The deleterious effects, and the risks of GM food Essay Example for Free

The deleterious effects, and the risks of GM food Essay It’s been said that humans are what they eat. The relationship humans have with food is unappreciated. Food is the fuel that keeps humans going, gives them the energy needed to be creative and productive; it is the building block of society, after all, it wasn’t until the Neolithic Era, when humans figured out a way to domesticate plants and animals, that any form of organized society formed. Even during the previous hunter-gatherer foraging era, humans were very connected to the food they ate; understanding where it came and having an idea of how it came to be was crucial to knowing what was vital to survive. In this time, food sources like grains, fruits, and vegetables were naturally abundant, whole. Humans could choose between many different types of nutritious food because there were thousands of varieties of species. Unfortunately, as populations grew and more civilized societies formed, various farming techniques were created, and a vast majority of these species became extinct to make way for the harvesting of a select few (Pringle). In the industrial era, societies around the world, especially western ones, emphasized the importance of technological advancements. With this pursuit of technology, nature became something to control rather than live with; an attempt at making life simpler, better. Breaching the gap between nature and technology is optimization. It is this obsession with optimization that most accurately characterizes contemporary America. Undoubtedly, it comes with great costs. As it turns out, optimization is a business, and a profitable one. Thus, the costs and ef fects of optimization are often hidden from the public by industrial leaders in an effort to maintain profits. They control the businesses they run and protect themselves by dumping millions of dollars into politics. Today, it seems that the gap between nature and technology has been breached with the propagation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The aliens that now fill supermarkets nationwide represent the ultimate disconnect from natural, whole foods necessary for a healthy lifestyle. People are relatively uninformed about GM foods, issues include: their benefits, the testing and safety, the harmful effects they can have on the body and environment, the government’s role as overseer, the labeling controversy, and the â€Å"substantially equivalent† principle; all of these issues are conveniently hidden vitalities in understanding the danger, the deleterious effects, and the risks of GM foods. In tackling these issues, an additional understanding of the historic background of how GMOs came to be is equally important. Advocates for the rapid advance of technology will cite the numerous positive breakthroughs, the internet, healthcare, the numerous inventions; it’s hard to argue with, which is why when addressing GM foods, the emphasis should be placed on the relationship between technology and nature, specifically within the food industry, and how this relationship has become too intimate, to the point where it’s difficult to differentiate between technology and nature. The courtship leading to the marriage between technology and nature is exemplified in Peter Pringle’s book, Food, Inc., in which he discusses the 1960’s Green Revolution, a turning point in agriculture during which producers moved from traditional to monoculture methods of farming. This vastly increased crop yields. But how? Farmers had high yields because they started to use fertilizers and pesticides containing chemicals like nitrogen, left over from World War II explosives. New irrigation systems were introduced and animals replaced some human labor in order to handle the large crop fields and monoculture agriculture provided food relief to starving nations post-war (Pringle). Farmers experienced a rude awakening when yields started to decline due to a number of unforeseen or unaddressed consequences. Although the Green Revolution saved or improved millions of lives during the 1960’s, little consideration was given to the future effects it could have on environmental sustainability. The lack of food plant diversity eventually led to multiple problems, like the mass destruction of crops that had contracted disease or succumbed to pesticide-resistant insects, chemically saturated and overly watered soils, and an inevitable decline in production yields (Pringle). Obviously, the United States needed to find a solution to this problem. By the late 1900s, many scientists and biotechnologists approved and advocated genetic engineering as the most viable solution. This process is best described by Lauren and Robin Ticciati in their book, Genetically Modified Foods: Are They Safe? You Decide. According to the Ticciati’s, scientists planned to take a gene from one completely different organism and insert it into the plant in order to make it yield a desired outcome (Ticciati). The goal was to create food plants that could grow and withstand harsh conditions like pesticides, infertile soil, unfavorable climates, and geographical locations. Despite wariness from skeptical environmentalists about the unknown future effects of genetic food engineering, the companies who profit from this new food technology proclaimed it to be the wave of the future. As the Ticciati’s evidenced, in 1996, when the FDA approved the use of genetically engineered foods with no special label requirements, the GM foods were introduced on grocery market shelves with relatively no consumer awareness. This is just another example of how society is not clueless by choice. If this seems a harsh diagnosis, take into context what Kathleen Hart exemplified in her book, Eating in the Dark; a survey which took place just a couple years after GM foods were released revealed about two-thirds of the American adult population had no idea that supermarkets were carrying such items (Hart). Since then, GMOs have become part of the staple food products in the diets of the everyday consumer. Part of the problem is that nobody is exactly sure how harmful GM foods are, but there is substantial evidence to show that they can have a devastating effect on the economy, the human body, and the environment. In Food, Inc., Pringle discusses the farming method of artificial hybrid breeding which became a huge success in the mid-1900s and attracted a lot of commercial attention, spawning the term â€Å"agribusiness.† Scientists found that by crossing-breeding two varieties [of a species of plant] that had been inbred, [and] fertilized by their own pollen for three or four generations showed a tremendous leap in hybrid vigor, with grain yields up to 50 percent higher [than the natural bred variety] (Pringle). Unfortunately, when naturally crossed in the farmers’ fields, the hybrids strength did not withstand, so farmers had to rely on industry-produced super seeds. An economic boom occurred within the seed and fertilizer industries, with businesses rapidly sprouting up like the crops they helped produce. A few decades later the early warnings of genetic uniformity suddenly became a reality, (Pringle). One alarming discovery was the fact that since only one type of species was being harvested in a given area, if a crop contracted a disease, the entire field was wiped out, which meant no income that season for many farmers (Pringle). The companies who were invested in this new agricultural era and had seen the enormous profit potential in having a hand in controlling the food chain were not going to just quit. They pushed further into science, seeking ways to alter a species genetic make-up in order for it to conform to optimization, instead of considering natural solutions to these problems (Pringle). Today, there are GM super foods that are so genetically modified that they differ starkly from their ancestors. It is a teeter-totter industry; either profits are extremely high (like they have been for so long) or the industry fails and profits cease to exist. The latter doesn’t look like it’s going to occur any time soon because the government is firmly grasped by the biotech food companies that control the GM food industry. The most prominent of these companies, Monsanto, falsely advocates the necessity for GM foods, with the real motive the preservation of profits. Monsanto executive Hugh Grant claims â€Å"they [GM foods] can help feed the world and preserve the environment by reducing the need for pesticides,† (Harvest of Fear). Others advocate the hope that GM technology can save lives, like scientist Charles Arntzen, who is working on GM techniques to make edible vaccines to combat viruses in developing countries, (Harvest of Fear). More recently, companies like AquaBounty Technologies are working to develop genetically engineered animals. AquaBounty’s AquAdvantage salmon has been touted as â€Å"as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon,† by the FDA, but is still being met with numerous opposition (Pollack). The salmon â€Å"contain a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon and a genetic switch from the ocean pout that turns on an antifreeze gene,† which allows the salmon to make growth hormone in cold weather, whereas they usually produce it only in warm weather,† (Pollack). Genetic manipulation is causing drastic changes in the natural behavior of the organisms it’s implemented on, and it is believed that this could have multiple adverse effects on the environment and society. Those who have similar concerns, these cautious enemies to GM foods, can find strength in recent studies that are beginning to expose the numerous harmful effects of GM foods. In a study done by Gilles-Eric Sà ©ralini at the University of Caen in France, 200 rats were fed either genetically engineered corn or the herbicide Roundup and observed for two years, their entire life cycle and not just the normal ninety day period. It was found that they had an increased risk of developing tumors, suffering organ damage, and dying prematurely (Pollack, GMO Global Alert). Additional animal studies have shown other serious health risks associated with GM food consumption: infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen, and gastrointestinal system (Genetic Roulette). To exemplify how this is portrayed in humans, statistical evidence shows that after 1996, when GMOs increased in the American diet, disorders like inflammatory bowel disease, ulcerative colitis, chronic constipation, gastrointestinal infections, Crohn’s disease, and gastroephageal reflux have all risen dramatically and consistently (Genetic Roulette). Further evidence indicates that GMOs cause food allergies, have increased toxicity, decreased nutritional value, and promote antibiotic resistance (UMN). Not only do GM foods have a great potential for negatively effecting humans, they are harmful to the environment. Companies like Monsanto claim that genetically modifying foods is environmentally friendly, but this has been proven wrong on a multitude of levels. There is lack of nutrients found in soil in which GM crops are planted (Ticciati). These crops hurt the soil and the food chain. The chemicals found in pesticides were not only killing pests but also small animals, especially birds, were also facing extinction (Robbins). Tampering with natural selection creates a domino effect and damages the entire ecosystem. Imposing an unnatural element in the form of GM foods changes the equation and disrupts natural balance, even if things balance out, they will be forever different, even this is dangerous. Although GM foods are responsible for massive crop yields and the increased food supply, the industry is precariously perched given the increasing amount of deleterious effects that are being exposed more and more each day. For this reason, the government needs to take action. This is another dilemma; it is easy to wonder how the government can do anything when it has such close relationships with the companies that all the fingers are being pointed at. The primary antagonist in this story is the company Monsanto, the inventor of saccharin, an artificial sweetener, and many additional products. Monsanto accounts for over two-thirds of genetically engineered soy, corn, and canola crops worldwide (Robbins). Hendrik Verfaillie, Monsantos Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, described the company’s aggressive strategy with, The biggest mistake that anyone can make is moving slowly, because the game is going to be over before you start, (Robbins). It is understandable that a company this big has a profoundly large impact on government rulings regarding its industry. With Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide bringing in billions of dollars, the industry convinced the Supreme Court to allow the patenting of genetically engineered seeds so that the offspring would become the property of the seed manufacturer. In Genetic Engineering, Food and Our Environment, Luke Anderson exemplifies the impact of this ruling by stressing the profound repercussions it will have on the future of living organisms; This extraordinary decision by the U.S. Supreme Court heralded a new era. Once a shared heritage, the gene pool of plants, animals, and humans was now a commodity waiting to be bought and sold (Anderson). What appears to be mainly a business venture is an extremely important political issue, with companies pouring millions into politics to stay afloat. This is exemplified by the following quote, from the documentary The Future o f Food. Here, director D.K. Garcia focuses on the 2000 Presidential Election and the biotechnology issue: Agricultural biotechnology will find a support occupying the White House next year, regardless of which candidate wins the election in November (Garcia). The Future of Food reveals top ranking officials from the Supreme Court, such as Justice Clarence Thomas who previously represented Monsanto as their Lawyer for Regulatory Affairs, to Donald Rumsfeld, The Secretary of Defense, who was previously the President of Searle, a Monsanto subsidiary. Given their backgrounds, it is difficult to ignore the likelihood that their political stances would not be swayed. Even worse is Linda Fisher, who has switched roles between the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and Monsanto a number of times; she was Monsantos Executive Vice President for nearly a decade and Deputy Administrator for the EPA as well as Commissioner for George Bushs administration (Garcia). It’s frightening that the EPA, which acknowledges and regulates pesticides emitted into the environment, is likely to be biased in regards to the approval of genetically modified organisms into the environment. Needless to say, it’s shocking to see the connections that pose how much of an apparent influence Monsanto and the other leading biotech companies have on government regulations of GMOs. Evidence of this influence is presented in Seeds of Deception, in which Micah Sifry states, the four leaders of the biotech industry Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, and Novartis gave more than $3.5 million in PAC, soft-money, and large individual contributions between 1995 and 2000, three-quarters of it to Republicans (Smith). Stricter guidelines and extensive testing are not required because the companies have such strong political ties that they can influence the policy that is implemented upon them. In 1992, former U.S. Vice President, Dan Quayle, exemplifies this in his speech on behalf of the Council of Competitiveness, We will ensure that biotech products will receive the same oversight as other products, instead of being hampered by unnecessary regulation (Garcia). The FDA approved genetically modified foods with a high sense of hesitant reluctance. Consumers are supposed to rely on the FDA to determine if food is safe for consumption; the agency is supposed to be a protective one. This was a landmark decision for the FDA, a decision which required strong political influence for the agency to decide against its own principles. This is evidenced in The Future of Food; Dan Quayle and the Bush administrat ion appointed Michael Taylor as Deputy Commissioner for Policy, which Andrew Kimbrell divulges in an interview, noting that Taylor was formerly Monsantos Senior Counsel at the King and Spaulding law firm. Taylor instituted a no-regulation policy and left it to the biotech companies to determine whether or not genetically modified food was deemed safe for human consumption (Garcia). As the examples presented indicate, the successful clearance of GM foods has been engineered by companies like Monsanto and politicians, almost as much as the foods themselves. With the FDA swept out of the way, the companies that dominated the biotech industry were free to roam as they pleased, testing at their fingertips. How can the consumers trust Monsanto to act in their best interest, especially when the company’s Director of Corporate Communication, Phil Angell, says things like â€Å"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job,† (Robbins). Without extensive testing, which would almost certainly yield new truths about the harmful effects of GM foods, Monsanto can achieve its goal of selling as much as possible while disregarding the consequences this has on society and the environment. Testing is probably the biggest grey area of them all. The FDA has a persona of an overseer and protector, meaning that people generally believe that all food undergoes tests by the FDA to ensure their safety. Unfortunately, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Testing genetically modified foods is dependent on the words of the companies that develop them. According to Consumer Unions Jean Halloran, When a company comes in with data, the FDA looks at it and writes a letter saying, Dear Monsanto, you supplied information regarding the safety of corn variety X and we are confident about what youve shown, It is your responsibility, (CBS). The FDA is in a difficult position. It is presented with its initial objective of protecting the American people but now, with biotechnology and GM foods, it is faced with a decision of whether or not to promote the biotech industry. The FDA regulates GM foods as part of the â€Å"coordinated framework† of federal agencies that also includes the EPA and the United States Department of Agriculture (Bashshur). The problem is that this framework has been the subject of critical analysis and calls for redesign; it is outdated, with the FDA policy unchanged since 1992. It is available online and contains a searchable database that covers â€Å"genetically engineered crop plants intended for food or feed that have completed all recommended or required reviews,† (Bashshur). The policy places responsibility on the producer or manufacturer to assure the safety of the food, explicitly relying on the producer or manufacturer to do so: â€Å"Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met,† (Bashshur). It is also this policy that establishes that the â€Å"substantially equivalent† concept, with which the FDA judges most GM crops as â€Å"substantially equivalent† to non-GM crops. In these cases, GM crops are â€Å"designated as â€Å"Gener ally Recognized as Safe† under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and do not require pre-market approval,† (Federation of American Scientists). Although these products are described as substantially equivalent, their manufacturers stress that they are different so that they can patent them and continue to profit. In this situation, the consumer must take the producer’s angle. Their products are dramatically different; their genetic composition is very different in comparison with that of their ancestral forms. In deciding whether or not to ingest these products, the consumer must realize that if the companies that produce them stress they are dramatically different, and there is minimal testing done on them, these GM food products could be extremely dangerous. Currently, there is no regulatory scheme requiring GM foods to be tested to see if it is safe for humans to eat or not. FDA guidance to the industry issued in 1997 covered voluntary â€Å"cons ultation procedures,† but â€Å"still relied on the developer of the product to provide safety data,† (Bashshur). There are numerous pieces of evidence that indicate that GM food testing is completely unregulated. The FDA’s policy is outdated and weak, â€Å"substantially equivalent† cannot be justified when such a small level of testing has been done. The fact that this policy has remained unchanged for two decades is staggering; there’s probably a lot of money keeping it that way. In tackling what Ramona Bashshur describes as the FDA’s â€Å"dual mission,† rational thought is vital. Although the FDA cannot ignore the opportunity to make scientific advances with the potential to better society, it must reflect on its original role, as a protector. While scientific advances with GMOs are rapidly continuing, there hasn’t been enough testing on them to determine how dangerous they are. If testing was done and the foods proved safe , which they probably wouldn’t, there would be nothing wrong with promoting it. In the meantime, as more and more harmful aspects of GM foods come to the surface, it would be smart for the FDA to revise its policy, improve the extent of testing done on these foods, so that America can move forward in science with the assurance that it won’t hurt its citizens. This is a difficult task; there is so much political influence on the industry that it may never occur. If the policy for testing cannot be amended, there is action that can be taken that could have a similar outcome. Specialized labeling for GM foods would set them apart from normal foods and make it easier for consumers to make healthy choices. In the United States, they aren’t labeled, while in Europe, Russia, China, and other countries, they are. This is an extremely popular movement in the United States. An example is California’s Proposition 37, which would’ve required â€Å"labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.† And it would prohibit marketing â€Å"such food, or other processed food, as ‘natural,’† (Bittman). The numbers don’t lie; people supported Proposition 37; roughly 65% for to 20% against, with 15% undecided. From a national perspective on the labeling issue, 91% of voters believe that the FDA should require that â€Å"foods which have been genetically engineered or containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled to indicate that,† (Bittman). With these numbers as a reference for the support that Proposition 37 had, it’s hard to believe that it was struck down. Again, this is an instance of money having the loudest voice in the room. Money flew in from both sides, but the food companies that stood to lose in the situation, like Monsanto and The Hershey Co., contributed to what was â€Å"eventually a $44 million windfall for No on Prop 37, while proponents were only able to raise $7.3 million,† (Almendrala). According to MapLight, an organization that tracks campaign contributions, biotech companies amassed $46 million to defeat the measure, with Monsanto contributing $8.1 million and Kraft Foods, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola each contributing at least $1.7 million (Pollack). In contrast, those who backed Proposition 37 were only able to contribute $9.2 million; money made the difference. Proposition 37 was close, garnering 47% of the vote, with campaigns like the online based â€Å"Just Label It† collecting signatures and comments on a petition to the FDA, requesting rules â€Å"similar to those in the European Union, Japan, China, India and Australia, stating what transgenic food is in the package,† (Moskin). The biggest thing about Proposition 37 is that it had national implications; it wasn’t just California that the food conglomerates were worried about. If it passed, it could’ve been the beginning of a national labeling revolution, potentially the beginning of an even greater revolution. Throughout history, organisms have developed through a recurrence of genetic mutations that have naturally selected the organisms that are most fit for survival. The rise of GMOs can be viewed through the same lens. GMOs arose from the conditions following the monoculture agricultural shift in the 1960’s Green Revolution. The key here is that they are not natural. The â€Å"mutations† that have aided the rise of GMOs are manmade, manufactured, and abnormal. GMOs are a result of the American obsession with optimization, which manifests itself in technology. After World War II and throughout the Green Revolution, America sought numerous technological advancements as it relished its role as a world power. With GMOs, America breached the gap between technology and nature in an effort to optimize food. Companies like Monsanto, with their growing number of political connections, began using their funds to pave the way for GMOs to become and remain a staple contingent of the American diet. Today, GM foods are still privately and minimally tested and they remain unlabeled in the United States. While the FDA stands by its outdated 1992 policy, claiming that GM foods are â€Å"substantially equivalent,† the producers stress that they are different in an effort to obtain patents. America cannot trust the sources it looks to for accurate information because there has been little testing but there is hope on the horizon after California nearly passed a law forcing GM foods to be labeled. As concerned parties seek an answer, they must first look towards labeling these foods, sparking a chain reaction that causes uninformed consumers to ask questions like, â€Å"Why are these foods specially labeled?† and â€Å"What makes these foods different?† Labeling could prove to be the beginning of a further revolution to enhance regulation of GM foods. This revolution, though currently nonexistent, must occur before this problem mutates even further, before not just the American people, but the entire world, reaps the consequences for playing the role of Creator. Anderson, L. (1999). Genetic engineering, food, and our environment. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing. Clark, E. A. Lehman, H. (2001). Assessment of GM crops in commercial agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14 (1), 3-28. Retrieved October 26, 2006, from ProQuest Research Library. Guidance for industry: Voluntary labeling indicating whether foods have or have not Been developed using bioengineering. (2001) Retrieved November 8, 2006, from http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/biolabgu.html. Garcia, D. K. (Director, Producer, Writer). (2004). The future of food. [DVD]. Mill Valley: Lily Films. Hart, K. (2002). Eating in the dark. New York: Pantheon Books. Pascalev, A. (2003). You are what you eat: genetically modified foods, integrity, and society. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16 (1), 583-594. Retrieved October 29, 2006, from ProQuest Research Library. Pringle, P. (2003). Food inc. New York: Simon Schuster. Robbins, J. (2001). The food revolution: How your diet can help save your life and the world. Berkeley: Conari Press. Smith. J. (2003). Seeds of deception. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing. Ticciati, L. Ticciati, R. (1998). Genetically engineered foods. Are they safe? You decide. New Canaan: Keats Publishing. http://documentarylovers.com/genetic-roulette-gamble-our-lives/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njd0RugGjAgfeature=related http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/business/gene-altered-fish-moves-closer-to-federal-approval.html?pagewanted=all_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/dining/a-suit-airs-debate-on-organic-vs-modified-crops.html http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/g-m-o-s-lets-label-em/?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/business/energy-environment/21salmon.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/health/policy/04salmon.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/business/california-bid-to-label-genetically-modified-crops.html http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/business/energy-environment/disputed-study-links-modified-corn-to-greater-health-risks.html?_r=0 http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-204_162-10004920-2.html http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/prop-37-defeated-californ_n_2088402.html http://www.fas.org/biosecurity/education/dualuse-agriculture/2.-agricultural-biotechnology/us-regulation-of-genetically-engineered-crops.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njd0RugGjAgfeature=related

The Irreconcilable Donkeys and Elephants Essay --

The amber waves of grain sway in the wind. Majestic purple mountains rise like waves in the distance. The air is peaceful. The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were the calm before the storm. Since the nineteenth century the two main political parties have been represented by the wrinkled elephant, and the furry donkey. Since the brawl began, it has never ceased. Is it a fight worth fighting? The elephants trunk crashes on the ass’s disproportionate head. With a kick, the donkey springs backwards as the large beast crumples in agony. If I lived in the 1800s, near or far from the amber waves of grain, I would be neither a Republican or a Federalist. The Republicans and Federalists have too conflictual objectives to make peace. The ring of peace is a crucial goal for democracy. The bell of peace and liberty has ceased to ring, therefore I refuse to commit myself to a Federalist or Republican party. The battle will rage eternally. On September 17, 1787, when the Constitution was adopted immediately strife arose. The Republicans and Federalists disagreed about what power the Constitution should have, and how to interpret it. Alexander Hamilton believed in a strong federal government, he was a Federalist. Controversially, Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, demanded a small local government. In this scenario, I regard both varieties of government strength being equally necessary. Jefferson had a narrow interpretation the Constitution, and Hamilton interpreted with a broad meaning of every word. He argued that the Constitution created a government to solve national problems. Although, he only wanted to give power to federal government. (Center for Civic Education.) The Republicans and Federalists views clashed on how much c... ...ts will fight beyond the death. Tails will whip, and stripes will blow away in turmoil. Stars just might fall from the sky, too. If I lived in 1800s, I wouldn’t be a Republican or a Federalist. Two parties that just couldn’t agree, I find hard to trust or take part in. The new generation of elephants and donkeys has the same problem. It is ingrained into the genetics of government. Even with the disgust, monotonous fighting, and tension between political parties we all fight for pursuing happiness. An â€Å"inalienable right†, as spoken by John Locke. There is yet another thing the elephants and donkeys agree on: where they fight is a pretty amazing culture and place. America has billions of flaws, but we’re doing a lot of things right, too. Everyone’s too caught up in conflicts to appreciate the amber waves of grain, the fruited plains, and the shining seas.

Monopoly power is not automatically bad as long as it is regulated Essay

Monopoly power occurs when a business is a dominant seller of a good or service with a market share that exceeds 25%. There are many disadvantages for societies where monopolies exist. A higher price than those in competitive markets is one of the main disadvantages for society. As monopolies are the main seller of goods and services in the market they can use their market power in order to raise the prices well above the marginal cost and thus make supernormal profits. As their prices are set so high and people have little other choice than to pay for them this reduces the amount of consumer surplus income. Green area = supernormal profit (AR-AC) Pink area = Deadweight welfare loss (the combined loss of producer and consumer surplus) compared to a competitive market. This would be bad for the economy as people would have less disposable income than they would otherwise have had if the good/service was at a cheap price, so cannot spend as much in other aspects of the economy. Another disadvantage of monopoly is that there are fewer incentives to be efficient. If it is protected by high barriers to entry (meaning there are a few or no competitors in their market), the business may become complacent and thus operate less efficiently that it could. In this instance it is also possible for diseconomies of scale to occur. For example if the business did become complacent and chose not to bother to invest in technology to improve its efficiency it could suffer from technical diseconomies of scale as with new equipment/machinery, goods can be produced at cheaper and more effective levels. The monopoly may also choose to deliberately erect barriers of entry into the market to ensure that they do not lose market share. This is bad for small businesses in the economy as it gives them little opportunity to grow and compete with such large companies as they may purposefully decide to lower their prices so that consumers choose to go the monopoly instead of the small business. As small businesses are unable to compete with the  monopoly this would mean that there is a rise in unemployment. Increased levels of unemployment bring many negatives to the economy as the government will have to pay out more benefits meaning they have less money to spend on public and merit goods. As there would be more people out of work, they also do not have as much disposable income to spend on goods and services. As consumer spending is a key component of aggregate demand, this could reduce its levels and as a result bring down the GDP for the economy. However, monopolies aren’t necessarily bad; they can be advantageous in some aspects of the UK economy. Although they can achieve supernormal profits through having higher prices, this can then be used to invest in research and development to further their business, or protect it if it does badly. This will also lead to the creation of employment. More people employed will mean fewer benefits have to be paid out and the government can spend this money saved on improving the country. Another advantage of a monopoly is that they can achieve economies of scale (purchasing large quantities of materials for a cheaper price) as they are such a large business. Increased output (Q to Q2) will lead to a decrease in average costs of production(C to C1) and these savings can be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices. UK firms may have to be of a larger size if they want to compete on an international basis. To become large enough to compete in the international market a business is likely to need to become a monopoly if they are to stand a chance with competing with many other firms in different countries. Providing that monopoly power is regulated so that it is not abused to exploit consumers and purposefully make it difficult for new firms to enter the market, they are not necessarily bad. After all, firms grow by satisfying customers and companies that are monopolies wouldn’t be the size they are if they didn’t have satisfied customers. They provide many jobs within the economy and lots of revenue that can be invested elsewhere in the economy as well as being able to increase the GDP of a country.

Internal And Dispute Resolution Procedures - 1157 Words

Introduction Supply chain relationships are one of the most important topics that have a drastic impact on performance. Supply chain relationship is a crucial aspect in Supply Chain Management. Thus, ensuring having a strong relationship with key suppliers and distributors can guarantee the proper coordination of activities to successfully develop business decisions. Different of interest, misunderstandings, etc. are usually common issues when dealing within international negotiations. In Lucid-Black Box case, is evident that exist several conflicts that could be addressed by using SCR practices such as finding sources of conflict and dispute resolution procedures. Proper solutions of how to deal with the current situation will be also provided giving some insights of how develop trust-based relationships. Summary Lucid is a South American distributor of home entertaining goods. Black Box is manufacturer based on US looking for expanding its horizons in South America. Both companies agree upon an exclusive contract to serve the Latin American market under certain conditions of quantity, geographic distributions, and technology updates. Black Box started its relationship with Lucid in the worst way, delivering the first shipment several months after the due date. Couple with this, Black Box also breached the exclusivity contract with Lucid by having different distributors offering its products. For all the reasons aforementioned, Lucid could not complete theShow MoreRelatedDispute Resolution Rules And Procedures1510 Words   |  7 Pages ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CAREER EDUCATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION RULES AND PROCEDURES SUBJECT: Grievance and Dispute Resolution Rules APPLICABILITY: All Positions NOT identified on APPENDIX B listing  ¬Ã‚ ¬Ã‚ ¬Ã‚ ¬Ã‚ ¬Ã‚ ¬Ã‚ ¬Ã‚ ¬Ã‚ ¬Ã‚ ¬Ã‚ ¬Ã‚ ¬Ã‚ ¬Ã‚ ¬______________________________________________________________________________ I. PURPOSE The purpose of these rules and procedures is to establish a dispute resolution process pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated  §Ã‚ § 21-1-701 through 704 for the prompt review, impartialRead MoreThe Types of Feedback Support and Advice That Internal Assessment and Quality Assurance Staff May Need960 Words   |  4 Pages4.1 Critically compare the types of feedback, support and advice that internal assessment and quality assurance staff may need to maintain and improve the quality of assessment Types of feedback, support and advice that internal assessment and quality assurance staff may need to maintain and improve the quality of assessment include verbal, written, directive, developmental, guidance, and signposting. Verbal feedback includes straightforward verbal responses from staff, clients, or stakeholdersRead MoreThe Alternative Methods of Dispute Resolution Essay976 Words   |  4 PagesThe Alternative Methods of Dispute Resolution Alternative methods of dispute resolution (ADR) are methods of resolving a dispute without resorting to using the courts. The fundamental principles of Alternative Dispute Resolutions are Negotiation, Tribunals, Conciliation, Arbitration and Mediation. Many of these approaches include the use of a neutral individual such as a mediator who can assist disputing parties in resolving their disagreements. The use of these methodsRead MoreAlternative Dispute Resolution Or Adr1121 Words   |  5 PagesAlternative Dispute Resolution or ADR is used as a blanket term for processes, other than judicial determination in which an impartial practitioner assists stakeholders of a dispute to resolve the issues between them. The ultimate objective being the satisfaction of both parties through a mutually desired and binding outcome. Nevertheless, recent speculation has arisen in the legal spectrum upon whether ADR services are actually prioritising fair, just and equitable outcomes for stakeholders asRead MoreLitigation vs. ADR1100 Words   |  4 Pagesmeasures that are available to people when they run into problems. These alternatives generally accelerate the resolution of disputes without the need for initiating or continuing the formal and costly process of litigation. These alternatives are generally referred to as that of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) (Sherman, 2 012). Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) comprises the resolution of a matter by a method other than traditional litigation. There are three main kinds of ADR: negotiation,Read MoreConflicts Within The Workplace Are Inevitable1428 Words   |  6 Pagesessay will critically review the causes of conflict and argue many sources of conflict are created by the economic and governmental policies which engrain conflict into industrial everyday operations. In the workplaces today and the ever changing internal and external environmental factors, there are inevitable conflicts inside organisations, if that be among employees or between employees and employers. This is because of increased teamwork, new organisational arrangements and external politicalRead MoreContract Management1251 Words   |  6 Pagesagreement. Legal Issues Present Breach of Contract under â€Å"Internal Escalation Procedure for Dispute†- C-S has failed to follow the agreed upon dispute resolution process in regards to the delays and quality concerns. C-S has tentatively threatened to terminate the contract in light of product delays and quality control issues. Had the agreed upon process been utilized the grievances could have been identified earlier and a resolution could have been reached. As a manager for Span, it would beRead MoreNegotiation And Drafting Of Financing Documents And Ancillary Agreements Essay947 Words   |  4 Pagesraw water rights. The county use permit and will serve letters increasing the winery’s water supply, allowing the winery to increase production and revenues. Dispute Resolution Litigation: Provided proactive advice on complex litigation issues, presenting settlement vs. litigation analysis and legal services on all company disputes, specifically supporting: †¢ a natural gas utility by successfully managing the defense of and counterclaim against plaintiff in a $72MM construction breach ofRead MoreContract Creation and Management - Nature of Agency1615 Words   |  7 Pages2010), a contract dispute arises between two companies and one of the main factors in that dispute is whether or not agency is established. This paper will discuss what is required to establish agency and how it effected the formation of a contract between the two disputing parties. In addition, it will look at ways the contract could have been administered differently to mitigate ambiguities and the risks associated with them. Finally, it will consider contract dispute resolution methods and whatRead MoreContract Creation and Management Simulation1268 Words   |  6 PagesCincinnati Legal Environment of Business Judge Jim P. Ponder July 2, 2000 Contract Creation and Management Simulation The simulation begins in the middle of a major dispute between a software-developing company, Span Systems, and one of its customers, Citizen-Schwartz AG (C-S), a large German bank. The two companies are in dispute over the quality and timeliness of deliverables. There have been major bugs found by C-S during testing and are worried about Span not fulfilling the one-year contract