Conventional or Organic? Choose the practical option. By: Lindsey Hellenbrand

It is believed that by 2050 the population will reach 9 million.  This means that the agriculture industry needs to make more food then ever on less land.  New technologies in the industry have started to help production go up and prices go down.  The only thing stoping them are the people that believe organic food is better.  According to Mitch Lipka’s article “Is organic milk worth its higher price?”, cows raised conventionally produce 20% more milk, and 25% more roughages, or the cattle’s feed.  The price for organic milk is 25% to 60% higher, costing on average $4.18 for a half gallon, while consumers can buy a gallon of non-organic milk for $2.50.  While organic milk does cost more to produce less they also mark up prices ridiculously high.  The majority of people will buy organic milk because they believe the cows are eating healthier, are treated better, or our antibiotic free.  The truth is all farmers treat their cows well, because happy, healthy, comfortable cows will produce more milk, which results in more money for the farmer.  There will never be antibiotics in milk because treated cows milk is not mixed with the rest.  Tests are done before the milk leaves the farm, before it leaves the truck, and once again when the is at the processing plant.  If even a trace shows up in the milk it is dumped.  Also, many processing plants have banned growth hormones.  Even if growth hormones are used, they are a hormone that is naturally produced in cattle.  When buying a gallon of milk a lot of them will say rBST free and then in small print it will say no significance is proven in milk from cows treated with rBST growth hormone and cows without rBST.  According to John Lincoln, President of the New York Farm Bureau, “No differences were found in concentrations of bST, insulin-like growth factor, progesterone or nutrients in conventionally produced milk and milk labeled as coming from cows not supplemented with Posilac.  Likewise, no antibiotic residues were found in any of the samples.”  Now it is up to the consumers if they will pay the extra, not even knowing what the real difference is, or if they will help the new technologies in the dairy industry that is working to feed the world.

Killer Burgers by Kelly Manion

Last year, my AP Environmental Science teacher sat us down and showed us the movie Food Inc. to get the point across of how harmful industrial farming is to the world.  I can just say, the video worked for me making me feel disgraceful for eating Tyson chicken nuggets or eating at McDonald’s.  The huge change in the food industry came with the giant craving for tasty food that is also very cheap.

            I just have one question though; how many people are willing to buy a cheap burger if they knew the costs that come after it?  Food Inc. made me realize that behind all of the cheap food we, as a nation, are eating everyday there are hidden costs behind it such as extreme health costs.  Think about all the food recalls you can remember.  The reasons behind these, such as E. coli, come from the way our food is manufactured.  Edmonton Journal, Food Poison Journal, Leader Post, and several other publications and national news stations comment how factory farmed beef has caused several E. coli outbreaks across the nation causing dozens of people to get sick.  Cows are naturally fed grass; however, the newer ways of industry are causing factories to feed cows corn because it is cheaper and easier to supply.  Allen Trenkle, a Ruminant Nutrition Expert at Iowa State University, said “The animals (cows) evolved to eat grass.  There’s some research that indicates that a high corn diet results in E. coli that are acid-resistant and these can be the more harmful E. coli,” to the investigative reporters for Food Inc.  Just because one cow can have it, all the other cows can be expected to get it because of the way the factory farms work.  Cows are packed into large lots with high piles of manure, the cows go into the factory with dirt and manure all over their hide, and the run off of rain and water from these cattle lots are causing other crops to get the dangerous E. coli as well. 

The way we process our food now in America is not healthy for us.  It may be cheap initially but what if that one burger you are eating contains a harmful strain of bacteria and you end up in the hospital paying thousand in medical bills or worse.  Leader Post comments how, even though it is possible to get food poisoning from locally grown meat, it is not as likely the meat or produce will be contamina

ted.  The way they raise and feed their animals is much different than the factory setting that just tries to get the animals fat as soon as possible.  The cows, pigs, chickens, you name it, are all fed the appropriate diet for that animal and these strains of bacteria are not a problem.  If everyone is the United States chose to get their meat from an organic farm, there would not be this problem of huge food recalls. 

The Threats of Second-Hand Smoke

By: Emma-Lisa Murphy

          You do not have to be a cigarette smoker for you to reap the dangerous setbacks smoking can have to your body. According to The World Health Organization, second hand smoke is to blame for 1 in 10 tobacco related deaths. Because of the dangerous health risks to nonpartisans, smoking should be banned in all public places as well as all work places.

            According to the National Public Health Partnership, passive smoking, or secondhand smoke, is the term used to define exposure to smoke from tobacco, without actually smoking. This happens when a non-smoker breathes in smoke emitted into the air by an actual smoker. Furthermore, research shows that second-hand smoke can cause asthma, respiratory illness, and can contribute to the possibility of sudden infant death syndrome. Second-hand smoke can also greatly increase the risk of lung cancer, stroke, cardio-vascular disease, and respiratory disease in adults.

          One video interviews people who have been affected by second-hand smoke personally. It is truly moving to hear their stories. Second-hand smoke has personally affected many and bans must be established. The video also includes a statement by the United States Surgeon General voicing his opinion on second hand smoke. He states that the science is clear, “second hand smoke is not a near annoyance but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and non-smoking adults”.

            These effects all happen to people without even touching a cigarette. When something negatively effects someone who isn’t even partaking in the action, we know there needs to be change. What’s more is that second hand smoke is affecting all age groups; from the very young to the elderly. A smoking ban needs to be put in place to protect the health of the nations population as a whole. With a ban in place, health problems could significantly decrease. Non-smokers will then be protected from the hazards tobacco smoke can have. For these reasons and more, the US needs to put a ban on smoking in public areas as well as work-places.

Green: The Color of Genetic Modification

By Abby Ball

With the world population expecting to rise to 9 billion by the year 2050, humans cannot afford to be picky with their food. While many fear genetically modified food, deeming it “Frankenfood” and unsafe for human consumption, scientists are advocating the benefits of GM food and its imminent necessity in fighting the upcoming food crisis. Besides amplifying the food supply, the environment will improve with implementation of biotechnology in farm operations.

While opponents of GM foods warn us of indestructible “super weeds”, soon to be encroaching in our planet’s fields, decreasing yields, and purloining herbicide-resistant powers from neighboring GM foods, these seemingly eternal weeds can easily be annihilated with regular rotation of herbicides and crops. Another widespread fear involves cross-contamination of organically-grown crops with neighboring GM produce. However, according to Karri Hammerstrom, an agricultural expert, several Californian farmers have successfully raised both organic and GM crops on their land, void of infectivity from recombinant DNA simply by utilizing buffers in between, rotating crops, and closely inspecting contact to prevent the possibility of breeding amid the two strains.

GM foods open the door wide to cleaning up the deep footprint of destruction that farmers of the past decades have left behind. By incorporating genes for natural abilities to kill off insects and weeds, insecticide and herbicide use can be diminished. Use has been reduced by 9.1% since the onset of utilization of recombinant DNA in agriculture, says Marshall. Agricultural researcher Rauch claims that because farmers do not have to apply herbicides, the likelihood significantly decreases that farmers will accidentally kill off portions of their crop with the application. With less herbicides and insecticides in the environment, less toxicity will be transferred to the humans eating the crops, other food and water supplies, and animals in the ecosystem. While organic crops do not use any insecticide at all, Conko and Prakash argue that farmers who raise crops naturally suffer a 20% loss in product—a sizeable portion that we cannot afford to lose in the looming population explosion.

Natural herbicides in GM crops can also reduce the labor for farmers. Fewer weeds will develop, meaning less plowing. The diminuation in plowing practices will keep more nutrients in the soil, according to Conko and Prakash, while also saving topsoil and decreasing soil erosion by 90%. Farmers will also salvage the world’s water supply by decreasing irrigation when using crops bioengineered to hold more water. This practice can also spread the ability to grow to infertile, arid regions of the world, and similarly, salt-resistant plants could assist struggling coastal regions.

By benefiting the environment, all of the inhabitants also benefit. With the increase in production seen with GM foods, wildlife habitat has been saved from conversion into farmland—20 million square miles of forest to be exact, according to Rauch. Averting the destruction of forests has saved habitats of animals and has ensured that oxygen levels in the atmosphere will not be depleted. Unless you want millions to die of starvation in 38 years, inconceivably high toxic levels in the environment, uncultivable soil, and the disappearance of the last bit of unsettled nature, genetic modification of crops is unquestionably vital.

References:

Conko, G., & Prakash, C. S. (2006). Genetically modified food will improve human health. Humanity’s Future.

Marshall, M. (2012). GM food: the case for the defence. New Scientist, 8-9.

Prakash, C. S., & Conko, G. (2006). Genetically engineered crops can end world hunger. Genetic Engineering.

Rauch, J. (2006). Genetically engineered crops protect the environment. Genetic Engineering.

By Leah Rafferty

Carlos DeLuna was a typical American man from Texas. On February 4^th 1983, Carlos was arrested for murdering a women, Wanda Lopez. Ever since the day of his arrest up until the day of his execution Carlos claimed he was not the perpetrator. Later, James Leibman took on Carlos’s case and found he in fact was not guilty. What this means is that Texas is responsible for killing an innocent man. Due to the innocent being wrongfully executed, the death penalty should be made illegal nationwide.

Carlose DeLuna above

There are many cases just like this one, where the wrongly accused are executed without proper representation. The fact that innocent people have been put to death is one of the most compelling arguments for eliminating the death penalty. Many people on death row have been exonerated in the United States thus indicating the likelihood of innocent people being wrongly put to death.  The issue with the death penalty is that it is irreversible. The journalist Doug Mataconis says “it is one thing, though, to discover that a man who has been sitting in prison for twenty years is innocent. It is quite another to discover that someone who was put to death six years ago is innocent, or that one you put to death a decade ago may have been innocent. You can free an innocent man, you can’t reverse a death sentence.”

Often times witness identifications are the primary reason people are sentenced for crimes. However, in recent years experts have been able to demonstrate how unreliable witness identifications can be. In studies of the hundreds of felony cases that have been overturned because of DNA evidence, they have found that misidentifications have accounted for 75 to 85 percent of the wrongful convictions. The sentencing of individuals who in fact did not commit the crime is a reality and is a contributing factor to innocent death row inmates.

Though capital punishment is still legal in many states, there has been some reform to help stop wrongful executions. The Innocence Project is an organization dedicated to exonerating individuals who have been wrongfully convicted. This is done through DNA tests and a reform to the criminal justice system. As of November 18, 2012, 301 innocent people have been exonerated. However there is still good reason for the death penalty to be made illegal; it is impossible for the Innocence Project to successfully free all wrongfully convicted death row inmates.

The death penalty has been responsible for killing far too many innocent people. One of the many victims of the death penalty, Carlos DeLuna, said in an interview years before his execution, “Maybe one day the truth will come out. I’m hoping it will. If I end up getting executed for this, I don’t think it’s right.”

Biofuels: The Not-So-Nice Fuel

Author: Brianna Entringer

The goal of biofuels was to replace 90% of our oil consumption but for the goal to even be achieved farmers would have to grow four times as much corn as they grow today, along with feeding the mouths of Americans. This goal is not possible without food prices to spike with the demand for corn, which goes hand in hand with massive starvation.

Corn used to produce biofuels. Source: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/evidence-suggests-global-warming-is-good-for-our-health/

The population is also exponentially growing as 9 billion people are expected to be living on the Earth by 2050, increasing the demand for food by 33%. With the rising population, the world is faced with having to feed 219,000 more mouths today, and then another 219,000 the next day, and so on.

Today there are already 4.8 billion people worldwide who are malnourished, if the population continues to grow and the crops continue to go to making biofuels, which causes prices to become inflated, the number of malnourished people will also grow.

Biofuels have caused food prices around the world to skyrocket, increasing food prices by 70%. Rising food prices are making it hard for people to eat. There are 2.1 billion people around the world living on only 2 dollars a day, rising food prices could send millions into malnutrition because people already can’t get enough food to feed a family on only 2 dollars.

People may have been undernourished before the dawn of biofuels but the number of starving people has increased since biofuels have begun to take up 40% of the corn crop, which is enough to feed 350 million people.

It is easy to see that food should be used for food not fuel. There are alterative methods of making fuels so American doesn’t have to depend on oil; biofuel is not a worthy method. It causes food prices to increase and sends millions into starvation.

Animal Testing: Benefits to Human Health & Biomedical Research

Author: Kayla Krueger

 

For centuries, people have debated about the intense issue regarding the value of using animals in medical, scientific and educational testing purposes.

Animal rights activists, organizations such as PETA, have influenced the way people think by giving them biased opinion stories on animal testing and then which in turn, society hears common misconceptions.

Animal testing and research has been a vital importance to medicine and medical infectious diseases, such as diphtheria, whopping cough, rabies, tuberculosis, measles and tetanus and rubella but also many other reasons as well.

Before the introduction to insulin, patients with diabetes typically died from the disease. For more than 50 years the lifesaving hormone had to be extracted from the pancreas of cattle or pigs; these batches were tested for safety and efficacy on rabbits and mice.

HIV/AIDS have not been cured yet, but advancements to animal research have given antibiotics that have lessened side effects, and vaccination have been given to may be one day eliminate the existence of HIV one day.

Animal testing helped find a vaccine against small pox, which was derived from a cowpox virus. Polio was eradicated all over the world at one time, but almost now non-existing due to a found in animal research that was first tested successfully on a monkey.

Surprisingly enough, almost 85-90% of the research conducted is on rodents, mice and rats. Also, 71 of the Noble Peace Prizes for Medicine won in the last 103 years were awarded to scientists who used animals during their research.

It has been proven, results of animal research has brought medical advancements such as development of antibiotics, development of vaccines, open- heart surgery(which saves about 440,000 people in the U.S. each year), diabetes research, hypertension treatment, antiulcer drug development and organ transplants including heart valve and kidney from pigs.

Animal research needs to continue. Support animal research, we must take for granted what we have here on earth and be fortunate the animals can take debt for us so we can be accessible to modern medicine and enjoy, longer, healthier lives.

 

Drilling for Oil in America: Potential Effects on Nationwide Gas Prices and Jobless Rates

Author: Courtney McHugh

A seemingly political issue nationwide, the idea of drilling for oil on United States grounds has become more and more talked about with the recent discovery of certain wells that could be drilled in throughout the country. There are believed to be the equivalent of two Saudi Arabia’s of oil that could be drilled here in the United States, and this possibility would have many benefits for Americans.

One of the most important reasons drilling for oil should be backed by the United States is because the project as whole has the opportunity of lifting the nation out of the recession by creating copious amounts of jobs drilling for oil, and ultimately the local drilling could lower the gas prices that have risen immensely in the past years.

Since 2008 particularly, the jobless rate has risen almost four percent, showing the true colors of the recession and it’s effect on people losing their jobs . The jobless rate will continue to increase until more jobs become available, which is extremely difficult during a recession.

Another universally difficult thing to grasp during a recession is what seems to be the constant rise of gas prices throughout the country. The demand of oil in the global economy increases daily, but the oil production in the Middle East is not keeping up with that demand. This need for oil is affecting the traded price for oil.

Drilling for oil within the boundaries of the United States would lead to the reduction in domestic oil prices (gas prices), meaning the nation as a whole would become less dependent on foreign oil and more dependent on oil production on American grounds. With the use and purchase of foreign oil, gas prices are projected to reach national averages of at least $3.50 a gallon, with the chance of reaching up to $4.25 a gallon. Many Americans affected by the current recession are without jobs, and therefore have trouble paying the excessive price of gas.

The potential of drilling for oil in the United States opens up possible job opportunities at a low economic point, which could ultimately lift us from the recession we are suffering from. It would also decrease the incredulous gas prices nationwide, as the dependence of foreign oil will decrease because the oil wells believed to be in America would be tapped into, and the price of foreign trade would not have to be implemented.

Legalizing Marijuana: The Right Choice For Our Nation’s Economy

Author: Kelsey Mortell

During the recent presidential election between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney, two states legalized the use of recreational marijuana: Colorado and Washington state. This law applies to people above the age of 21 in both states; in Colorado its possession of any amount of marijuana and in Washington its small amounts.

The debate against legalizing marijuana is never ending. The longer it continues the more people become convinced of its legalization. A large swaying factor is the positive effect of selling and taxing marijuana on our plummeting economy.

If legalized and taxed, our government would be saving and making money at the same time. If legalized, the government would save $7.7 billion on money used in aiding the enforcement of prohibition, including arrests, incarcerations etc. In the United States 35 billion dollars of marijuana is produced. If this nine-figure number were taxed, an exponential amount of profit would be made.

Marijuana crop in California, from jeanclaudesinfowar.blogspot.com

Saving money, while making it is a double positive…why isn’t our country taking advantage of this choice? We constantly hear families, businesses and the government complain about the lack of money. Selling and taxing marijuana is clearly a benefit to businesses and the government, because marijuana is our nation’s largest cash crop, as indicated above with its 35 billion dollar revenue. Some may wonder how families will benefit.

As the unemployment rate of the United States, reported by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, is dwindling at a 7.9% as of October 2012, families are desperate for work and money. In 2006, Fred Crowley, an economist at University of Colorado at Colorado Springs estimated that 1000 jobs would be created by legalizing marijuana in El Paso County. This surplus of job creation would supply many families with the work and money they’re desperate for.

Legalizing marijuana would lower the unemployment rate, providing families with economic relief as well as providing economic relief to businesses and the government. This economic relief is provided by the generous profit gained from selling and taxing marijuana.

Although Marijuana could be one of the missing puzzle pieces to solving our nation’s economic crisis, we can’t deem it the only way to help our economy. Our country’s debt is mind blowing, and legalizing marijuana would bring us one step closer to breaking even.

 

This is what your blog will look like!

Check out another LSC 100 TA’s blog post for an excellent overview of the technical aspects of this blog post assignment.