Borlaug (1999), who won the Nobel Prize in 1970 for his work in developing high-yield wheat and other grains in third-world countries, stresses that genetic engineering is essential due to the worldwide population growth. Other organizations supporting genetically modified foods are the American Medical Association, the International Association of African Scientists, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.
Of course, there are always two sides to every coin, and individuals such as Ronnie Cummins, national director of the BioDemocracy Campaign, a grassroots organization that promotes organic food and opposes genetic engineering in agriculture, states that genetically modified foods can result in production of items that are toxic, carcinogenic, and allergenic. She warns that widespread planting of GM crops could cause unexpected harm to the environment; as crops are engineered to resist weeds, insects and viruses, evolution will drive these pests to become stronger and more dangerous. She speaks for others in wanting a worldwide moratorium on genetic engineering in agriculture.
Recent studies show that U.S. farmers are using just as many toxic pesticides to grow genetically modified foods than the traditional ones. Crops genetically engineered to be herbicide-resistant account for 70% of all GM crops planted in 1998; the benefits of thes herbicide-resistant crops are so farmers can spray as much of a herbicide on the crops as they would like. Scientists estimate that these resistant plants could triple the amount of toxic herbicides used in agriculture. It is also pointed out by opponents that genetic pollution has already begun to damage the environment. The genetically altered pollen is carried to adjoining fields and pollute natural foods.
A century ago, U.S. consumers debated about the safety of artificial ice and whether or not a mechanical freezer was as safe as ice harvested from frozen lakes or rivers. These worries, of course, were groundless. Then again, no one was concerned about asbestos and it proved to be a deadly carcinogenic. The debate about genetically altered foods will continue as long as people do not understand the ramifications, if any, and are fearful of future concerns. As in any debate, there are truths on both sides: Bioengineering is not risk free, nor is it as deadly as its worse foes make it to be. Environmentally, it both helps and hinders nature. It is important that the correct information gets out to the public, so consumers can make their own decisions for themselves and their families. As with organic foods, there will be some who request it and others who do not care either way.
No one can expect that there will be a moratorium on genetically modified foods. Those in favor of this issue and especially those who have benefited and hope to continue to benefit from the advantages of genetic engineering have a great deal of influence. However, those who have consciously made the decision not to have foods that are genetically modified need the ability to make an informed choice. Some people call for labeling of genetically modified foods. Alan McHughen (2000, p. 202) believes in an informed choice, but believes that labeling is not the answer, first because in the U.S. genetically modified foods are only those where there is an identifiable health concern or substantial alteration, so is not all inclusive; 2) the public may see these labels as a warning of a health hazard, which has not been established; 3) certain foods would still not need to have a label, such as meat with residual hormone content, so consumers would once again be misled; 4) the cost of food has already increased significantly this past year and it can be expected that mandatory labels would be paid for by the consumers; 5) what happens to small- or medium-sized food processors who do not know where the tomatoes came from and if they are or are not genetically modified; and 6) what about products that have more than one modified product?
McHugen has a suggestion of what can be done instead of labeling. That is, he says, to "scrap the knee-jerk GM labeling laws and demand a mechanism by which each consumer can identify exactly which products fit specified criteria" (p. 241). The answer goes back to the power of technology using it as a benefit. This would be to establish a public database for all products and all processes that records all the contents, in percentage form, with a measure of variation in each batch.
Such a database...
However, two things need to be in place. First, data is nothing but numbers unless people can read and understand that data and apply it easily to their own situation. Consumer education is imperative -- surely more than what has come with regular food labels. Second, this program has to be supported by all companies, without loopholes. Unfortunately, that may bring everything back round robin to regulation, since there are always the Enrons of the world that do not comply.
Regardless of what is decided, communication is key to understanding, and the consumer has to be educated in this topic in order to make well-informed decisions and to stop the fear factor of response. If anything, companies that produce genetically modified foods and those that are not in favor of them need to provide "objective" information (not brainwashing) materials) that present all sides of the issue. Then people can read and know what they feel is best for them.
The privacy concerns form the bulk of the negative impact of DNA fingerprinting on United Kingdom society, and they are not at all unfounded. Several schools have implemented locks and record keeping mechanisms that depend upon a child's fingerprints (traditional, not DNA) (Edinformatics). These fingerprint mechanisms are used to track money for school meals, to replace library cards, and to alow access to school buildings and rooms in an attempt
Criminal Identification Procedures The dawn of the twenty-first century has become the era of George Orwell's "1984." Technology that was found only in science fiction a few decades ago, is part of today's standards and procedures. The world today is filled with cameras that can film an individual wherever he goes, his cell phone signal can pinpoint his location, and even one glance can reveal his true identity (Shenk 2003). Iris-recognition technology,
Criminal Justice: The Death Penalty Reasons for topic selection Causes of racial prejudice and discrimination Juvenile in delinquent society theory Culture and values Official and unofficial values The effectiveness of the death penalty The death penalty is irreversible The death penalty is barbaric Changes to the death sentence Implemented changes Sentencing guidelines Bifurcated trials Automatic appellate conviction review Proportionality review The importance of proposed changes Anticipated outcome Life imprisonment; alternative to death sentences The costs Decency standards Overall efficiency Policies in support of incarceration Conclusion References Background Despite the controversy over how effective it is
Criminal Eyewitness Testimony Eyewitness testimony, or the sworn oath of persons who believe they have witnesses a crime, or portion of a crime, has long been studied in both the fields of criminology and psychology. Research shows that a jury, for one, tends to convict a person when there is eyewitness testimony present by two to one odds. However, research also shows that criminal eyewitness testimony has the very real potential
The future technologies will assure authentication along with evidence. Another advancement that will assist to recognize the criminal is the "Face Software" that will help to create the image of the suspected criminal and it will be a great help for the police department. DNA profiling and fingerprinting is also under process for the purpose of identification of the criminals. DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) is the fluid present inside the
Criminal Justice Gaetz, S. (July 2004). Safe streets for whom? Homeless youth, social exclusion, and criminal victimization. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice. This journal article reports the researcher's survey findings regarding the prevalence of victimization among street youths compared to domiciled youths. Gaetz defines the street youth operatively as "people up to the age of 24 who are 'absolutely periodically, or temporarily without shelter, as well as those who are