GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
EXPLAINED IN PLAIN LANGUAGE
WITH RHIO
Author of Hooked on Raw
 
 
 

SATURDAY OCTOBER 28th, 2006 --- 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM
 
$ 10.00 PER PERSON   //   SPACE IS LIMITED
ADVANCE RESERVATION REQUIRED
 
 
 
Genetically Engineered Foods Explained in Plain Language

 
In this lecture, you will learn the who, what, why, where and how of GE issues. You will also learn what other countries have done to protect their citizens and the environment, and what we can do here to get the same protections and rights.  At least 70% of all GE foods are grown in the US, with Canada and Argentina making up most of the balance. The food fight of the century began in the US and what happens here will be pivotal to defeating this technology worldwide.
 
After learning about the threat to the integrity of Mother Nature and human and animal health posed by the genetic engineering of seeds/plants, Rhio attended numerous lectures to learn about the subject.  As a layperson, she found it difficult to decipher the scientific language used by the geneticists, but she stayed the course until she had an understanding.
 
Rhio found the arrogance and greed that comprises most of the biotechnology industry and the information about what they are doing to be so shocking and abhorrent that she decided to break it down into plain language so that anyone could understand it and she has been sharing the information ever since.
 
The evening will begin with some original songs sung by Rhio and her partner, Leigh.
 
 
*********************************************************************


Rhio is a singer and author, as well as an investigative reporter in the area of health and environmental issues. Rhio is of Hungarian-Cuban descent, raised in the U.S., but completely fluent in Spanish. Her first book, Hooked on Raw, is about living a life more closely aligned with Nature by adopting a raw/live food lifestyle. The 358-page book also covers many reasons for making these healthy lifestyle changes, as well as more than 350 raw gourmet recipes in all categories.
 
As a performer Rhio has appeared on over 50 TV shows. Currently she is completing her third and fourth CD albums, one of which will tackle environmental issues.
 
CNN and American Journal aired stories on raw foods featuring Rhio.  She is considered an expert in the area of raw and living foods.
 
Rhio hosts an internet radio show called Hooked on Raw which can be heard worldwide at: www.TribecaRadio.net
 
A website: www.rawfoodinfo.com also provides extensive information on the raw/live food lifestyle, as well as organic agriculture, environmental, human rights, civil rights, globalization and economic justice issues.
 
Rhio lectures both on the raw/live food lifestyle and the genetic engineering of seeds/plants.
 
On the horizon: Rhio and her partner Leigh, are fledgling eco farmers in Upstate New York with a focus on growing edible wild foods, leafy greens and lettuces, fruit and nuts. 
 
 

LOCATION:  42 NEW ENGLAND DRIVE, RAMSEY, NJ 07446
(North of Paramus, 40 minutes from New York City)
 
RESERVATIONS: KHRANZI@AOL.COM – PHONE (201) 934-1758
 

 

Rights for Animals recognise the substantial part that language plays in cementing or changing the way in which other animals are treated by our society. Central to this issue is the debate as to whether animal rights campaigners in addressing the public should refer to practices involving nonhumans as animal ‘use’, ‘exploitation’, ‘abuse’, ‘slavery’ or ‘oppression’. While Rights for Animals regard all these terms as accurate descriptions of practices using animals, we are critical as to the tactical virtues of each one in our campaigning for an end to those practices. There seem to arguments in favour of and against each term, considering that using nonhuman animals in a way that harms them is indeed intolerable abuse and exploitation. In reality there is virtually no distinction between use and abuse of animals (humans and nonhumans) unless no harm is inflicted on them.

The case for the terms 'exploitation' and 'abuse'

'Use' is the word that those who want to defend the idea that we may exploit nonhumans employ. Such terminology makes animals seem just like objects or tools that just get used. According to this, it seems that animal rights activists should counter this in their language: they should label 'use' for what it is - exploitation and abuse. They should describe it as slavery. Otherwise a chasm can be opened between the exploitation of humans and the exploitation of nonhumans. One has trouble imagining anti-slavery campaigners of old referring to slavery as ‘the use’ of those humans who were enslaved. Or feminists solely talking of ‘the use of females for male purposes'. It's oppression. In order to equate human and nonhuman exploitation, this should be reflected in the language we employ.

The case for a term such as ‘use’

On the other hand, it can be claimed that terms such as exploitation or abuse can often be confusing. The problem is how do people understand what abuse or exploitation is? Most of the public understand these as causing wanton or unnecessary harm. So people think that we are abusing nonhumans, for instance, not by killing them for producing food, but only by keeping them in “bad” conditions, kicking them during their transport, causing them extra suffering when they are being killed, and so on.

In fact, welfarist propaganda has no problem with using these same terms: while it accepts practices such as eating nonhumans it derides as abuse practices such as skinning them alive.

This would then be the reason why slogans against ‘the use of animals’ as such would help to question speciesism and its consequences better than those that oppose ‘animal abuse’ or ‘animal exploitation’. For that reason, ‘use’ would appear to be at the end of the day a much more radical term. Virtually everyone agrees with the claim that abusing or exploiting animals is unacceptable. But arguing that using animals in any way in which you inflict harm on them is unacceptable is different. No possible confusion here, no possible welfarist interpretation of the message: we are putting it crystal clear. Now, of course, there’s one condition to this: it is by all means necessary to use those same terms when we are speaking of humans.

Further remarks

Perhaps a good solution would be to combine all these terms so that the idea that using someone (in a way which harms him or her) means abuse or exploitation. Although the problem with this could be that such explanations are not always explicit.

http://speciesism.org/

We’re Cracking the Neural Code, the Brain’s Secret Language

By: John Horgan

Left in the Dark

'The Biological Origins of the Fall From Grace'

You can read this book for free http://www.kaleidos.org.uk/