Presentation Outline

INTRO: Hello there. So who here eats every day? Who here is aware of what they are putting into their body? I mean you’re about to eat a carrot, so you would hope that it is truly a carrot and that their healthy, right? Well this presentation is here to inform you, that we don’t know as much as we should and but there is a way to change that!

Does anyone know what GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS are? Well let’s breaks it down. (breakdown each word and form one definition) In conclusion, this is not a natural process.

Why do they make GMO’S? GMO’s are created to elongate a products shelf life, increase production and to make a product that is immune or less likely to get diseased.

CARROT PROJECT: Before I get to the main argument here, I want you guys to try these 2 different carrots. Do they taste different? How so? Can you assume which is a GMO or Organic?

Difference in taste:

ORGANIC: I found this carrot to be more bland in taste. It has a tint of sweet but not too much. Not very moist. Crunchy and

GMO: not as crunchy. Very moist and juicy. The juice is very sweet and the surface of the carrot has a chemical taste (to me)

FACTS: Baby Carrots were genetically modified to produce high sugar content. Baby carrots are from carrots that are not fully grown and are not able to produce its own sugars. Baby carrots are actually soaked in water with chlorine which helps preserve the carrot.

WHATS THE POINT? GMO’s cause nutrients in produce to diminish. You can even taste the chlorine on the GE carrot! (process includes soaking them in water and chlorine) Baby carrots are mixture of under grown and/or deformed carrots that haven’t fully formed the nutritious value they are known for. THIS CANT BE GOOD FOR YOU!

Why? (health)(environment)(consumer choice)- in all GE foods, there are resistant chemicals put into them to make them resistant to the disease outbreaks that occur! Believe it or not, this is actually causing us to become immune to our own antibiotics. If you think about it, the chemical is an antibiotic for the product, so as we eat more, we are consuming more and more “produce medicine” which makes our bodies used to hard chemicals and medicine, making our bodies unresponsive to our own antibiotics. We tend need higher doses.

                In another study, it is found that these GMO’s can enhance allergies. I regularly have allergies and have to take a Zirtec every day in order to control them. How am I supposed to know if what I am eating (GMO vs. ORGANIC) is causing my allergies. I DON’T.

Labeling these foods would enable awareness throughout the country. Individuals should at least have the right to decide whether they will eat a GMO or choose something of better health. At the moment, we don’t even have that choice. We are ignorant to the ingredients being placed in our foods and our rights are not being fully exercised without these labels. It is just another way government and large companies to control citizens and their success as a company. As more people become aware of the issue, they begin to live in fear of the things that they eat daily. How are we supposed to know what companies to trust if we are not even being told the total truth of what we are eating? Labels could potentially lead to more and more companies going the organic route and ban GMO’s all-together. This, as stated before, could potentially lower company competition and keep prices at a constant variable. In addition, GMO’s also enable health risks and environmental damage. Due to the disadvantages to the consumer, it is only prudent to at least label all GMO’s. So JUST LABEL IT!

 

Conclusion: This brings me to the argument of whether all GM foods should be labeled or not. Based on many studies, I am pro-labeling in the hope that this eventually leads to very little GM products and/or very strict policies on GE foods.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHrqRRDY2HU (youtube video) (IF THERE IS TIME)

essay 3 revisions: general feedback

• 1. Make your argument bold and confident using language like “I contend,” “I argue,” “This paper posits,” “I assert,” “This paper demonstrates,” “I claim”
• 2. ITALICIZE names of newspapers, magazines, and books. put the titles of articles in QUOTES
• 3. Let your claims guide the argument of each paragraph, rather than relying on your source to set up each point. Use your sources to back up YOUR points, not the other way around.
• 4. Don’t forget in-text citations and proper full MLA citations on your Works Cited page.
• REVISED PAPERS DUE 12.4 to Canvas.

A letter to Nike

Dear Nike,

I know that your company like to make millions while making “quality products” for your consumers.  I was appalled to see the amount of child labor used you after reading the “60 Cents an Hour” article in Time Magazine, and the work conditions that these children are involved in, getting cut and scraped while making your products while earning low income. I’m sure Nike has improved conditions in the children’s workplace, however there are still issues arising in the fact that you still use manufacturers who treat these children like work mules. I’m not suggesting that you change your manufacturing companies, liberating these children from harm and costing you thousands out of the billions you make. But there is a suggestion in improving work conditions even more and giving these children more than what they work for. 

                                                                                                                              Sincerely, Monica

Da’Neisha’s Research Summary 6

Citizens,

 

I think we can all agree that providing for one’s family is at the top of our list, not including any other differences that we may face. Whether we provide for our family at a job, or if we’ve fallen on harder times than usual to find employment, then we may have to seek government assistance. When you’re a college student like me, at a large University, you are fully aware that you’ll soon be making money and paying taxes. Taxes that will fund programs like TANF for people in need. When there’s money and benefits being taken away from your family to feed another person’s family you want to know that this money is being used for its original purpose. More importantly, you want to know that those children in need are being fully taken care of. Making sure that no money is being taken from their needs for selfish use by an adult. Some pick it as stereotyping and unfair to these parents being of lower class. This is not always the case. Just as in a job, in which a company is paying its employees money to feed their families, employees are required to take a drug test and remain drug-free. TANF recipients should also be required to be drug free for these exact reasons. Not only does the government serve as their employer during this time in between jobs, by paying them, but also it’s helping them when they have to return back to the workforce. By keeping recipients drug free while they are unemployed, it will be no problem to get them back into the work force when it is time. At least they’re sobriety will not be an issue to hold them back when they’re benefits are over.

Da’Neisha Reed

University of Texas student

research summary 6

To: Education Week

            From: Aramis Askew

                       

            After researching the controversial topic of standardized testing I have come to my own opinion on the topic, which is standardized testing can be well utilized in the school education system with proper modifications. I came across many articles and cited many statistics that states that standardized testing is doing more harm than good to those students who are from a minority background. Standardized tests are aimed at assessing skills and knowledge of students and if all of them are not on an even playing field to begin with, it is skewed in favor of those of the majority ethnic background. Studies have also shown that standardized testing is ineffective because many schools don’t have the proper tools necessary to teach their students so they can achieve a higher test score. Not coincidentally, these schools that cannot afford these test prep materials are mainly inner city schools who’s majority population are students of the minority. These two statistics combined shows how standardized testing may only be benefitting one group over the other which defeats the purpose of the test being a nationally neutral test for all. In order for standardized tests to be utilized in the school system properly, implications must be made in order to ensure the fairness of the test for all. 

No Stopping It

My name is Victor Balladares and I am a sophomore attending The University of Texas at Austin. As a student at one of the most liberal colleges in one of the most liberal colleges in the most liberal city in Texas, I am always surrounded by the cultural Marijuana movement throughout the city. Even though I’m not a user or an advocate myself, I know many people who are and almost all of the non-users I know don’t mind their friends smoking Marijuana. That’s why this controversy interests me so much, because I am living it and constantly surrounded by it, even though it is ILLEGAL. Since it is already deeply rooted and integrated into our daily lives, marijuana being illegal only causes problems. It puts unnecessary strain on our economy, prisons, families, law enforcement and those who would benefit from medicinal use. Since the fight against Marijuana is obviously not working and people are and will continue to use it no matter what the government says, I believe the government should legalize marijuana and use that to benefit the country as a whole. We can use the money that is used for the fight against Marijuana for other more important things for the public good and stimulation of the economy.

If the government gets wise and taxes and regulates marijuana, it will take the huge unnecessary strain of keeping weed illegal off the back of the already struggling United States of America and help move this country forward. With the nation’s deficit skyrocketing annually and the hurting economy, American can’t afford to not take advantage of all the possible benefits that could come from Marijuana legalization. Many people already use it, might as well legalize it. 

Letter

Dear critics of concierge medicine,

            Hi there. My name is Keaton Schlueter and I am a Biology/Pre-med major at the University of Texas at Austin. As you can probably tell I have an interest in medicine, and that is the reason I am writing to you today. I am writing to talk to you about the growing practice of concierge medicine in today’s society, and why I believe it is a worthy system to base our current healthcare system off of.     

            As you are probably aware, concierge medicine is the system of medical care where patients pay an annual fee to receive certain benefits from their doctor. These benefits include 24/7 accesses to doctors, same day appointments, personal email and phone number, little waiting time, and much more. I realize that many of you see concierge medicine as too expensive to be considered. While concierge medicine was originally directed towards the wealthy population of America, over recent years, the price has actually steadily declined and some concierge practices are available for as little as $4 a day, or the price of your Starbucks latte every morning. I think many citizens in the United States would be willing to give up their daily latte for the benefits of concierge medicine.

            The other aspect of concierge medicine practice that you argue is the moral aspect. More accurately, the question of why should people be able to pay for better healthcare than those who cannot afford it? Well, in today’s society, you can pay for just about anything. Some people can afford front row tickets to concerts, to drive fancy cars, to have first class seats on airplanes. We see all of these as socially acceptable, and accept the fact that some people can afford them and some people cannot. Why should healthcare be any different?

            I am not suggesting that concierge medicine is the best solution for our current healthcare crisis. With the current physician shortage, and the rise of the Affordable Care Act, hospital waiting rooms will continue to be crowded with hundreds of people, and physicians will not be able to give them the proper care that they need and deserve. With concierge medicine, patients would get that proper care that they deserve for a small fee. I am just asking you to really consider if concierge medicine is really such a bad thing. Especially compared to our new and current healthcare system.

 

Sincerely,

Keaton Schlueter

To the Opponents of Embryonic Stem Cell Research,

My name is Derek Kieckhefer and I am a Junior at the University of Texas at Austin. I have always been fascinated with controversies in science and after extensive research on embryonic stem cells I discovered the controversy behind. I would like to defend the research being performed on embryonic stem cells. While I do understand the points of opposition you have, such as the moral and religious issue of having to extract cells from a human embryo, you have to understand a few things about the process of embryonic stem cell extraction. First, by the time the stem cells are extracted from the embryo, the embryo is only a bundle of a hundred or so cells. Secondly, the properties of stem cells allow researchers to take one cell and turn into as many as they want. If a stem cell is in the right environment and is given nutrients it can multiply indefinitely. Because of this important property, research does not require as many stem cells as you may think because like I said, they can take one stem cell and turn it into hundreds.

In conclusion I believe that research that could cure a multitude of diseases as well as possibly leading to our ability to grow and replace entire organs for those whose organs are failing should not be cast aside based on moral and religious issues. While I do agree that there could be a moral issue with this process, I do believe that this research should go forth with close supervision and a set of guidelines that would prevent abuse.

To the editor of The Atlantic,

Hello my name is Oliver LoGiudice and I would like to raise a few points regarding the issue regarding children and touch screen technology. It’s been interesting to grow up with the recent explosion of technology. One thing I’ve noticed is how there’s been a paradigm shift in how we ought to raise our children today. Although I’m only just a college student at the University of Texas at Austin, I have seen the effects that this issue has had on society around me. Many of my friends have just gotten married and are considering having children, while some just recently started their own families. None the less just about all of them have been very concerned about being parents amidst this issue. How much is too much “screen time”? What’s the impact of some of the educational apps available for these products? Etc. Despite some of the arguments against technology I’ve felt that the best route with this issue is to embrace technology as a parent. While letting technology parent and look after children is definitely a recipe for disaster I think being an involved parent has shifted so much more than what it once met 10 or 20 years ago. For my parents to be involved in my life it simply meant that they were present in my life by coming to my elementary soccer games, parent teacher night, or watching me play sports in high school. Nowadays it seems that being involved in a child’s life means using technology as a means to know where our children are, who they’re talking to online, and making sure that they aren’t playing too many video games. I would like to propose that embracing technology is not being over protective of the dangers of technology but exploring technology with our children, together and as a family.

Too often many parents have had such a negative opinion on technology that their actions are the equivalence of treating technology as “junk food” or ways for passing time aimlessly. And I think that has been the dominant attitude of some parents, and especially mine as of recently. As a society as a whole, we for the most part agree that technology has benefited us tremendously, but I would say that if we don’t seize the opportunities to spend time with the next generation on their own “turf” then we’ll miss out on guiding them through similar but not entirely different challenges that generations before had encountered.  

letter

My name is Jenny De La Fuente and I am a second year student at The University of Texas at Austin. I am very interested in health and fitness, although I am not a crazy radical. I just enjoy it. I have been investigating a lot about the fast food industry and the impact it has on society. This letter is aimed to all the fast food eaters out there, so basically to almost every American.

Fast food lovers,

I understand.
Fast food is cheap, fast and accessible.
I get it.
After a long exhausting day at your boring job the last thing you want to do is go home and cook a meal that will most likely take you 30 minutes.
I mean, who has the time to cook a meal when you can buy a hamburger that took 30 seconds to cook and which tasty ingredients have been preserved frozen for several years.
Who really cares about health these days? We have the technology and science to cure all the diseases that fast food may bring. We are the number one potency in the world and we might as well take advantage of that. Let the other countries worry about all the pollution that our food industry puts in the planet. After all we need those empty calories to survive and give us the energy we need for todays agitated life style.
Why even bother to cook a healthy meal to our children when they are probably going to complain about it, it is easier to take them to the nearest McDonalds and get them the happy meal that will make them shut up and everyone in the family happy. After all they need all those non-nutritious ingredients to grow up healthy and they will most likely burn the empty calories playing Wii and the best part, you save yourself the trouble of having to hear your children complain about how disgusting is a home cooked fresh marinated chicken that cost you 30 agonizing minutes to cook. Let’s just go the easy way. After all that’s todays motto right?
We can worry about the consequences when we are old. And by that I mean when you are 50 years old. Just saying.

Love,
Jenny.