Living in an anti-Brexit city in a pro-leave country

Recently, a reporter from a French radio program approached a friend and me while we were browsing a farmers’ market to ask us about Brexit. We were both hesitant to answer — after all, the extent of my Brexit knowledge was mainly comprised of the Brexit-centric New Yorker issue I read while en route to London. But then she shifted gears away from our own opinions on the topic to ask us what we saw as the opinions of Londoners. So I answered, saying I thought it was a national embarrassment.

My friend was more impartial in her answer, saying that we, as Americans, didn’t have much room to criticize given our own seemingly-unending political embarrassments back home. For a while, I regretted my frank answer, thinking that I’d spoken out of place. Now, however, having spent a month in London and having learned more about the topic, I stand by it, because it seems more true than ever.

Londoners seem to have gone out of their way to make their anti-Brexit stance clear — the city is covered with so many fliers and stickers that their political position is unmistakable. As a city that embraces its diversity and multiculturalism, it shouldn’t be surprising that its residents are so opposed to both the move to leave the European Union and to the mindset and hostilities that have led to the current state of affairs.

While those who voted in favor of Brexit might have had a number of reasons for doing so, including the desire to reclaim British sovereignty or frustration with the EU’s regulations, the concerns over a recent wave of immigration to the UK played a significant role in the final decision to leave the EU.

Between 1991 and 2011, the pace of migration to the UK reached unprecedented levels. Since joining the EU in 2004, an estimated 70 percent of migrants to the UK emigrated from Poland and several other nearby Eastern European countries still experiencing reverberations from the fall of communism. Another significant population of migrants to the UK during this period emigrated from Somalia to seek asylum from a decades-long armed conflict and humanitarian crisis at home.

Just as a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment played a large role in the election of Donald Trump, the same hostilities fueled the success of Brexit. And just as Trump’s election helped normalize the white supremacist and racist ideologies intrinsically linked to anti-immigrant rhetoric that has, in turn, led to an acute spike in hate crimes at home, the UK has also seen an increase in racial discrimination linked to Brexit.

Since my arrival in the UK, people in my program and I have had a number of run-ins with Brexit-related protests — some good, some not-so-good. Over a dozen students in my program attended a pro-Brexit rally with their professor. At the rally, a pro-Brexit protester overheard their American accents and began to curse at one student.

In the City of Bath, located outside of London, a large group of protesters who could only be described as quaint (they were wearing blue felt berets with a circle of gold stars around the brim to resemble the EU flag… adorable, right?) willingly engaged in a friendly chat with us about the topic.

One of the most poignant, Brexit-related instances came from a moment of ignorance. On our second day in London, during a bus tour, a student asked our tour guide about a protest outside the Palace of Westminster. “It’s about Brexit,” he replied. The student paused, then asked, “What’s Brexit?”

Our tour guide initially laughed in response. Perhaps he was shocked or even a bit horrified. Or maybe he was a bit relieved. I tried to think what my reaction would be if someone genuinely asked me, “Who is Donald Trump?” or “What do you mean by ‘Russian hacking?’” I might, for a second, cherish that bit of pure naivete and wish, for a minute, that I could also escape into the innocent land of unknowing, rather than the sort of unavoidable unknowing which now hangs over the heads of people like my gracious tour guide.

This state of unknowing that has hung over the UK like a dark cloud since the vote in 2016 was recently prolonged. Earlier this month, the proposed withdrawal agreement was also rejected for a third time.

Brexit might seem comparable in its significance to our disastrous 2016 presidential election, but while many Americans might not see the immediate effects of the decisions made by a new president in their personal lives, Brexit will likely affect everyday life (in an abrupt manner). There are concerns about a hit to Britain’s economy as well as concerns over potential mark-ups on prices of imported goods, such as produce, medicine and healthcare. Ultimately though, it’s impossible to know exactly what will happen when Brexit occurs.

Although Brexit was supposed to go into effect four days after my arrival in the UK in March, the deadline to reach an agreement was recently extended until Oct. 31. And what’s spookier than Halloween? A “no-deal” Brexit.

Without a withdrawal agreement, there will be no honeymoon phase after Brexit takes effect. This means that in place of a transition period, the UK would part ways with the EU abruptly. This could very well mean the UK leaves the EU without any agreements over the rights of EU citizens in the UK or vice versa and without any sort of agreements in place over minute, mindless details like planes crossing borders.

“Every area of the economy needs to be ready for no deal,” stated one BBC article. “We keep being told that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. But this could be the biggest gamble of all.”

A no-deal Brexit is not only a slap in the face to those who were in favor of staying but also to those who voted in favor of leaving — those who believed the promises made in 2016 that Brexit would be fast, painless and easy. It’s a national embarrassment.

Written by: Hannah Holzer — hrholzer@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

Research before you eat

Y’all are a bunch of bullies. For one thing, you gang up on gluten, which is great for the rather numerous people with celiac disease because those who suffer from the autoimmune disorder now have actual options when it comes to the food they dine on compared to, say, a decade ago. As a vegetarian with many dietary restrictions, I do not begrudge anyone facing food limitations for the luxury of some additional choices.

On principle, however, for all of you going out to dinner wringing your hands and worriedly asking your waiters and waitresses if your lettuce is gluten-free out of layered ignorance, I get frustrated. You are falling prey to a pointless, alarmist fad. There is nothing inherently wrong with gluten, unless your doctor tells you that you’re allergic to gluten after testing you for celiac disease. I get frustrated because people are profiting off of you and you’re erroneously believing that gluten is bad for you (and apparently, gluten-free foods may be even less healthy than foods prepared in normal, gluten-inclusive fashions).

But where you get really mean and bully-like is when it comes to my friends GMOs. GMO stands for “genetically modified organism,” and they “are created in labs by extracting genes from one species’ DNA and inserting them into another plant or animal that doesn’t naturally possess that genetic material.”

Sure, science is scary. We’ve established that. The mad scientist. Frankenstein. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Jurassic Park — and Killer Tomatoes! I would argue that the 1978 film Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is remarkably, sadly, hilariously, prescient of our present day popular attitude toward GMOs. The thing is GMOs, just like gluten, are not inherently evil. As the world’s second best agricultural school, UC Davis is uniquely situated to spearhead this truth.

Davis, for example, has been feeding livestock genetically modified feed for 30 years and nary a bent feather or misshapen hoof has resulted. Scientifically speaking, no meat unfit or dangerous for human consumption has resulted. In 30 years. But why hede the science of our very own world-renowned academic research institution? After all as students we only back up its credibility and expertise with thousands of dollars of our own debt (don’t want to feed our pooches Non-GMO Project uncertified dog food lest they grow a third ear because a cabal of “expert” bloggers said so).

Poor, misunderstood GMOs. I first encountered a convincing don’t-hate-GMO argument in a Slate article in 2015. This anti-GMO scare (I would say “witch hunt” but that term has been ruined) has been going on for a long time. Slate said, “The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all declared that there’s no good evidence GMOs are unsafe [for humans to eat].” There are additional arguments against GMOs as they pertain to ecology and the farmers who use the seeds and livestock, but for the purview of this piece I’m going to stick to human health. There is also this article: “With 2,000+ global studies affirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed subjects in science.” It’s important to note that these studies are both independent and peer-reviewed, which means they are not ostensibly funded by parties with biased interests in manufacturing certain results, and the methods of the studies are vouched for by other scientists who are experts in the field. Detractors of GMOs cannot attest the same level of scientific support for their claims that GMOs are bad for our health.

There are horrific concerns that evil scientists are going to splice peanuts into broccoli and, unawares, everyone with a peanut allergy is going to sit down to eat some delicious broccoli and DIE. Well, for starters, we already label products packaged in factories used to process nuts to avoid killing people, so… maybe we are just afraid of our own perceived power to manipulate life. It’s like a Biblical nervousness. I’m pretty sure someone said we’re not supposed to be able to do this and we are waiting for some kind of cosmic genetic colossal slap on the wrist. Or it’s like gossip or a horror movie. We like to be scandalized and get all titillated and afraid on both a macro and micro, global and bio scale. We can all pretend to know something about it and not have to actually know anything about it — because science and fact and truth have long gone out the window — to get in on the juicy, water-cooler conversation.

The bottom line is that the Non-GMO Project is making money off of you. There are $26 billion in annual sales to products that wish to boast its seal, and that cost gets passed on to the consumer in the form of a 10 to 62% price increase. What are you paying for? Fear-mongering.

If you want to be hyper-concerned about what you’re putting into your body, consult a dietician or get a basic blood panel run through your primary care physician if you’re lucky enough to have health insurance and low copays. You might find that you are low on iron and should eat more spinach. If you are affiliated with this school, you have access to millions of peer-reviewed scientific journals. Satisfy yourself and see what the latest research has to say about the food you put in your body. Dig a little deeper on your own before you decide to increase your student debt on unnecessary food costs.

Written by: Lauren Frausto — lrfrausto@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

Netflix and David Attenborough team up to strike the perfect balance between entertainment and environmental alarmism

Free from the conservative shackles of BBC, David Attenborough, notable narrator of “Planet Earth,” takes nature documentaries where they haven’t been before with “Our Planet,” a new series on Netflix — and it works.

BBC is one of the biggest and oldest broadcasting corporations in the world. It has gained the nickname “Auntie,” short for “Auntie knows best,” due to its unwillingness to listen to criticism, advice or requests from anyone. This stubbornness certainly transferred over to its Natural History Unit, the department that focuses on wildlife series.

The NHU, which brought us Planet Earth I, II and many other nature documentaries, has been criticized for its ambiguous stance on climate change. The debate reached its boiling point when BBC controversially brought in a climate change denier for a climate change interview under the guise of a “balanced” discussion.

It should therefore come as no surprise that BBC’s latest groundbreaking nature program, Planet Earth II, had its faults as well.

Despite its beautifully captivating quality, as its images of bobcats leaping through freezing-cold rivers are, Planet Earth II’s actionable activism for conservation falls short. BBC’s response to these criticisms has been to captivate viewers with its footage in hopes they take action. But its goal is too ambitious and shifts the whole burden of taking action onto the viewer, when the responsibility should be shared with the content creators as well.

So when David Attenborough got the call to make a nature documentary series from the independent entertainment giant Netflix, he jumped at the opportunity and held on tight, like a hungry lion clenching his precious prey.

But Attenborough had to be careful. “Every time the bell rings, every time that image [of a threatened animal] comes up, do you say, ‘Remember, they are in danger’? How often do you say this without becoming a real turn-off?” Attenborough said in November 2018.

How do you keep an audience entertained while simultaneously educating them about the perils of climate change?

In the second episode of “Our Planet,” Attenborough takes us to the cold coastal waters of northeastern Russia. Walruses, after having their crustacean and sea cucumber feast, try to find ice sheets to rest on — but come up short.

In the absence of their usual resting habitat, the walruses scramble to their closest land, a rocky, narrow island. The largest gathering of walruses on the planet, over 100,000 of them, is forced to compromise and adapt to their current circumstances. Packed like sardines, the clumsy, two-ton mammals scramble over each other in search of space, killing smaller walruses and resulting in vicious encounters and deadly stampedes.

In the quest for peace and rest, some walruses make it through the crowded mob, only to find a steep rocky incline leading to a heavenly space to rest. The determined walruses use forelimbs designed for swimming to crawl up the steep slope and reach the promised land. But as we all learn at some point in this cruel world, there is no heaven on earth.

After waking up from their lengthy slumbers, the walruses start regrouping and making their way to water for another feast. And the lucky walruses up on the rocky cliff have no intentions of being left behind. But with their lack of agility and poor descending skills, the heavy and ungraceful walruses are stuck on an 80-meter rocky cliff. Hunger leads us animals to great lengths, some never meant to be reached.

With their poor eyesight, the naïve walruses’ desperation proves too great to ignore any longer, and the desire to regroup and aching hunger leads them to take a leap of faith. The walruses fall 80 feet to a rocky end. And as the camera zooms out, we see a pile of corpses, hundreds of walruses, pushed to limits beyond their natural capabilities in order to adapt to their changing environment. The foreshadowing of overpopulation issues and resemblance to climate refugees are hard not to see.

Throughout the series, Attenborough doesn’t shy away from telling us that we are responsible for these issues. But the alarmism is compensated with hope and optimism, showing how the amazing footage you’re watching has been possible because of conservation efforts. The end of every episode always segues to ways viewers can help, and directs them to the series’ website for actionable steps to conserve our planet.  

And that’s “Our Planet,” striking the perfect balance between entertainment and environmental alarmism.      

Written by: Daniel Oropeza — daoropeza@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.