced to fight on the front lines, simply due to the fact that outdated physical standards have labeled them the “weaker” sex. The lower, more fluid expectations for who is and who isn’t considered “fit” enough to be in the armed forces for women means that two individuals who are equally “fit” but not as “fit” as the men who physically qualify for the draft means that if one of those two people happened to be a woman, that person would be more likely forced to go to war.

Before we make the draft mandatory for both genders, it’s important to establish gender neutral physical standards for *anyone* wishing to join any defense branch. I have to laugh a little when I see the hashtag #armystrong, because as it currently stands, it’s a misleading slogan and the inconsistency of strength requirements and expectations weakens our military as a whole. I know several strong, brave ROTC women who could physically surpass the majority of men on their worst days. Why not make standards equal across the board so that should a gender-neutral draft law exist, it would at least be fair to women? Why let men who physically perform at the same standards as female recruits get out of serving their country, just because they identify or were born as male?

Make physical standards gender-neutral across the board, and then we can talk about the idea of a gender-neutral draft.

The post A progressive feminist view of equality in the military draft appeared first on Occasional Planet.

According to Carol Adams, the author of The Sexual Politics of Meat, “Meat is a symbol for patriarchal control.” Meat has been historically associated with gender since the age of hunter/gatherer societies in which meat was a valuable economic commodity, and those that controlled its distribution could maintain power. This established a pattern in social relations, which a social theorist would argue establishes a “social structure.” According to Adams, “one’s maleness is reassured by the food one eats.”

However, the social pressure males feel to reinforce their gender identity through meat has some very serious consequences. Females, traditionally considered second-class citizens in the various patriarchal societies throughout history, have been delegated what the particular society in question designates as “second-class food,” which is nearly always vegetarian. Despite the fact that pregnant and nursing mothers actually have a greater need for protein than their male counterparts, the protein needs of men are often prioritized and women starve at a disproportionate rate to men in third world countries today, as a direct result.

Throughout various patriarchal societies, such as Mbaum Kapu, women are restricted from certain meats, such as chicken and goat, and are punished if they choose to consume them. Conversely, foods designated for female consumption, such as eggs in the Nuer culture, are not eaten by males and are considered undesirable and effeminate. These are examples of the direct consequences of the genderization and sexualization of meat and the meanings associated with it.

Examples of the consequences of the genderization of meat also exist in American history. American policies regarding food rationing during wartime reinforce ideas connecting meat to masculinity: The government reserved meat for the masculine ideal, or the soldier/warrior. During World War II, on average, soldiers consumed two and a half times more meat than the average civilian. This policy is based on the superstition that in consuming the muscles of other creatures, the consumer is given strength. This has led to the traditional belief that men require meat for strength and, as a result, the consumption of meat has become a symbol of male dominance and a way to sustain strength, and by extension, social power. In this way, the federal government has reinforced ideas about meat and gender, as well as meat and power, forging meat as a symbol of the patriarchy. Meat has become a tool of gender identity in our society, which has serious consequences for women and animals.

The post The sexual politics of meat appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I recently administered a survey to a group of students at Truman University on the topic of sexual assault. The results showed that most students didn’t believe male rape was an issue and most thought less than 10% of victims were men.

These individuals would be shocked to learn that 38% of rape victims are actually male, according to a recently released study by the National Crime Victimization Survey. The Bureau of Justice Statistics examined the results after some scrutiny at how large the statistic seemed to be. However, much to everyone’s surprise, the bureau found no error in the study. Society’s attitude towards male sexual assault victims is shifting. In 2012, the FBI changed the definition of rape to include male victims. Before 2012, forced penetration was not acknowledged as rape. However, educating the public on the realities of sexual assault is a long process, and little progress seems to be made. Many people refuse to believe that a man can even be raped.

As a feminist and a proponent of human rights, I’m very troubled by the trend of assuming only women experience sexual assault. Every year, 19-31% of college men receive some form of unwanted sexual contact, and perpetrators are typically female. We’re predisposed to think of sexual assault as a male-on-female crime and tend to discredit any crime that doesn’t fit our preconceived definition of what constitutes as rape. Female perpetrators often have significantly lighter sentences, and male victims rarely step forward. Rape is the most underreported crime in America, and male victims are the least likely to report it. The perfect crime is the one that nobody hears about, and unfortunately, male sexual assault fits in that category all too often. Victims are typically gay and/or non-Caucasian.

The demographic most at risk for male rape is young, African-American homosexual males, although individuals of all demographics are affected. Male rape can be a form of gay bashing and needs to be recognized as a serious issue.

We need to radically change the way we think about rape. Rape is too often categorized as sex-driven crime. However, it has nothing to do with gender or sex-drive. Many rapists report that the gender of their victim is inconsequential. Rape is a crime of power and control.

If we stop labeling rape as a male-on-female crime, we can also avoid the issue of victim blaming. Female victims are often asked what they were wearing at the time of the incident, if their sexuality as a woman was pronounced, etc. Male victims are never asked what they were wearing when they were raped.

It’s evident that gender has little to do with victimization in the case of sexual assault. Genderizing the crime paints women as weak and men as insatiable, two false stereotypes.

Male victims of sexual assault are a minority. But ignoring their experience only encourages the perpetration of crime and does nothing to encourage solutions. A big reason why male victims tend not to report their rapist is because they feel isolated by the crime. This is largely due to the lack of awareness surrounding male sexual assault. The most important thing we can do to encourage an atmosphere of inclusiveness and healing is to raise awareness on the issue of male sexual assault instead of ignoring it. Acknowledging the experience of male rape victims will help change the way we view sexual assault as a whole and help stop the unnecessary genderization of the crime, which hurts both men and women.

Only rapists can prevent rape and stopping rapists from pursuing crime starts by shedding light on it instead of sweeping it under the rug. Rape is not about gender, and recognizing that will help us better understand how to solve it.

The post Men get raped, too, but no one talks about it appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Photographs of young, privileged white women holding handwritten signs about why they “don’t need feminism” have been circulating the internet this week, showing up in my Facebook newsfeeds daily. I’ve made concerned posts and comments regarding the issue – pointing out that women (and men, for that matter) who claim they don’t need feminism are like individuals who feel that they don’t “need” turn signals.

Feminism isn’t about you. It’s about the equality of the collective. You’re right, conservative 20-something hiding behind your computer screen: You don’t “need” to be a part of the feminist movement in 2014. Women before you have been bending over backwards over the past 100 years so you can vote, drive a car, and plaster your inane anti-feminist sentiments all over the internet, for that matter. Thanks to feminism, you enjoy basic human rights in the United States.

Is there still a long way to go? Clearly. Gender equality is far from being reached in this country. But as long as you can live comfortably in one of the richest countries in the world—who cares about women in third world countries? Who cares about rape victims? Why should you care if another human being faces debilitating discrimination on a daily basis because of her genitals?

But enough sarcasm, because there is one compelling reason you should care. You do need to be a feminist—it is part of being a decent human being.

The feminist movement seems to be full of apologies this week—pointing out that the actions and words of a few extremists don’t equal the sentiments of the movement of a whole. This attitude is quite troubling. There is no such thing as an “extreme” feminist, because equality, by definition is not “extreme.” Are there people out there who use the word “feminism” as an excuse to blindly adopt hatred towards the male demographic? In every movement, you will find wolves in sheep’s clothing. But no matter how convincing, a wolf will never be a “sheep.” Likewise, anyone who isn’t fighting for the equality of men and women isn’t a feminist.

Women who claim that they don’t need feminism are simply ignorant. One such woman claimed that the reason she refused to identify with the movement was because she “respected men.” If she truly respected men, then she would work toward equality, because that promotes respect towards both genders and breaks down stereotypes that are unfair and oppressive to both men AND women.

Another woman pointed out that she didn’t “feel oppressed.” That’s the problem. She’s been born and raised in a society in which inequality is the norm. Of course she doesn’t feel oppressed: Oppression has become so ingrained into her daily life that it flies under the radar, swallowed by the masses.

Perhaps one of the most infuriating trends among the women identifying as “anti-feminist” were the words “I’m not a victim.” Because these women are victims of something darker and more sinister than they could even comprehend. Anyone parading around as an “anti-feminist” is a victim of extreme ignorance. To reject equality is to reject the foundation of human rights.

So, to the women claiming to be anti-feminists: You don’t think you “need” feminism – but you’re the reason the rest of us do.

The post In response to “Women Against Feminism” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In the well-lit aisles of your drugstore, millions of tiny and dangerous pollutants lurk in the cheerful packaging of your favorite exfoliating cleansers. But in Illinois, you’ll notice a distinct lack of certain facial washes. In a groundbreaking decision, Illinois recently became the first state to ban the use of the microbead, a popular ingredient in many face washes.

Manufacturers use microbeads in their facial washes to rub away dead skin cells, allowing users to scrub their faces to remove dirt and makeup. Microbeads are tiny plastic particles – designed to slip down your bathroom sink, each less than a millimeter in size.

While these plastic beads may seem tiny, it’s their small size that makes them such a nuisance. Just as these beads slip down the drain, they also slip through sewage systems and water treatment plants, making their way to the Great Lakes in mass quantities. In fact, microbeads accounted for about 90 percent of the plastic pollution in Lake Erie alone.

Unfortunately, their size and color makes them closely resemble fish eggs – effectively causing fish and wildlife to consume them and soak up the toxins like sponges. These tiny plastics food create a grave ecological threat, as they are being incorporated into the food web at an alarming rate. Scientists found over 6,000 microbeads on average per every 0.1 gram of facial cleanser, and these cleansers are used widely across the country.

Illinois is leading the country in eliminating this dangerous and often disregarded pollutant. The manufacture and sale of products containing the beads will be banned by 2018. However, many companies such as Unilever and Johnson & Johnson are one step ahead – already agreeing to phase out microbeads on a global scale, without legislative pressure. Alternatives to these plastic exfoliating beads include more environmentally sound options such as crushed apricot pits, cocoa beans or sea salt.

So, what can consumers like you and me do to eliminate plastics from our bathroom cabinets? “Polyethylene” and “polypropylene” on ingredient labels mean that the product contains plastic, indicative of the dangerous microbead. Some manufactures even advertise the ingredient, putting “microbeads” on the product label. However, with recent pressure from environmental groups and lawmakers, the inclusion of microbeads won’t be anything for companies to brag about for long.

In general, the plastics in microbeads won’t degrade within the consumer’s lifetime. It is simply not logical to design a disposable product that will last forever. Why create a product that will only be used for a few seconds but will continue to negatively affect the ecosystem for decades?

Change starts with the individual. While eliminating microbeads may seem like an insignificant lifestyle change, it will have a huge impact in the long run. After all, if we can eliminate microbeads, effectively we’ll be getting rid of the majority of the plastics in the Great Lakes, where 20 percent of the world’s freshwater is stored. This will prevent problems with fish and wildlife, as well as protecting ourselves and future generations from the many toxins leaching into drinking water.

As responsible consumers, changing out our facial washes for something without exfoliating microbeads is a concrete step we can take in solving the environmental crisis that faces our planet. Liking a Facebook post isn’t environmental activism – we need to be taking real action and dramatically changing our lifestyles.

The post Microbeads: A not-so-tiny problem appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As I scrolled through the morning news, I noticed that a new Miss USA had been crowned last night. Curious, I clicked the link to read more about Nia Sanchez, the winner of the 2014 title. I was happy to see that the winner was a minority and that she was was a tae kwondo fourth-degree black belt. However, I found her position on sexual assault very troubling and evident of the rape culture that pervades our society.

As a solution to campus rape, Miss USA suggested that women should learn to defend themselves. This implies that women get raped because they’re weak and that they get assaulted because they “failed” in a sense. The idea that you can solve rape through self defense shifts the responsibility onto the victim. It asserts that instead of teaching people not to be criminals, we should teach the target that it’s their job not to get raped.

Miss USA, when you told millions of young women across the country that they need to “take it upon themselves” to solve the problem, you were promoting the rape culture. You’re teaching little girls that it’s their job to prevent a crime they have no control over. You’re teaching the victim that the reason they were assaulted was because they couldn’t defend themselves, that they weren’t “enough.”

We don’t solve rape by “fixing” women. We solve rape by teaching people not to be rapists. I’m tired of being told that my wardrobe will “cause” rape. I’m tired of being told that my sex organs will “cause” rape. I’m tired of being told that my femininity will “cause” rape. Only rapists can “cause” rape.

It’s never the victim’s fault. Promoting self defense just shows how inherently backwards our country is when dealing with this problem. We should be promoting basic human respect for one another instead of making the victim responsible for the crime.
That being said, it’s time to stop assuming that only women get raped. Many rape victims are actually male, but because society has branded rape a man-on-woman crime, many men feel too ashamed to come forward. They too, feel that they have “failed” and that their rape is a result of their “weakness” or inability to defend themselves. And so we push the problem even further under the rug.

There’s nothing wrong with making people stronger and empowering them. In fact, that should be encouraged. But when we teach victims to solve a crime of which they are not the perpetrator, we’re participating in victim blaming. And that, Miss USA, is the cornerstone of rape culture.

The post Miss USA and the rape culture appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I was walking down the hallway of my high school, casually reading the instruction sheet for my upcoming graduation when something stopped me in my tracks. My mouth twisted in outrage and I shook my head silently. What little phrase had caused such utter frustration?

“Females – dress or skirt (no shorts or slacks.)”’

This little pink piece of paper made me angry. Because I was in possession of a vagina, I wasn’t allowed to have material between my legs. Because society labeled me as “female” I wasn’t allowed to make decisions for my own body. Because at my own high school graduation I was going to be defined by my sex organs and not my accomplishments.

As the proud owner of several Hillary Clinton-esque pant suits, I was already planning on wearing formal slacks to graduation. However – because I was not in possession of male genitalia I was going to be denied the privilege to chose what I could and could not use to cover my body.

Time and time again in the patriarchy in which we live, women are being denied the right to make choices for their own body. As I stated to a teacher minutes after receiving the form “It’s the 21st century – you’d think we’d stop corseting women into sexualized roles and clothing.”

I was very vocal that day – expressing my thoughts to anyone who would listen. Several people commented that I chose to wear a dress the day I received the form – and therefore my position was hypocritical. However – they missed a crucial piece of information – wearing a dress had been my personal CHOICE that day- not a preordained and sexist demand of a patriarchal institution.

A few minutes of internet research validated what I had already suspected – the school’s inane “rule” was actually illegal. Title IX forbids public schools from making gender specific dress codes. Forcing young adults to conform to a gender binary is not only close-minded, but highly offensive and inappropriate.

My school isn’t the only place in the country stripping young women of the right to make choices for their own bodies – in fact, it’s not the only place in St. Louis. A number of private schools in the area such as MICDS and Visitation Academy have young women wear floor-length white gowns for graduation – which families purchase at bridal shops, often costing several thousand dollars.

On the day when high school students symbolically pass from childhood to adulthood – we’re telling girls that their “adulthood” or “future” is going to consist of an archaic and oppressive gender schema. We’re labeling them as “brides” and teaching them that it’s not their education that’s valuable – it’s their ability to be a wife.

I’m not opposed to women wearing dresses or being feminine – however, I am diametrically opposed to institutions forcing females to wear bridal gowns. This attitude towards women is something I had hoped our country had outgrown in the 60s and 70s.

Not only was it illegal for my high school to demand that I wear a dress – it was evident of a dangerous attitude towards gender that still permeates our country. The desire to force people into neat little defined boxes implies that gender isn’t fluid – an assertion that flies into the face of modern science and psychology and directly contradicts the general consensuses in those respective fields.

Someone asked me the other day why we still needed feminism. They argued that feminism was “no longer relevant” because women had achieved objective equality in their eyes. However, until a woman is allowed to make choices for her own body – objective equality has not been reached.

Situations such as gender specific dress codes prove to me that feminism is still relevant – and today, society needs it more than ever.

The post Graduation rules for girls: Another reason for feminist outrage appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In Russia, officials are seriously considering passing a sweeping ban on all genetically modified crops. In banning GMOs, they will be joining other countries including Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland, just to name a few. The attitudes of these countries stand in stark contrast to those of the GMO giants, China, and the United States, the top two GMO producers in the world. So why is the rest of the world so afraid of what the USA and China has embraced?

Well, for starters, studies have shown that BT (a toxin found inside genetically modified crops) is passed through the blood of pregnant women to the fetus. That means that all children born within the past 20 years were, in some way, affected in the womb through the GMO diet that has infected America. What are the effects? A government sponsored study in Italy shows that maternal consumption of GM ingredients can increase the risk of autism. This explains the enormous spike in autism that has affected the USA in recent years. Autism now effects 1 in 88 children – a number that has risen considerably. In the mid-1970s, that number was 1 in 25,000.

But can GMOs affect individuals outside of the womb? Scientific evidence says yes. Several studies on mice being fed GMO diets have shown startling results. Cancer, organ failure and tumors were all results of the long-term consumption of genetically modified corn.

What about humans? Many individuals suffer from debilitating allergies, including nut allergies. As GMO foods are currently unlabeled in the USA, the risk of an individual allergic to nuts consuming a crop containing a nut gene is high. In 1996, this issue arose as allergic reactions to the seemingly harmless soybean were on the rise. It was addressed by the New England Journal of Medicine, which identified the nut genes within the popular GM soybean as the cause. Currently, the USDA doesn’t require safety testing of genetically modified foods, including allergen testing. Premarket safety testing is rare. However, it should become mandatory – there is no excuse to expose the public to products that could potentially wreak havoc on their health. Many experts have come to this consensus, including the American Medical Association.

Do fish genes belong in our tomatoes? It’d be a misnomer to ask if you want to eat food that hasn’t been tested yet – because genetically modified foods ARE being tested…on the public. Billion dollar corporations such as Monsanto don’t care about spending money to perform safety tests – it doesn’t increase their profit margin. Besides, why pay test subjects when you can test your products directly on the consumers – for free? We shouldn’t be asking if fish genes belong in our tomatoes. We should be asking a far more personal question – What are my rights as a lab rat?

As Russia considers banning genetically modified food, another landmark decision is being made here in the USA. This year, Monsanto’s patent on GMOs expires, and the United States Patent office will have to decide if it will grant them another. It’s time to wake up the lab rats.

The post GMOs: There’s something fishy about these tomatoes appeared first on Occasional Planet.