Who Motivates Gmo Foods Summary

The New Deal and the Great Society had the common goal to preserve America’s natural beauty. The New Deal program established the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which was a youth program that worked to enhance the environment by doing jobs like clearing swamps, planting trees, and other conservation efforts (Catapano 1). The Great Society’s Highway Beautification Act was signed in 1965 to fund projects that helped to clean the nation’s highways and clear damage and litter (“Great Society”

As said before, GMOs are genetically modified organisms, and can be dangerous, so experts say. They say that the GMO process causes diseases such as cancer or diabetes, and some also say that GM foods can cause allergic reactions. They are saying this because, as they have discovered, some companies have mixed protein from nuts and inserted into beans, which can be harmful

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) can have consequences (i.e., delays in projects, delays in species protections).

“Conservation laws” (document 8) positively impacted the environment, especially the National Conservation Commision (1909) which was put in place to conserve US natural resources. The National Reclamation Act raised money from the sale of public lands which funded irrigation programs in western states. This Act was installed by Theodore Roosevelt in 1902 “to increase” the land’s “usefulness” (document 6), the irrigation systems allowed crops, animals, and people to prosper. In addition, perhaps the most important act, the National Park Service Act which was enacted in 1916 by Woodrow Wilson after he expressed that “we have not stopped to conserve the exceeding bounty of nature (document 2). The Act was put in place to conserve “scenery”, “natural and historic landmarks”, “wildlife therein” and to “provide enjoyment for future generations”(The National Park Service Act). Environmental issues in the Gilded Age such as resources depletion, ecosystem destruction, air pollution, and public land exploitation all lead to the environmental reforms of the Progressive

The Clean Air Act was the first major environmental law in the United States to include a provision for citizen suits. Numerous state and local governments have enacted similar legislation, either implementing federal programs or filling in locally important gaps in federal

The human body is not designed to handle all the toxins that are put into GMO products, and as consumers, we should be informed of the potential harm we are putting into our bodies. Helke Ferrie, in his article “Evidence Grows of Harmful Effects of GMOs on Human Health” states, “…all modern human diseases are being caused by environmental toxins of our own making” (12), on the contrary, in the journal “GMOs – A solution or a Problem”, Mark Lynas claims that “… there has never been a single sustained health concern [caused by GMOs]” (132). Ferrie mentions multiple studies where GMOs have proven to “…increase the incidence of cancer, diabetes, hormone disruption, neurological, immunological and other metabolic disorders” (12). After mass amounts of research have been conducted to prove the dangers of GMOs, proof that has been gathered of the detriments genetically modified organisms bring to the human liver; researchers conclude, “… anything that upsets the liver must be… exceedingly

The Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act of 1991 was established by the California Legislature, is directed by the Department of Fish and Game, and is being implemented by the state, and public and private partnerships to protect habitat in California1. As opposed to the single species interpretation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), this act aims at protecting many species using a regional approach to habitat preservation. Douglas Wheeler has written a nice synopsis of the NCCP within the context of the history of conservation of habitat. The NCCP is a program that is meant to have voluntary multi-stakeholder cooperation in planning,

As a result, enactment of environmental laws and policy implementation developed into a political debate between both Republican and democratic politician in the 1960s. By the end of the 1960s numerous environmental bills aimed at protecting the environmental from pollution, degradation, erosion, deforestation, land ownership were introduced on the floor of the U.S senate. These policy actions action give birth to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a comprehensive environmental policy conceived in the late 1960s by Henry M. Jackson a democratic senator from Washington State and signed into law by President Richard M. Nixon. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), is a landmark environmental policy that has helped in shaping the environmental policy arena and have proven to be one of the most important environmental policy Act of the nineteenth-century. The author of Environmental Law Handbook writes, “The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA) has been heralded as the Magna Carta of the country’s environmental movement. It was signed into law on January 1, 1970, to address the need for a national environmental policy to guide the growing environmental consciousness and to shape a national response”(Sullivan

One of the first environmental protection laws included the federal law, primarily a procedural law that the government uses before taking of any action. It puts requirements when it comes to construction or impact the environment in some way. Environmental assessment: asses the impacts the proposed project could have on the environment. If nothing is found, then the law is discarded completely. However, if there was something that challenges the environment. The next step is the environmental impact assessment, this is done by researching scientifically and theoretically the extent that the project could have. This is required if the government wishes to proceed with the project, extensively, this does not mean that it has to comply with the recommendations of environmentalists and the findings of the research, but it must document it. The act was in response to the public’s demand in 1967 after an oil tanker in Great Britain

The American Academy Of Environmental Medicine have found out, Gmos also cause organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders. They also discovered the GMOs leave material behind that leads to long terms problems

This article talks about the Wilderness Act that was passed in 1964, the enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976, and the “Wild Lands Policy” in 2010. She discusses the history of these acts and policies. The article describes how these acts and policies passed and the different litigation that came from them. The “Wild Lands Policy” is described in detail in section V. The article first describes the three ways the new “Wild Lands Policy” was to work. The first way was “it affirmed that the agency should consider wilderness values as an “integral component” of its multiple-use mission, identifying lands with wilderness characteristics (LWC) in its mandatory section 201 inventories. Second, the Policy directed BLM to use its section 202 land use planning authority to consider designating appropriate LWC as “Wild Lands,” that is, lands that the agency would protect in amended RMPs by “avoiding impairment” to their wilderness characteristics. Third, for project-level decisions in areas not yet inventoried under the new framework, the Policy instructed BLM to inventory apparent wilderness characteristics, and then discuss the proposed project’s effects to them—as well as measures to minimize those effects—in a NEPA analysis.” (Brumfield, v.44, I1) The article then describes each area in its own section, section A is Inventory, section B is Land Use Planning, and section C is Project Level Decisions. In section VI the Death and Afterlife of the Wild Lands Policy is discussed in detail. She talks about how the policy sparked immediate protest and legal challenges. In April 2011 the opposition to the “Wild Lands Policy” took full effect. There was a congressional rider put into place that prohibited the use of funds to implement the policy. Then

Are GMO foods safe to eat? There are many factors that lead people to believe

Many studies have been done to test for health consequences from eating GMO’s and the results are startling.

“In a study in the early 1990s, rats were fed genetically modified (GM) tomatoes. Well actually the rats refused to eat them. They were force-fed. Several of the rats developed stomach lesions and seven out of 40 died within two weeks. Scientists at the FDA who reviewed the study agree that it did not provide a “demonstration of reasonable certainty of harm.” In fact, agency scientists warned that genetically modified foods in general might create unpredictable allergies, toxins, antibiotic resistant diseases, and nutritional problems. Internal FDA memos made public from a lawsuit reveal that the scientists urged their superiors to require long-term safety testing to catch these hard-to-detect side effects. But FDA political appointees, including a former attorney for Monsanto in charge of policy, ignored the scientists’ warnings. The FDA does not require safety studies. Instead, if the makers of the genetically modified foods claim that they are safe, the agency has no farther questions. The genetically modified tomato was approved in 1994.”(Smith).

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