My Internship With Juvenile Probation - 3214 Words

During the last weeks of Winter break the dread of the spring semester starting, I wondered what my internship with Juvenile Probation was going to be like. Now after an entire semester working with the agency, I know that this is what my career is going to be. The one thing that stuck with me is that all of youth that have found themselves into this system, all get what is being said. But not all of know how to apply the knowledge that was given. Which brought me to the conclusion; all of these youth need our help. Even if they do not take what was provided at that moment in time, you must be there for them once they return to accept it. The youth is the driving force of the future, without the next generation nothing can be done to†¦show more content†¦And that’s what this job is all about.† From that moment on, I was focused on finding ways to help the youth that walk in through the doors of Juvenile Probation. Before this internship I have only had examples and theories I have learned in classes that explained what I must do as a Probation Officer. No one knows what someone is going through other than that person, or if said person informs another on what is going on. After this experience with Juvenile Probation I am now able to understand that everyone is different, and I cannot judge any of the youth that walk in but must extend all of the powers that I can to help. Which is why the problem of the School-to-Prison Pipeline was chosen as my paper topic. Youth all across the United States have been effected by this ongoing problem. The unfair ruling that has taken youth out of school and introduced them to the criminal justice system. It is time to end this horrible policy before it effects anyone else. The implementation of a new system that does not take away these youth’s lives, but instead helps find out what the problems are an work with the youth in correcting it. Moreover, a ll of the Probation Officer that have been interviewed during my course at Juvenile Probation all stated that they cannot relate to these youth. When they cannot relate with the youth on their caseload, empathy becomes the tool that is used. There might be something that is found to

The Vacation to Siem Reap free essay sample

My vacation to Siem Reap is very happy and enjoyable. In the morning, I get up at five o’clock, take a shower, and dress well. At six o’clock, I get on the mini-bus and begin a trip to Siem Reap province with my family, my parents, my elder brother, and my sisters. On the bus, we eat the breakfast, rice with fried chicken, and after having breakfast, we sing a lot of songs, talk about our every life, and play some games on the bus. In the afternoon, we reach Siem Reap province and we have lunch together very peaceful and happily. After we have lunch, we go to a hotel and have a rest until three o’clock. Then we start our vacation in Siem Reap, we go to visit Angkor Wat temple and take a lot of photos such as the photo of me with my family, the photo of me with my brother, the photo of me with my sisters, and the photo of my family; furthermore, we go around to see the perfect views of the temple and buy some anniversaries such as Apsara sculpture and Buddha picture. We will write a custom essay sample on The Vacation to Siem Reap or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page After visiting Angkor Wat temple, we continue our trip to Bakhaeng Mount to see to the sunset. At there, we really enjoy with the weather and the beautiful views, especially, the sunset view.In the evening, we come back to the hotel, have dinner, talk together about the afternoon trip, and prepare the trip for tomorrow. For dinner, we eat sea food, Khmer food, dessert and drink coca cola; moreover, it is my best dinner time with my family at Siem Reap province. We go to bed early because we have to get up early tomorrow. The next morning, we go to visit the Cultural village, see a lot of performances and enjoyable views. Finally, we go back home at four o’clock in the evening. In conclusion, my vacation to Siem Reap province is full of excited memorable experiences and happiness.

5 Sentences Saved by Em Dashes

5 Sentences Saved by Em Dashes 5 Sentences Saved by Em Dashes 5 Sentences Saved by Em Dashes By Mark Nichol Sentential adverbs (words such as indeed or namely and phrases like â€Å"that is† and â€Å"of course†), and their close cousins the conjunctive adverbs, or adverbial conjunctions (however, â€Å"on the other hand,† and the like), indicate an interruption of thought, and should themselves appear as interruptions. Because they are parenthetical remarks (the framing sentence would be complete without them), they should be set off by commas: â€Å"You must, after all, admit that it was a good effort.† If they are employed to indicate a new thought, stronger punctuation is called for: â€Å"They are highly skilled; however, they do not possess the level of knowledge you do.† (In each case, the adverb could also appear at the end of the sentence after a comma.) Often, though, the interruption in sentence structure is somewhere between comma country and semicolon stature: The phrase that begins with the adverb is something more than a dependent clause but not quite an independent clause. In these cases, the linking function of an em dash is appropriate: 1. â€Å"I thank them for putting up with this project with such good sportsmanship, indeed with such exuberance.† The phrase beginning with indeed is tacked on to the basic sentence to provide an additional, loosely related thought. Note the shift with an em dash, and follow the adverb with a comma to mark elision of a repetition of the phrase â€Å"for putting up with†: â€Å"I thank them for putting up with this project with such good sportsmanship indeed, with such exuberance.† 2. â€Å"There is a job to be done, namely educating educators how to effectively teach that wildlife conservation addresses quality of life for everyone.† The phrase that follows â€Å"There is a job to be done† is an explanation of what is meant by that phrase. The traditional marker for explanation is a colon, but an em dash does just as well. Again, set the adverb off with a comma: â€Å"There is a job to be done namely, educating educators how to effectively teach that wildlife conservation addresses quality of life for everyone.† (Without the comma, the sentence seems to refer to â€Å"namely educating educators,† but how do you do something in a namely manner?) 3. â€Å"They may also be judicially voided for being unreasonable, that is, unsupported by the evidence claimed to justify them.† A colon is often employed to set off a sentence from a subsequent clarification, but the adverb and the fact that the clarification is an incomplete sentence justifies use of an em dash here: â€Å"They may also be judicially voided for being unreasonable that is, unsupported by the evidence claimed to justify them.† 4. â€Å"Furthermore, a scientific conclusion is based on the past, i.e. previous studies that lead to present conclusions.† The initials i.e. (an abbreviation for id est, Latin for â€Å"that is†) gives you a clue that this sentence can be treated identically to the previous example. Note, however, that just as you follow â€Å"that is† with a comma, set i.e. (and the similar e.g., which means â€Å"for example†) off from the following phrase: â€Å"Furthermore, a scientific conclusion is based on the past i.e., previous studies that lead to present conclusions.† 5. â€Å"Ethics, on the other hand, is future oriented, that is to say a present choice is based on a future desire, intent, or consequence.† This sentence contains two adverbial phrases: â€Å"on the other hand,† and â€Å"that is to say.† The first one, a simple parenthetical phrase, need not concern us, but the latter is an expanded version of â€Å"that is† and needs the same treatment as the short form: â€Å"Ethics, on the other hand, is future oriented that is to say, a present choice is based on a future desire, intent, or consequence.† Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Punctuation category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:70 Idioms with HeartTry to vs. Try andStarting a Business Letter with Dear Mr.

When a Pronoun is the Subject of an Infinitive…

When a Pronoun is the Subject of an Infinitive†¦ When a Pronoun is the Subject of an Infinitive When a Pronoun is the Subject of an Infinitive By Maeve Maddox Ive written several posts about the error of beginning a sentence with an object form of the pronoun. For example: Me and my brother want to get matching tattoos. Her and her husband want to buy a digital camera. The neighbors and us decided In each of these examples, the pronoun is being used as the subject of a verb. Because the pronoun is standing as the subject of the verb, the subject form of the pronoun is called for: My brother and I want to She and her husband want The neighbors and we decided There is, however, a grammatical context in which the object form of a pronoun may correctly stand in front of a verb form. The exception occurs when a pronoun stands in front of an infinitive. Reminder: the infinitive form of the verb is the present form with to in front of it: Ex. to go, to seem, to run, etc. When a pronoun precedes an infinitive, it takes the object form: My mother wants me to learn computer programming. We never expected them to move away. The principal told him and the other boy to go home. Here, taken from the web, are some examples of pronoun errors with the infinitive: They told my friend and I to get up and move. I wanted he and I to watch our kids grow up together My parents expected my brother and I to do well in school. Corrections: They told my friend and me to get up and move. I wanted him and me to watch our kids grow up together My parents expected my brother and me to do well in school. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Grammar category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Has vs. HadAnyone vs. Everyone75 Synonyms for â€Å"Hard†

Establishing a Formal Systems Development Process Case Study

Establishing a Formal Systems Development Process - Case Study Example Brian has been advocating for waterfall approach while Carrie has been advocating for incremental developmental approach. Jane wants to develop a formal systems development process and the two analysts would like implementation of their preferred approaches. Dealing with the two analysts from a technical perspective would require a quantitative approach to understanding their proposed approaches and an evaluation of benefits and limitations of their proposals. This would lead to development of models for quantitative analysis of the two proposed systems and the models compared. The model that offers the highest level of net benefits to the organization and best suits the organization’s scope and resources would then be implemented. A trade off would be necessary between net benefits and the systems’ ability to integrate into the systems but the approach disregards any possible differences between the analysts (Quaddus and Siddique, 2013). Human resource perspectives involve relationships between employees towards a cohesive work environment. The difference in opinion between the two analysts, having existed for a long period, offers a threat to such a cohesive relationship and requires an approach to compromise in selectin g the approach to be implemented. Jane should therefore invite the two analysts for a discussion in which each analyst would explain the reasons for supporting his or her position before a joint evaluation. She would assume a mediator role to help the two analysts agree on the most suitable approach and then implement the approach (Pravin, 2010). Process management solutions do not guarantee success unless factors to their implementations are considered and incorporated in implementation processes. Jane needs to consider such factors and the main considerations should be her organization’s goals and objectives. This is because goals and objectives of a department should be aligned for

Undertake a suitable critical environmental audit for a well known Essay - 2

Undertake a suitable critical environmental audit for a well known Western brand considering entering Saudi Arabia - Essay Example The macro environment refers to the factors in the nation within which the business seeks to operate. Henry (2008) states that macro environmental audit is mainly about the factors that affect entire population of the whole country within which the organisation operates. The main tool for this is PESTEL. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by a king. The current king, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz was enthroned in August 2005. Ever since he came into power, he has sought to make reforms to a nation that was mainly ran by the Royal family and the religious elite who ruled according to strict Islamic codes and systems (Ramady, 2010). There are reforms that are being made to enable people to take part in governance. Also, the reforms aim to cut down on government interference in the economy. However, due to the central and exemplary role that Saudi Arabia plays in the Arab and Muslim world, the reforms are being practiced at a very slow pace. Governance at all levels are controlled and affected by members of the Royal family (The House of Sauds) and their agents and representatives. Also, the religious elites are very powerful and they have a lot of say in the policies of the nation, which remains for strategic and international purposes, influenced mainly by Sharia. The Saudi economy is based on the export of crude oil. Saudi Arabia’s GDP stood at US$622.5 billion in 2010 (CIA World Factbook). The main authority in charge of the regulation of the financial sector is the Saudi Arabia Monetary Agency, which is the Central Bank. Taxes are collected by the Department of Zakat and Income Tax. Income tax is levied on non-Saudi individuals and entities. Saudi Arabian citizens and entities are normally exempt from taxation. Also, most non-Saudi individual salaries and employment benefits are tax-free (SaudiNet). It is only professional foreigners and foreign investment income that

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