Summary Of GMO Regulation Simulation

“When you light a candle, you also cast a shadow.” – Ursula K. Le Guin. No matter what good some people believe they are doing, everything seems to come with a consequence, and the question is whether or not the good overpowers the bad. Many experts argue that Genetically Modified foods are actually beneficial to, not only people, but animals, plants, and the world overall. Some experts even state that, not only are they beneficial, but that they also protect the environment and aid food productivity. Most farmers actually recommend GMO’s because they are easier to grow, maintain, and tend to be more profitable; however, countless other experts have come to realize that GMO foods are untested, unsafe, and unhealthy. Studies indicate that

With research showing that GMOs are bad for human consumption, there hasn’t been any policy restrictions made towards GMO foods. Here specifically it is up to the FDA and the government to pass the bill that would make these restrictions mandatory. Currently, this policy is being ignored and thought to not be necessary when factoring in human health. In other words, these large federal agencies are ignoring the facts and choosing to not make GMO restrictions

Bipolar disorder is an affliction that affects many Americans. Children who live with parents who have this disorder often are neglected. Children are often not able to have a voice within their homes. The quality of life, emotional stability and childhood necessities are impacted by children raised by bipolar parents.

Yahoo Mail users were greeted with a notice: "Please disable Ad Blocker to continue using Yahoo Mail." These users were incapable of accessing their accounts until they turned removed their ad blocker or found a workaround for the dilemma. This message is not a new policy, but was part of a trial, a Yahoo spokesman told Engadget over the weekend. A "small number" of Yahoo Mail users were prevented from accessing their email accounts because Yahoo detected they had an ad blocker installed on their computer. The message was most likely a result from an A/B test, a technique technology companies push changes to a small number of users to measure user reaction before deploying them

“In a sweeping 400-page report, the country’s top scientific group found there was not evidence to support claims that genetically modified organisms are dangerous for either the environment or human health” (Heikkinen, 2016). Even Europe, a country that does not use this technology has proven that GMOs are a safe food source. “There is a scientific consensus, even in Europe, that the GMO foods and crops currently on the market have brought no documented new risks either to human health or to the environment” (Paarlberg, 2010). The biggest argument against GMOs would be that they are not safe to humans or the environment, but there has not yet been any documented evidence that approved GMOs have brought on new risks either to humans, animals or the environment (Paarlberg, 2010). Along with being scientifically proven numerous times to be a safe food source, there is also no confirmation that GMOs pose any risk to humans, animals, or the environment. “The central issue with GM crops is that because there are no concrete adverse effects for people to quantify, they can only focus on theoretical and largely unquantifiable ones” (Buiatti, Christou, & Pastore, 2013). Hundreds of experts have all concluded that GMOs have not presented any new risks to humans. “The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris organized a conference with 400 expert

GMOs, (genetically modified organisms) have been a topic of interest in the social eyes for years. Since they’ve been created, many people have voiced and written about their opinions on GMOs, and whether they are dangerous or not. Created to expand the genetic diversity of crops and animals, many don’t know whether GMOs are good or bad, and neither do researchers. Though there hasn’t been any evidence claiming whether GMOs are good or bad, it has certainly not stopped the public from creating their own opinions. Since no one knows the truth behind GMO, it has opened a window of opportunities for companies including Monsanto to voice their support of GMO, while other companies like the Non-GMO Project voice their

“Should We Care About Genetically Modified Foods?” by John N. Shaw appeared in Food Safety News issue of February 1, 2010, as a feature under the health section on the controversy between the pros and cons of genetically modified foods (Also known as GMO, genetically modified organisms). The main idea of this article is to inform people of the benefits of GMOs . The author, John Shaw received his Bachelor of Science degree in Finance with a minor in Marketing from the University of Arkansas in 2007, where he was a “leadership scholar.” In addition to his studies, he has worked as a research assistant with Food Law LL.M. Director Susan Schneider, interned with Wal-Mart Government and Corporate Affairs division, the Arkansas Attorney General Public Protection Division, and with United States Senator Blanche Lincoln. John has a passion for Food Law, sports, and outdoors. In the article, he states, “ I submit that I am no scientist; merely an interested student.” According to the article, he is passionate and has done sufficient research about the topic to support his argument.

Some health groups say there are unanswered questions regarding the potential long-term impact on human health from food derived from GMOs, and propose mandatory labeling[150][151] or a moratorium on such products.[152][153][154] Concerns include contamination of the non-genetically modified food supply,[155][156] effects of GMOs on the environment and nature,[152][154] the rigor of the regulatory process,[153][157] and consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GMOs,[152] or concerns over the use of herbicides with

The conflict of GMOs has changed a little over time but not as dramatically as some of the public believes. The amount of GMO crops has increased substantially, as well as the profit from the crops. But the overall conflict, the views on the issue the measures to stop or change GMOs has gone almost nowhere. (Ballotpedia) The conflict has always been about the same issue and the solutions have always been along the same premise. To stop using GMOs as a food source, or recently to make non-GMO products labeled. The only thing that has changed is the companies that control the GMOs have grown considerably since the controversy has started. (disabled-world) (Food Democracy)

A considerable amount of research has been done to explore the link between the media and crime. Although the literature available covers a wide variety of theories associated with this topic, this review will primarily concentrate on common themes which are evident throughout the research. Firstly, it is important to understand how the media reports on crime. The media employs techniques such as ‘selective reporting’ to produce newsworthy crime stories resulting in a disproportionate relationship between actual crime and perceived notions of crime amongst the public. Secondly, the consumption of crime-related media undoubtedly has an impact on the publics’ fear of crime. Although research suggests that fear of crime is not simply linked to

Although GMO products have faced many backlashes by concerned consumers, the amount of benefits GMO products offer to both Farmers and consumers is

Much of the public concern surrounding the safety of GMOs stems from the process of actually creating them. This is admittedly not a natural process, which is a surefire way to raise critic’s eyebrows in doubting their safety. However, there is no evidence that supports these myths. The Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops, The National Academy of Science, and the Board on Agriculture and Natural Recourses all agree after extensive testing and observation that there is no additional harm in the consumption of GMO food. The research conducted in animal studies, as well as chemical analysis of the crops, show no indication that GMOs are negatively affecting human health. The next allegation hurled at GMOs is that they may have

France, Germany, Belgium, Austria, all member states of the European Union and also participants of EU’s legislation and policy on GMOs, amongst other EU countries. A policy that is aimed to prevent harmful effects on the environment as well as monitor the safety of humans and animals in the area (Library of Congress, 2015). It is also seen to be one that accurately represents the concerns of local consumers and producers in the area. The success of this policy is due to science-based risk assessment that is designed to protect the health of organisms in the area; the success of this policy has led to no human or animal health related GMO incident in member countries. The United States is currently adhering to the opposite ideal and does not have a federal law relating to the regulation of genetically modified organisms. Furthermore, since the US is so heavily dependent on genetically modified foods, regulations on GMOs are not aimed at restricting production but rather focusing on the nature of production. (Library of Congress, 2015) After learning about the success of a restrictive GMO policy such as the one implemented in the EU, an average American consumer may wonder why the US has not adopted a similar policy? Or why the US might not be able to adopt a comparable federal legislation? The unforeseen issue with the United States government choosing not to restrict the increasingly growing GMO sector, leads to several adverse issues for an average daily consumer. As with

The public has grown intimidated by GMO’s and have come up with a myth of how harmful these modifications are to humans. It’s been seen in documentaries, and heard through advertisements but where did it all come from? The fear of eating something naturally made then transformed to fit societies need created the myth: GMOs are bad for people. With this mindset, people will willingly reject foods after they find out it has been “modified”.

As a consumer, we have the right to know and control that which we consume. The right to control what we consume is a basic human right, and not being made aware of the use of GMO’s impinges on that right. Even if the average person can not fully understand what GMO’s are or what purpose they serve in the food they eat, they still should be made aware of what is in their food. Better yet, by introducing the means to educate the populace on the ways that GMO crops benefit them and the environment, GMO’s can become more widely accepted