Prospect and Effectiveness of Web 2.0 Tools Usage Research Proposal

Prospect and Effectiveness of Web 2.0 Tools Usage - Research Proposal Example The research proposal "Prospect and Effectiveness of Web 2.0 Tools Usage" talks about the prospect and effectiveness of the use of web 2.0 tools in information literacy in education, workplace, and everyday contexts by carrying out a comparative study in Australia and other countries as digital information affects modern life aspects of people. This study is exceedingly beneficial because it will center on the effectiveness of web 2.0 tools in information literacy in education, workplace and everyday lives of the peoples in Australia and New Zealand. Digital information affects every modern life aspects of the people. This aims to develop guidelines ‘formalizing academic standard practices’ and reporting using web 2.0 forms of authoring or content creation like blogging, social bookmarking and podcasting. This study is intended to investigate the strategies and tools available to further develop the success of web 2.0 tools in the sectors of education, workforce and the society as a whole, specifically in Australia and New Zealand. Web 2.0 technologies provide teachers new ways to engage students in a meaningful way. Children raised on new media technologies are less patient with filling out work sheets and listening to lectures because they already participate on a global level through the internet. The use of web 2.0 technologies proves the fact that education is a constantly evolving process. Research methods will include literature review, experimental investigation, modeling, and data validation.

Las 432 - Genetically Modified Foods Essay Example for Free

Las 432 Genetically Modified Foods Essay It has been determined that GMO’s are made up of plants, animals, viruses and bacteria that are created in laboratories. Scientist started experimenting with GMO’s in the early 1950’s with investigation of plants DNA. In the 1970’s scientist developed the first genetically engineered organism. By the early 1990’s biotechnology had expanded on production of GM foods to the public, but this brought fourth concerns. There are also those who believe that the laws and regulations that are attributed to genetically modified foods have been influenced through both the media and political aspects. These influences have brought about worries to GM food consumers and they started comparing the similarities and differences in organic foods and GM foods. Consumers want to know what GM food products they have consumed and will be aware of any affects that may be acquired with consumption. Not only are there consumer challenges that must be faced with these technological experimentations, but also the impacts that may be developed environmentally or effects that may incur with nature and wildlife. Some societies are worried about how the rich will prosper and the poorer countries will suffer and possibly go hungry. Some religions and groups protest eating genes and do not want to consume such un-natural foods and other concerns still the unknown effects on human allergies and transfer of antibiotic resistance to intestine bacterial flora or pathogenic bacteria in our bodies. Genetically Modified Organisms in Food Thesis: Consumers today have a right to know if genetically modified foods are harmful to our health, the environment and our economy. In order to be able to answer these questions more research needs to be done. Summary Controversy around genetically modified foods is becoming big news and sorting through volumes of information can be intimidating. The public is asking a lot of questions about GM foods and they are also raising concerns about the effects these foods may have on their health or the environment. There are different advantages and disadvantages of GM foods, although to what extent they can help or harm humans and the environment is a debatable aspect of this technology. The time has come to look at the decisions that we make about genetic engineering in food crops and if it will have permanent consequences on our food production capacity. Are genetically modified foods putting us at a crossroads in terms of the agricultural legacy that we will leave behind for our children and grandchildren? Modern technology has given us the ability to go beyond selective breeding. Organisms can now be modified by moving genes from one species to another and by introducing synthetic genetic material into their genomes. Humans no longer simply select from variations present in the population: they create new variations! Some find our new power exciting. They dream of crops with greater resistance to disease and insect pests, pigs with healthy fats, and a level of agricultural production sufficient to feed everyone on the planet. Others fear that we have crossed an important boundary and are now tinkering with living systems that we understand incompletely. They question our ability to predict the consequences of our actions and are afraid that we may disrupt the delicate natural order. GMO Technology I. What Are GMOs? GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are plants, animals, viruses and bacteria that are created in the laboratory. Their DNA (genes) has been modified through the use of gene splicing techniques in a desire to create â€Å"new† organisms. The technology involves removing the DNA of one species and inserting it into another species, resulting in new and different varieties of plant, animal, viral and bacterial genes which don’t naturally occur in nature or by hybridizing (Smith, 2012, para. 7). Other names for the technology are â€Å"modern technology or gene technology,† genetic engineering or recombinant DNA technology, and biotechnology (World Health Organization (WHO), 2012, para. 2). GMOs are used to create genetically modified plants which in turn are used to create genetically modified crops for human consumption and as animal feed. Developers believe that producers and consumers would be interested in these foods due to their â€Å"built-in† advantages of lower prices, high nutritional value and hardiness. The desire is to achieve crops that are resistant to spoilage, drought, insects and herbicides. At the outset genetically modified (GM) seed manufacturers envisioned their product being used by producers, thus they focused on innovations those farmers, and more generally the food industry, would accept and appreciate (WHO, 2012, para. 3). WHO states that (2012), the initial objective for developing plants based on GM organisms was to improve crop protection. The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides† (para. 4). Commodity crops were the First Generation GM crops and included soybean, maize/corn, cotton, canola and sugar beets (Schonwald, 2012, p. 26). GM soybeans and canola have permeated the market and can be found in most processed foods, e.g. , spaghetti, candy Schonwald, 2012, p. 25). There was expectation that with the success of first generation crops, biotech specialty crops (produce) would follow, focusing more on consumer tastes. According to Kent Bradford, director of University of California (UC) at Davis’s Seed Biotechnology Center (2012), â€Å"these crops hadn’t been commercialized since 1998† (Schonwald, 2012, p. 26). The author wondered why, and so enlisted the assistance of Kent Bradford for answers on â€Å"what was going on with bioengineered specialty crops† (Schonwald, 2012, p. 26). Bradford and a collaborator, Jamie Miller, found that research on specialty crops was underway and had never ceased. The research involved input traits that are important to agriculture such as â€Å"disease resistance,† â€Å"insect resistance,† â€Å"adaptability to certain environments† and output traits that â€Å"improve taste and texture and could lead to changes in the dining experience of the future† (Schonwald, 2012, p. 26). Schonwald says Bradford contends that (2012), â€Å"There was research on 46 different species with more than 300 traits being tested† (p. 26. ). So things were going on at the research level, but the results were not moving forward. Bradford found this was due to regulatory controls. Because of the lack of consumer confidence in transgenic breeding the regulatory process for genetically modified foods was much different than for non-GMO foods. In contrast, foods using classic breeding processes were considered safe for consumption. But GMO foods were â€Å"guilty until proven innocent† (Schonwald, 2012, p. 26). Schonwald reports that (2012), â€Å"A genetically engineered crop must pass review by the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration before it is commercialized. The cost could range from $50,000 to tens of millions of dollars to win regulatory approval. For every â€Å"transgenic event,† the genetic engineer must show exactly what genes went into the plant and how they function, and then prove how the plant makeup has been altered. That research is costly. So is plant storage. Once a transgenic creation is spawned at the Plant Transformational Facility, it is whisked to the UC Davis Controlled Environment Facility, where it will stay in a tightly secured warehouse. Or it will be airmailed to some other place, where it will live out its life in another intensely biosecure environment. The process is costly and time-consuming, which partly explains why biotech crop development is largely in the hands of the agribusiness giants – the Monsanto’s, Syngentas, and Bayer Crop Sciences of the world—who have the resources to undertake the process. With such high approval costs, big companies have favored commodity crops with market potential for hundreds of millions of dollars to sales, not tens of millions† ( p. 26) According to Bradford, non-governmental organizations – Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists – were responsible for the stringent governmental handling of the biotech specialty crops. The $20 million organic foods industry labored to stop the proliferation of GMO foods. They did so by launching a campaign against GMOs, inundating the USDA with thousands of letters (â€Å"275,026 to be exact†) expressing anti-GMO sentiments. This led to the non-inclusion of GMO foods under the USDA’s standards of organic produce (Schonwald, 2012, p. 27). U. S. Leads in Biotech AgricultureMore than 170 million acres of biotech crops are under cultivation in the United States, more than twice Brazil’s acreage, which ranks second. Experts credit faster technological advances, more lenient regulations and expanding economic benefits for the U. S. lead. Biotech acreage by Country, 2011| Country| Acres (in millions)| Biotech crops| United States| 170. 5| Corn, soybean, cotton, canola, sugar beet, alfalfa, papaya, squash| Brazil| 74. 9| Soybean, corn, cotton| Argentina| 58. 6| Soybean, corn, cotton| India| 26. 2| Cotton| Canada| 25. 7| Canola, corn, soybean, sugar beet| China| 9. 6| Cotton, papaya, poplar, tomato, sweet pepper| Paraguay| 6. 9| Soybean| Pakistan| 6. 4| Cotton| South America| 5. 7| Soybean, corn, cotton| Uruguay| 3. 2| Soybean, corn|. Source: Clive James, â€Å"Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011,† International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, 2011, p. 2, www. isaaa. org/purchasepublications/itemdescription. asp? ItemType=BRIEFSControl=IB043-2011| (McClure, 2012, p. 724) Below is a list of tips on how to say no to GMOs: Tip #1: Buy Organic Certified organic products cannot intentionally include any GMO ingredients. Buy products labeled â€Å"100% organic† â€Å"organic,† or â€Å"made with organic ingredients. † You can be doubly sure if the product also has a Non-GMO Project Verified Seal (see next tip). Tip #2: Look for Non-GMO Project Seals Products that carry the Non-GMO Project seal are independently verified to be in compliance with North America’s only third party standard for GMO avoidance, including testing of at-risk ingredients. Tip #3: Avoid At-Risk Ingredients Even if it’s not labeled organic or verified non-GMO, you can still avoid products made with ingredients that are likely derived from GMOs. The eight most common GM food crops are: *Corn (as in corn oil, cornmeal, cornstarch, and other corn-based ingredients) *Soybeans (as in soybean oil, soy protein, soy lecithin, soy milk, tofu, and other soy-based ingredients). *Canola (as in canola oil) *Sugar beets (the â€Å"sugar† listed on food labels is almost always derived from sugar cane and GM sugar beets) *Most Hawaiian papaya *A small amount of zucchini and yellow squash *Also, beware of dairy products, which may come from cows injected with GM bovine growth hormone, and meats from animals (including farmed fish) that have been fed GM foods. [Instead] look for dairy products labeled No rBGH or rBST, artificial hormone-free, or organic; wild-caught fish; and meat labeled organic or 100% grass-fed. Tip #4: Use Non-GMO Shopping Guides. Download either the new Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure or Non-GMO Shopping Guide at www. nongmoshoppingguide. com; in order to help identify, avoid GM foods and find hidden GM ingredients on food labels. If you have an iPhone, download the ShopNoGMO guide for free from the iTunes store. Copyright of Better Nutrition is the property of Active Interest Media, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use (Smith, 2012, p. 14). II. Scientific Techniques and Experiments Various techniques are used to transfer DNA genes into the host cell. Researchers have been perfecting these techniques over the past 40 years. In one technique, target cells are bombarded with heavy metals coated with the gene transferred have been bombarded. Yet another technique transfers genes by using a naturally occurring bacterium along with a pulse of electricity to introduce genes into the targeted cell (McClure, 2012, p. 720). According to McClure (2012), Opponents of GM foods argue that the public should be informed of the techniques used in gene-transferring (p.720). At the Plant Transformation Facility at the UC, Davis more than 15,000 transgenic events have occurred. Transgenic event is the molecular biologists way of describing the blasting of DNA from one life form into another. This building, a short distance from the student union, houses thousands of Petri dishes of microscopic plantlets bathing in pink and fluorescent blue lights. Here biologists use a gas-pump-like tool called the Helium Particle Delivery system to mix sexually incompatible species together. They use gold bullets (literally) to fire genes from one species into another in a bombardment chamber. As a result the â€Å"Davis lab has birthed grapes spiked with jellyfish, tomatoes spiked with carp, transgenic squash, transgenic carrots, and transgenic tomatoes† (Schonwald, 2012, p. 25). In Changing Genes to Feed the World, David Pimentel takes a look at one molecular biologist’s account of plant breeding and the field of genetic engineering of crops. In her book, Mendel in the Kitchen, author Nina Fedoroff compares the contributions of genetically engineered plants with that of early plant breeding research, e. g. , development of hybrid corn, achieved through the transfer of genes within the confines of crop species. This method contributed greatly to the growth of crop yields during the Green Revolution. Specifically, according to Fedoroff (2004), traditional methods of cross breeding were responsible for, â€Å"40 percent of the increase in yields. The remaining 60 percent was due to greater inputs in fossil-fuels energy, fertilizers and pesticides† (Pimentel, 2004, paras. 1-2). Crop yields increased greatly during the years 1950-1983. Globally, 80 percent of the calories consumed by humans came from grains, making the Green Revolution an important feeding mechanism for billions of people around the world (Pimentel, 2004, para. 2). Though the use of traditional breeding methods greatly increased the yield and quality of crops, these methods were quite slow, in comparison to the advances being made in the field of molecular biology and genetic engineering. Before, breeders were required to manually manipulate genetic material within a specific crop to increase yields. Now, through genetic engineering, genes can quickly be transferred from one plant species to another and brought into crops (Pimentel, 2004, para. 3). As more and more genetically modified foods are being integrated into our food systems, there is a need to be able to detect their presence in food products in order to determine if food manufacturers are in â€Å"compliance with labeling requirements† (Yi, Yien-Chian, Foo-Peng Lee, and Nam-Trung, 2009, para. 1). There is a method that allows for the rapid detection of the presence of GMOs in foods and it is called ferrofluid-driven PCR microchip. â€Å"The microchip was fabricated in polymethyl methacrylate by CO? laser ablation and was integrated with three temperature zones. PCR solution was contained in a circular closed micro channel and was driven by magnetic force generated by an external magnet through a small oil-based ferrofluid plug. Successful amplification of genetically modified soya and maize were achieved in less than 13 minutes. This PCR microchip combines advantages of cycling flexibility and quick temperature transitions associated with two existing microchip PCR techniques, and it provides a cost saving and less time-consuming way to conduct preliminary screening of GMOs† (Yi, Yien-Chian, Foo-Peng Lee, Nam-Trung, 2009, para. 1). History of GMO’s I. Biotechnology Chronology â€Å"1950s – 1960s: Scientists identify genes and begin investigating the role of DNA in plant development. 1953-American biochemist James Watson and British biophysicist Francis Crick describe the structure of DNA, setting the stage for mapping the genetic code. 1967-Lenape potato, a new variety bred for making potato chips is withdrawn from experimental production after high levels of toxin are found. 1970s – 1980s: Scientists begin experimenting with genetic transformation of plants and animals. 1973-Scientists create first genetically engineer organism. 1983-Researchers transfer new DNA into plants, leading to the creation of genetically modified crops. 1989-Calene Inc. receives U. S. patent for gene sequence in GM Flavr Savr tomato. 1990s: Biotech foods are marketed to the public despite environmental and health concerns. 1992-FDA decides not to require labeling of most GM foods, sparking mistrust of the technology. 1993-FDA allows cows to be injected with bovine growth hormone (rBGH) made from genetically modified bacteria, setting off consumer protests. 1994-FDA approves Flavr Savr tomato, first GM food approved for sale to consumers. 1996-Monsanto introduces Roundup Ready soybeans, first of several popular herbicide-tolerant or insecticide-producing crops. 1998- European Union (EU) halts approvals of new GM crops in what is termed an â€Å"unofficial moratorium. † 2000s: Genetically engineered foods face continued criticism despite growing scientific consensus that they do not pose greater safety risks than conventional crops. 2000-Bowing to international demands, U.S. officials agree to label GM commodities for export†¦. Weeds resistant to Roundup discovered in Delaware†¦. Friends of the Earth, a major environmental group, reports that genes from StarLink corn, a GM crop approved only for animal consumption, have been discovered in taco shells. The discovery prompts recalls of corn products and lawsuits, but researchers are unable to document any human health effects†¦. Centers for disease Control study concludes StarLink did not cause allergic reactions claimed by 28 people. 2002-National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy finds that GM crops in the United States produced four billion pounds of additional foods and fiber on the same acreage, improved farm income by $1. 5 billion and reduced pesticide use by 46 million pounds†¦. Monsanto announces it will delay introduction of GM wheat amid concerns from farmers that it will harm exports. 2003-Bollworms resistant to the Bt toxin, an insecticide produced by GM cotton, discovered in the South. 2004-Under U. S. pressure, EU drops de facto ban on GM crops but institutes mandatory labeling; many European stores won’t stock GM foods because of consumer fears. 2008-Monsanto sells unit that produces rBGH, as major grocers including Wal-Mart, Publix and Kroger decline to sell milk from cows treated with the product. 2010-After approving the sale of GM eggplant, India’s environment minister declares a moratorium on the product because of public outcry. 2011-GM crops are grown on 395 million acres of farmland globally, though more than 90 percent is in just three crops: soybeans, corn and cotton. 2012-Anti-GMO groups file petitions containing more than 1 million signatures demanding that the FDA require GM foods to be labeled†¦. Californian vote scheduled for Nov. 6 on ballot initiative requiring labeling for GM foods† (McClure, 2012, p. 727). II. Advantages and Disadvantages The people of the United States (U. S. ) have been unknowingly consuming GMO foods since the 1990s. The Food and Drug Administration scientists warned that these new foods had the capability to produce new allergens and toxins and advised that more thorough testing was needed. But the U. S. government’s position was that GM foods were equivalent to non-GMO foods and failed to require labeling and testing (Smith, 2012, para, 9). According to the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), eating GMO foods contributes to a number of health risks (Smith, 2012),â€Å"including infertility, immune system issues, accelerated aging, disruption of insulin and cholesterol regulation, gastrointestinal issues, and changes in organs† (para. 9). AAEM reported that doctors most likely are seeing negative health effects in their patients and may not realize that GMO foods are the culprit. Doctors are urged to prescribe non-GMO diets for all of their patients (Smith, 2012, para. 9). The environment is not exempt from the risks of GMO foods. There is the threat of GMO seeds contaminating nearby fields of organic and non-GMO crops. Pesticide usage has dramatically increased over the first thirteen years since the GM crops were introduced. Further, high amounts of herbicide usage on GM herbicide –resistant crops have caused the development of â€Å"superweeds† that adapt to and withstand your typical herbicides (Smith, 2012, para. 10). On the positive side, genetic engineering offers a wonderful solution to farmers, especially those in developing countries, and that is the opportunity for developing perennial grains. As most grains are annual crops, tilling and replanting of the soil is required every single year. This involves an enormous amount of energy each year, including fossil and human energy and strength. Annual tillage also results in soil erosion. Planting perennial grains would mean that farmers would only need to till and replant every five or six years. This would be a major benefit for farmers in developing countries, as tilling for them involves 400 hours per hectare, hand-tilling their fields prior to planting their crops. As such, according to the author, â€Å"plant breeding and genetic engineering will continue to make a tremendous contribution to our food supply† (Smith, 2012, para. ). Other advantages of GM foods include disease resistance, cold tolerance, drought resistance, nutrition, pharmaceuticals, and phytoremediation (Whitman, 2012, pp. 2-4). Legal and Political Issues I. Regulations and Laws There have been an abundant number of studies done in the past on American health and safety standards that have demonstrated the inconsistencies of risk assessment. Some standards are rather strict and offer few or no benefits in savings lives, preventing diseases or injuries; while other standards have been negligent and have placed a considerable amount of lives at risk or harm. It is essentially due to the passage of these standards for which the American regulatory policy making has been implanted. In the past, both Congress and the political appointees who head regulatory agencies have been very susceptible to public opinion and public pressures. As a result, the more the American public is prone to worry about a particular risk, the more meticulous American policy-makers are likely to regulate it. â€Å"Therefore, many of the American regulatory policies, especially those between the mid 1960s through the mid 1980s, were characterized by the triumph of passion over sound science. (Vogel, 2001). In 1984, the Federal Government established a formal policy that is referred to as â€Å"The Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology†. This policy describes the Federal system for evaluating products that have been developed using modern biotechnology. â€Å"The Coordinated Framework is based upon health and safety laws developed to address specific product classes and involves the cooperation of three federal regulatory agencies; the EPA, the USDA, and the FDA. The U. S. Government has written new regulations, policies and guidance to implement these laws for biotechnology as products have developed† (United States Regulatory Agencies Unitied Biotechnology Website, 2012). EPA Regulation â€Å"Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the EPA regulates the use of intergeneric microorganisms in commerce or commercial research. The EPA considers intergeneric microorganisms to be those formed from organisms in different genera (genera is the plural of genus, which is a level in a taxonomic classification system based on the relatedness of organisms) or those microorganisms formed with synthetic DNA not from the same genus† (Biotechnology Program under the Toxic Substances Control Act, 2012). â€Å"The EPA believes that inter generic micro organisms have a sufficiently high likelihood of expressing new traits or new combinations of traits to be termed new and warrant EPA review. The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Biotechnology Program conducts a screening program for new microorganisms under section 5 of TSCA. In 1997, the EPA published regulations that fully implement its pre-manufacture program for microorganisms under TSCA section 5. Prior to 1997; the EPA operated its biotechnology program in accordance with the 1986 Policy Statement† (Biotechnology Program under the Toxic Substances Control Act, 2012) USDA Regulation. | â€Å"USDA supports the safe and appropriate use of science and technology, including biotechnology, to help meet agricultural challenges and consumer needs of the 21st century. USDA plays a key role in assuring that products produced using biotechnology are safe to be grown and used in the United States. Once these products enter commerce, USDA supports bringing these and other products to the worldwide marketplace† (Bitechnology, 2012). | â€Å"The Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21) was originally established in February, 2003 and first met in June, 2003. Under its Charter, the committee is charged with examining the long-term impacts of biotechnology on the U. S. food and agriculture system and USDA, and providing guidance to USDA on pressing individual issues, identified by the Office of the Secretary, related to the application of biotechnology in agriculture. The AC21 is a broad-based committee representing a wide range of interests and agricultural expertise† (USDA Advisory Committee on Biotechnology 21st Century Agriculture (AC21), 2012). FDA Regulation â€Å"In the Federal Register of May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984), FDA published its Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties. The 1992 policy clarified the agencys interpretation of the application of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to human foods and animal feeds derived from new plant varieties and provided guidance to industry on scientific and regulatory issues related to these foods (Genetically Engineereed Plants for Food and Feed, 2012). The 1992 policy applied to all foods derived from all new plant varieties, including varieties that are developed using recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology. This site refers to foods derived from plant varieties that are developed using rDNA technology as bioengineered foods† (Genetically Engineereed Plants for Food and Feed, 2012). â€Å"In the Federal Register of January 18, 2001 (the premarket notification proposal; 66 FR 4706), FDA issued a proposed rule that would require that developers submit a scientific and regulatory assessment of the bioengineered food 120 days before the bioengineered food is marketed. In the premarket notification proposal, FDA recommends that developers continue the practice of consulting with the agency before submitting the required premarket notice† (Genetically Engineereed Plants for Food and Feed, 2012) The chief statutes under which the above agencies have been given regulatory or Review authority comes from the following Act’s: * The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (EPA); * The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (EPA); * The Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA) (FDA and EPA); * The Plant Protection Act (PPA) (USDA); * The Virus Serum Toxin Act (VSTA) (USDA); * The Public Health Service Act (PHSA)(FDA); * The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) (FDA) * The Meat Inspection Act (MIA)(USDA); * The Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (USDA); * The Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (USDA); and * The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)(Guide to U. S. Regulations of Genetically Modified Foods and Argricultural Biotechnology Products, 2001) II. Current Political Issues Genetically modified foods have been a concern for many people around the world. In the past Europeans have been the most vocal in their resistance to GM foods and crops, to the point that they have implemented strict labeling requirements for any genetically modified foods sold. In the absence of stronger health and safety data, many national governments across the world have taken steps to lessen the existence of GE food within their borders. â€Å"In Europe, six nations (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, and Luxembourg) have enacted bans on the cultivation and import of GE products, and nearly 50 nations worldwide require that all GE foods be labeled as such† (Dahl, 2012). To date in the United State there have been no mandatory labeling requirements for genetically modified foods. However this may soon change, Americans are now starting to ask questions about what they are eating and suspicions about the health and environmental effects of biotechnology is now behind the demand that foods from genetically modified crops be labeled. The most recent labeling effort that has come to the fore front is the California ballot initiative Proposition 37 called â€Å"The Right to Know†. What is Proposition 37? The California â€Å"Right to Know† Genetically Engineered Food Act is easy: The initiative would basically require food that is sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it is produced through genetic engineering, and would not allow these products to be labeled as â€Å"natural. † Prop 37 allows companies 18 months to change their product labels, and allows for the GMO disclosure to appear wherever they choose on the packaging (Facts Yes on Prop 37, 2012). If this initiative passes, California will be the first state to require all foods that have genetically modified crops in them to be labeled. However, there is an opposing side to this Proposition. Those that are against Proposition 37 feel that by having to label all foods with genetically engineered crops would mean higher food prices due to the cost of re-package existing foods, recordkeeping, or companies being forced to switch to higher priced non-GM foods. The opposing side also states that it would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayers cost, and create frivolous lawsuits (Stop the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme, 2012). This is one political debate that will have everyone on the edge of their chairs. III. What are the Possible Health Effects of GM Foods? With so many of our foods today now coming from GM crops, questions are now being asked if there is a health risk from GM foods. The problem is that unlike the safety evaluations that are required for the approval of a new drug, the safety evaluations of genetically engineered foods for human consumption has not been as strict. So what is known about possible health issues from the consumption of GM foods? Scientists from around the world have been complaining that a majority of the research that is being done about the possible side effects of GM foods for human consumption is being conducted by scientists that are associated with the biotechnology companies; the same companies that are selling the crops seeds. That and the fact that these studies are being done by the biotechnology companies tend to show that there are no health problems associated with eating GM foods. The problem is this is a one sided research study. One of the biggest problems that independent researchers are facing is that it is extremely hard to get GM seeds in order to conduct any type of research. These seeds can only be purchased through a licensed seed dealer and a technology licensing agreement must be signed stating that no research will be done on the seed; this includes any research attributed to health and environment. Scientists who have managed to do research on the health impacts of the GM seeds are often harassed, intimidated, and defamed by those with a strong interest in the GM technology. Even with these challenges researcher have managed to conduct medical research on the health effects of GM seeds; of these tests the most obvious concern has been the risk of allergic reactions.

School to Work after the School to Work Opportunities Act :: School Work Opportunities Act Essays

School to Work after the School to Work Opportunities Act In July 1994, Congress passed the School to Work Opportunities Act (STWOA), allocating funds to establish statewide partnerships designed to prepare students with knowledge and skills required for employment in the workplace. Recent reports show that STW has varied considerably across these partnerships, resulting in differing views on the viability of its programs. Now that federal funding from STWOA has ended, what is the aftermath? What are the chances for sustaining STW now that funding has ceased? To what extent have STW efforts been institutionalized and supported by local business? How do the perceptions and commitment of teachers, educators, students and parents influence the self-sustaining future of school to work (STW)? This Myths and Realities looks at the issues as they apply to life after STWOA. State Policies and Funding Strategies Ensure that STW Programs Are Sustained There is no doubt that state policy to advance activities started under the federal grant will be a major factor in the sustainability of STW (Miller and Fleegler 2000). Already, some states have taken the initiative for bringing higher standards to education by offering incentives for business to participate in STW programs. In Colorado, for example, the General Assembly passed a law in 1997 giving businesses a 10 percent tax credit for participating in its School-to-Career program (Eslinger 1998). In Connecticut, efforts to sustain STW have involved the hiring of an STW coordinator whose main responsibility is to focus on community outreach (Cutshall 2001c). Commitment is the key where state policy is involved. Alan Hershey, a senior fellow with Mathematica Policy Research Inc. in Princeton, New Jersey, has evaluated the progress of STW for the U.S. Department of Education. He predicted that unless states are actively committed to STW, the partnerships established through the STWOA would dissolve once federal funding ceases. States such as Michigan and Wisconsin will likely fund or find ways to use employment and training and technical education dollars to fund STW activities because they are committed to STW, as evidenced by their record (Kiser 1999). In Wisconsin, "85% of the school districts receive STW funds and 93% of high schools are involved in STW" (Hettinger 1998, p. 23). When states are as heavily committed to the tenets of STW as these two states, they are likely to find other funding sources to continue their STW programs (Hettinger 1998). Not all states, however, have been able to muster enthusiasm for STW.

Examine the Themes of Relationship in To His Coy Mistress and Valentine Essay

In my essay, I will be examining the theme of relationships in To His Coy Mistress by Andrew Marvell and Valentine by Carol Anne Duffy. I will write about the poems themes’, ideas, structure and linguistic devices. I will compare and contrast each poem, then give my opinion on my favourite and why. Andrew Marvell wrote his poem, To His Coy Mistress in the 16th century. The poem has three stanzas and is written in rhyming couplets. It is about a man who is in a rush to have sexual intercourse with his mistress. He is lured by her beauty and wants to enjoy her beauty before the time is over. He presents a familiar theme in literature – carpe diem (meaning seize the day), he uses this as he tries to seduce a woman and declare his love for her, while she his shy and hesitant, he tries to persuade her to think that they must take advantage of the moment. There are two themes in the poem, carpe diem and seduction. ‘Time’s winged chariot hurrying near;’ Here, he tells his mistress that time is flying so they should have sex now and seize the day, he is rushing her and trying to charm her by telling her to make the most of the time they have. The seduction theme is mostly implied in the third stanza, ‘through the iron gates of life.’ He refers to her hymen being broken and her virginity being taken as they make love. ‘Let us roll our strength†¦ up into one ball,’ he wants them to be entwined and wrapped together as they have sex and have a connection. Line 11 shows the young man who is pleading for the young lady to stop playing hard to get and accept his love, compare his love to a vegetable. ‘My vegetable love should grow,’ He could be using the vegetable as a phallic symbol to refer to his penis growing as he gets an erection. However, he could be referring to his love growing for her as it is nurtured like a vegetable by love and feeling so that it flourishes. He mocks romantic poetry through crude imagery in Lines 27 and 28, ‘then worms shall try that long preserved virginity.’ He is persuading her by making her think that if she leaves it until she is old and dead and doesn’t have sex with him now, or the worms will be the only things that will get benefit of her body. As they eat her, they will take her virginity with them. Marvell uses a gross example of hyperbole in Line 15, ‘two hundred to adore each breast,’ now he tries seduce her by telling her if they had all the time in the world and they were immortal and could live forever, he would spend two hundred years staring at each breast. He uses an expression of personal and private feelings such as: ‘and into ashes all my lust’ here he is being honourable towards his mistress as he describes his passionate desire towards her. He is now pressuring her as he is saying that when he dies and is made into ashes, i.e. cremated all his love for her will be burnt as well as his body. The structure of the poem is set out according to the ‘argument’. Stanza one and two are when he uses hyperbole and carpe diem to declare his love for the young lady and stanza three is the conclusion. The arguments are ‘If we had’ ‘but’ and ‘therefore’. The first stanza shows that the space and time are eternal as the second stanza shows that we ourselves are not. The third and final stanza shows that we only have to live our every moment for fun. The arguments are about eternal love and lust. Eternal love is long and lasting; therefore the first stanza is long as that is its sub ject. The life of the young man and the mistress is short, so is the second stanza. The last stanza is short also, as sex and passion, in this case, is just a spark. There are two similes in the poem: ‘sits on thy skin like morning dew’ and ‘like amorous birds of prey’. The first simile represents the crystal-clear skin of the mistress and refers back to her beauty. The second stanza means the strength and speed and the passion made by the pair of lovers when they make love. ‘Nor would I love at a lower rate’ and ‘Time’s winged chariot hurrying near;’ are two examples of metaphor which are used in the poem. ‘Love her at a lower rate’ he is saying he would love her for as long as he could, but time equals money so they should just have sexual intercourse now before they waste even more time. He is summing up what he wants and getting straight to the point here. The second poem which I will be examining and analysing is Valentine by Carol Anne Duffy. Duffy has written this poem in seven stanzas, t hree of which consist of a single line. It represents a real relationship as she wants us to speak more honestly about love in relationships. In this poem Duffy states her dislike for the normal stuff you get on Valentine’s Day. On a deeper level she wants to modernise the symbols we use for love. There are several themes in the poem, all of which are different to Marvell’s. They are all to do with a realistic relationship such as: honesty, romance, negative experience, tenderness and bitterness. The poet views love as healthy so long as it avoids both tacky romance and marriage. A ‘red rose’, a ‘satin heart’ and a ‘cute card’ are the usual lovers’ gifts on Valentine’s Day. Duffy is harsh on these clichà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½d symbols of love. In the poem Duffy suggests these normal cards, red roses and kissograms lack any real meaning: ‘Not a red rose or a satin heart’, ‘Not a cute card or a kissogram’. She seems to be a tough character as she gives her lover and onion instead of a rose, ‘I give you an onion.’ She looks at the different ways that an onion is suitable for showing love as she tells her lover what an onion will do for him. The onion represents light, discovery and tears; it represents the tough side of love. She thinks the onion stands for the truth about love, therefore the poem takes a deep look at it as she looks at what love is made up of. Duffy explores what makes a relationship meaningful, ‘I am trying to be truthful,’ she argues that you have to be honest to make a relationship work. The first linguistic device in the poem is a metaphor and how it explains why an onion works as a love gift. ‘It is a moon wrapped in born paper,’ the brown skin is the wrapping paper of the gift, the onion. She compares her gift to a moon wrapped in brown paper, this picture of the moon represents the whole onion, just after it has been peeled, and we know that when the paper is removed we will see the moon’s light. The moon’s ‘light’ represents love, and moonlight often provides a romantic setting. ‘Light’ can also mean the truth. The peeling of the onion is like two people taking off each other’s clothes before they make love: ‘like the careful undressing of love’. The different layers of the onion are like the layers of someone’s personality. You gradually discover these layers in a love relationship. The onion represents discovery. The third stanza shows that love is more complex than lovey-dovey romance. In line 6, she announces her gift to her lover: ‘Here’. She is obviously handing the onion to the other person to hold and peel, it is then that we see another aspect of love, ‘tears’. At s ome stage in the peeling or the unwrapping of the onion, the eye sheds tears. ‘Tears’ and ‘grief’ are part of real life love so the reason for these tears is emotional. Not only will the onion make your eyes water, the pain caused by a loved one similarly brings tears. Photos of happy moments are usually shared between lovers so it is imagined that in real life there are moments of hurt or sorrow in a relationship. Duffy thinks lovers should honestly admit to these too, ‘wobbling photo of grief’. She uses the language of a wedding as she offers her onion gift: ‘I give you an onion,’ that sentence sounds like ‘I give you this ring’. The poem states that the taste and scent of an onion are like the passion of love, an onion is a good symbol for passion because its taste remains with you, ‘stay on your lips’. In the last stanza, Duffy demands her lover take the gift, ‘Take it.’ She tells him that they might marry. She suggests that the bright white core of the onion is like a wedding ring, ‘Its platinum loops shrink to a wedding ring’. The final image about scent clinging has another meaning, scents linger after lovemaking. These scents will remain in memory after the relationship ends. The smell of an onion stays on your fingers for good while, again, the onion proves to be a good way of getting the poet’s message across. After examining each poem I have chosen Valentine as my favourite poem. In Marvell’s poem, I could feel the passion of the young man, and how much he admired the coy Mistress, but I came to the conclusion that the poem was a little smutty. Therefore, I chose Valentine as I liked how she used the onion as a love symbol in a realistic relationship. The idea of the scent ‘cling to your knife’ was very real, just like a relationship, sharp and cutting. In conclusion, I have examined the theme of relationships between the two poems To His Coy Mistress and Valentine. I have explored the linguistic devices and ideas of the poems, also giving my opinion on my favourite and why.

Climate change and Solutions

Climate change is a concept that has generated much controversy in recent times, the many competing theories as to why climate change is occurring is no longer meaningful and we are now at a stage where unless serious measures are introduced to combat the causes of climate change human kind as a civilisation could be wiped out forever. As a UCT student and a South African citizen I firmly believe that climate change has mainly been induced by the developed world, however, despite this fact, the responsibilities of combating global change do not primarily lie in the hands of the developed world. Successfully overcoming such a huge problem such as climate change requires the cooperation and willingness of the entire world. There comes a time where we have to accept responsibility for our actions. That time is now. It is not too late to correct the mistake we have made, however we need less talk and more action. The policies of mitigation and adaption which traditionally have been the main two policies in combating climate change have proved to be limiting in their effectiveness (Parry, 2009:1-2). For example, achieving current mitigation targets will not prevent major environmental impacts, as in order for mitigation to have any effect in reducing global damage global emission cuts of 80 percent are necessary (Parry, 2009:1). According to Martin Parry the fundamental cause of climate change is unsustainable development, both in the past and the present (Parry, 2009:1). Sustainable development is therefore pivotal in forming the fundamental prerequisites for combating climate change. Parry further goes on to emphasize the necessity for the implementation of a sustainable development strategy that ‘combines mitigation and adaptation in a whole package of other development strategies, including high levels of efficiency and equity in resource use, investment, governance and income growth' in order to successfully and effectively confront climate change (Parry, 2009:8). In response to the article published in the Mail and Guardian on the 10th September 2009; combating climate change will not necessarily stagnate or reduce development. Low carbon economies are effective in creating employment opportunities and bringing about the fundamental prerequisites that are essential for enticing development whilst limiting environmental damage (Winkler and Marquard, 2009:62). Energy efficiency programmes are most effective in reducing emissions with little economic consequence which in a country such as South Africa is desperately needed in order to reduce carbon emissions with little effect on economic development (Winkler and Marquard, 2009:62). Other ways of reducing emissions as highlighted by Winkler and Marquard include the implementation of non-carbon and reduced carbon energy supplies in the form of hydroelectricity, natural gas and solar power (Winkler and Marquard, 2009:62). However, changing development paths is a very challenging and time consuming process which can be bought about in various ways including; the imposition of carbon taxes, selective beneficiation and incentive programmes for energy-intensive industries (Winkler and Marquard, 2009:62). Climate change is a global problem that can only be solved through global cooperation and teamwork. The injustices of the past must be forgotten and both the developed and developing world must work together to ensure the immediate and drastic reduction in emissions. Combating global climate change is a long term process that requires extreme dedication and ruthless legislation that will ensure the full cooperation from countries the world over. Economic growth is not the priority anymore; mankind could potentially be on the brink of extinction unless drastic measures to combat climate change are implemented. ‘When the last tree is cut down, the last river poisoned, the last fish caught, then, only man will discover, that he cannot eat money'.