"There is no escape. You too shall sink into hell."

Works Cited http://go.galegroup.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE%7CCX3045301080&v=2.1&u=unc_main&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&authCount=1 http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/docview/1037802766 http://www.adcglobal.org/archive/hof/2000/?id=205 http://maghis.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/4/49.full.pdf+html http://maghis.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/4/49.full.pdf+html

The Stigmatization of Saint Francis

Matz, Terry. "St. Francis of Assisi." Catholic.org. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=50>.

"Saint Pio of Pietrelcina: A Short Biography of the Padre." Catholicism.org. Saint Benedict Center, Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://catholicism.org/saint-pio-of-pietrelcina.html>.

Stewart, Don. "Who Are the Seraphim?" Blueletterbible.org. Blue Letter Bible, Web. 27 Nov. 2012. <http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=31>.

"Stigmata." Gospel-Mysteries.net.Web. 27 Nov. 2012. <http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/stigmata.html>

The Annunciation by Barocci

Works Consulted http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01541c.htm http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/holydays/annunciation.shtml http://chiaroscurosantafe.com http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/110261/chiaroscuro

The Triumphant Christ Forgiving Penitent Sinners

"Baroque." WebMuseum:. BMW Foundation, 14 Oct. 2002. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.  <http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/glo/baroque/>.

Corbett, John. "King David." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 24 Nov. 2012
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04642b.htm>.

"Counter-Reformation." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/empires/medici/renaissance/counter.html>.

"Education : The Calvinist Reformation." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2012. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/179408/education/47553/The-Roman-Catholic-Counter-Reformation>.

Katz, Lisa. "King David." About.com Judaism. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2012. <http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishbiographies/a/kingdavid.htm>.

McKay, Brett, and Kate McKay. "The Basics of Art: The Baroque Period." The Art of Manliness                                 RSS.Manly Knowledge, 18 Oct. 2010. Web. 24 Nov. 2012. <http://artofmanliness.com/2010/10/18/the-basics-of-art-the-baroque-period/>.

Robinson, B. A. "Comparing the Beliefs of Roman Catholics & Conservative Protestants." Comparing Roman Catholic and Conservative Protestant Beliefs. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 07 June 2007. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_capr.htm>.

-Madison Williams

Imcoming Tide on the Northumberland Coast

Work Cited
http://www.northumberland-coast.co.uk/
http://www.northumberland.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=6869
http://www.victorianweb.org/painting/prb/1.html
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/praf/hd_praf.htm
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Scott,_William_Bell_%28DNB00%29
http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dgr/bioov.html
http://fragglerocks.smugmug.com/Toglateering/Wallington-Hall/21575518_F9JHdx/1720490913_mtSSHjg#!i=1720490913&k=mtSSHjg
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/wallington/
http://www.visitnorthumberland.com/do/wallington-house-gardens-and-estate-p23511
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bell_Scott
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northumberland_Coast
http://www.victorianweb.org/painting/scott/paintings/8.html
http://artmagick.com/pictures/picture.aspx?id=6167&name=self-portrait

Sleep is a Sympton of Caffeine Deprivation

Works Cited: Smatresk, Neal. “How does caffeine affect the body?” Scientific American. February 1999: n. pag. Web. 18 October 1999. Livestrong. “Caffeine Effects On The Mood.” Livestrong. Livestrong Foundation, 2010. Web. 18 October 2012. http://www.livestrong.com/article/166493-caffeine-effects-on-the-mood/ Duke Health. “Caffeine’s Effects are Long-Lasting and Compound Stress.” Duke Health, 2004. Web. 18 October 2012 http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/news/5687

It's Like Drinking A Glass Of Water

Works Cited

Ritz, Patrick, and Gilles Berrut. "The Importance of Good Hydration for Day-to-Day Health." Nutrition Reviews 63.6 (2005): 6-13. Online. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2005.tb00155.x/abstract

Saltmarsh, Mike. "Thirst: Or, Why Do People Drink?" Nutrition Bulletin 26.1 (2001): 53-58. Online. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1467-3010.2001.00097.x/full

FOOD MOOD

Why Water WILL Benefit YOU

Exorcising your Exercise Demons

AT WHAT COST?!

Through gene and DNA sequencing of animals and comparing them to human genomes, we have cures for polio and tuberculosis. The human race, at least in developed countries, does not suffer anymore from paralysis from the viral disease of polio or the intense coughing and fever that comes from tuberculosis. So why should gene and DNA sequencing of animals not be the main method for biomedical research? Does a down side exist? Well, yes. First, these tests can be extremely time consuming as a set answer may not be found for years, and even then most results might detect a problem rather than a solution. As well, while the cost has gone down over the past couple of years, researchers should still question the money spent on failed expenditures. Finally, testing on animals and human fetuses is simply unethical. That polio cure? It was found from years of testing on horses. And tuberculosis? That one was found from testing on cute guinea pigs. Although there have been recent breakthroughs in regards to animal DNA sequencing, scientists and researchers should still analyze whether the cost of testing equals the results found, if the outcomes provide enough information to actually support more testing, and whether animal sequencing is ethical.

DNA sequencing proves to be an extremely long and complicated process. It can be annoyingly confusing as well, but as simply as possible sequencing involves determining the entire DNA sequence, or order, of an organism’s genome. A genome is the entirety of an organism’s hereditary information. DNA, even small quantities, can allow full genome sequencing. The sequence data produced is extremely large, meaning that it must be stored electronically and requires a large amount of computing power. Genome sequencing in animals is used to compare them to human genomes and try to aid biomedical research.

A Nature, “More than teeth” article published in October of 2011, mentioned the benefits of DNA sequencing with Naked Mole Rats. This organism is probably most known for its hairless body and protruding teeth, and also as Rufus on the Disney Channel show Kim Possible. Or maybe that’s just me. Anyway, Naked Mole Rats reside in eusocial colonies, rather than alone like other rodents. Eusocial colonies exist when a majority of the individuals within the colony work towards the betterment of only a few members, such as the queen. But despite these physical characteristics of the Naked Mole Rat, its internal structure is most notable. They reside in conditions more suited for insects, with high levels of carbon dioxide and low levels of oxygen. They are also the longest-living rodents on the planet. But perhaps most remarkable is the fact that Naked Mole Rats do not seem to get cancer. By studying the genomes of these animals, scientists try to learn the secrets of this phenomenon and apply it to biomedical research.

I hate to be negative over something that has produced some good results in the past, but the whole process of animal DNA sequencing is slow, expensive, and does not produce enough results to justify its use. According to the Current Pharmaceutical Design, a yearly publication about current advances in medicine, there is only a ten percent chance that a genome of an organism that enters development and research will become successful, or able to be used for clinical purposes. Furthermore, an average cost of a hundred thousand dollars and an average time span of 10 to 15 years for tests on a single genome. Those odds suck. However in the same article, the author then says that new technologies increase the speed and efficiency of sequencing. But this still does not answer that fact that the knowledge of an organism’s genome does not generally provide useful biomedical information. It is only the first step, as researches then must find a way to use it in aiding humans. With this, the cost needs to decrease by much more and the general production needs to increase for animal sequencing to truly profit. 

 It’s the oldest story in the book: is it ethical to test on poor and sweet little creatures? Would you test on your puppy? Granted Naked Mole Rats, and rats in general, are not the cutest creatures, but they are living and breathing creatures nonetheless. Right now millions of rats, mice, rabbits, primates, and more animals are used in laboratories across the country. While animal testing has resulted in some great outcomes, millions of animals have lost their lives for not many results. Animal sequencing is done in the hopes of finding a gene unique to an animal, like the Naked Mole Rat, that could possibly be useful for biomedical research. But a majority of the time these animals are killed under a false pretense. According to PETA, an American animal rights organization, modern research has proven that animal tests are rarely even relevant to humans. Studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the British Medical Journal have shown that there exists too many biological differences between animals and humans. These same studies have proven that the overwhelming majority of experiments fail to lead to medical advances. Advocates for animal testing have mentioned the great effects on human health that testing has produced, such as a decline in heart disease and the use of penicillin due to testing on mice. However, new research shows that there are other techniques can be used biomedical research including in vitro and advanced brain imaging that could replace the need for animal testing. 

Finding cures to some of the diseases plaguing humankind would be amazing. But at what harm? At what cost? The main purpose that scientists have to focus on now is new technologies to improve these issues with gene sequencing on animals. As of right now, it is just not profitable enough nor does it create enough results to ensure its continuation.

Works Cited:

David R Bentley. “Whole-genome re-sequencing.” Current Opinion in Genetics & Development. Volume 16, Issue 6. December 2006, Pages 545-552. Science Direct. Chesterford Research Park, Little Chesterford, Saffron Walden, Essex. 17 September 2012. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959437X06002085

“More Than Teeth.” Nature. Nature Publishing Group, October 12, 2011. Web. September 08, 2012

Tracy Hampton. “New Antimicrobials.” The Journal of the American Medical Association. American Medical Association, 2011. Web. September 15, 2012


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1512491/eusocial-species

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/whats_a_genome/Chp2_1.shtml

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/whats_a_genome/Chp2_1.shtml

http://www.animaltestingfacts.zoomshare.com

picture 1: http://www.flickr.com/photos/80119778@N04/7793969550/

picture 2: http://www.flickr.com/photos/oneselfsacrificephoto/1795478060/

Taylor Evans

DTF: Down to Frack?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/
62459458@N08/7603365944/

The Pennsylvanian small town rig rapidly drilled the underground shale rock and injected massive amounts of pressurized fracking fluids to obtain natural gas. Mark Schlosberg, who opposes fracking, gave his thoughts about this new system saying, “we want to protect our water, we want to protect our air, and we want to safeguard our climate future by getting off dirty fossil fuels and saying no to fracking. We need to invest in a renewable energy future.” Little does Mark know that fracking actually has many benefits including generating over a hundred thousand jobs, increasing global energy supply, and replacing outdated energy production methods. Critics like Schlosberg argue that practicing hydraulic fracturing causes risks to groundwater, air quality, and surface contamination; whereas current evidence states that fracking does not contaminate groundwater and poses little risk to the environment.

Hydraulic fracturing undoubtedly benefits our economy. According to Energytomorrow.org the natural gas industry provides jobs to 9.2 million men and women across the United States. Hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus and Barnett shale has generated royalty payments to property owners, tax revenues to the government, and also has created high paying American jobs. Hydraulic fracturing has created many engineering, hospitality, equipment manufacturing, surveying, construction, and environmental permitting jobs. In Pennsylvania fracking added $389 million to state and local revenue, more than $1 billion to federal tax revenue, and almost $4 billion to the state’s economy. Fracking opponents only consider researching about the consequences that fracking may cause. By doing so, they overlook the advantages fracking actually has. If New York allows fracking, economists predict that it will create $11.4 billion in economic stimulus and up to 18,000 new jobs by 2020. That is just a single state. Imagine all the jobs that would be lost, or not even created if we were to discontinue fracking due to the unproven societal claims against fracking. Fracking has caused natural gas prices to plummet and remain low. Wells drilled through fracking in the last 3.5 years have produced nearly half the gas being consumed today. Through fracking and our natural gas production industry, America’s dependence on foreign oil will decrease substantially.

Clean-burning natural gas and new oil supplies from fracking have increased our country’s energy security, and improved our ability to generate electricity. Due to this increase in the natural gas supply, because of fracking, our economy depends much less on oil. Now ask yourself if you are against global warming and against fracking. Facts can actually show that these two ideas do not correlate. Lawrence Cathles, a Cornell University professor, found in a study that replacing coal with natural gas would cut about 40% of carbon emissions linked to global warming. Fracking plays a huge role in this replacement from coal to natural gas. Cathles stated in the “From Coal To Gas: The Potential Risks and Rewards” article, “When you burn natural gas it’s a cleaner burning fuel. Natural gas can generate electricity with almost twice the efficiency in terms of conversion of energy content of fuel.” This shows how fracking benefits our environment rather than hurting it. By using natural gas rather than coal, we actually remove a very harmful energy source. Fracking clearly escalates energy supply and replaces outdated energy production methods. This shows how fracking benefits society and removes a harmful energy source instead of harming the environment itself.

Many critics of hydraulic fracturing believe that it is associated with risks to groundwater, air quality, and surface contamination. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) there has been no evidence found showing that hydraulic fracturing contaminates ground water. People that live nearby drilling rigs (areas where fracking takes place) have complained that their drinking water has been contaminated because of fracking. Some argue that methane is found in their drinking water, but according to ProPublica.org, an online scientific journal, methane can be harmless to drink. It is highly unlikely that your water contains methane due to fracking, and that it somehow catches fire, because that would be the only way that kind of water would be dangerous. Another study done by Duke University found no confirmed cases of an underground source of drinking water contaminated as a result of a hydraulic fracturing operation. Roy Bigham claimed in his “Fracking Misunderstanding” article that a study done by the EPA showed that few problems of contamination that were verified had been caused by poor practices above the ground, such as spillage, not fracking. Other studies even confirm that some areas have already had infected water before building drilling rigs. Fracking actually improves air quality because it replaces the use of other fossil fuels that pollute more such as coal (as stated in the previous paragraph). Fracking does not damage the surface because the whole process takes place underground. The only possible damage it can do is the damage done to the land when drilling rigs are built, but land is constantly being destroyed in the world either way (through building homes, hospitals, industries, power plants, etc). Overall people who fear fracking seem to over-exaggerate harmful effects.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/
62459458@N087603264656/

Hydraulic fracturing benefits our economy in multiple ways such as increasing available jobs and the amount of money that is in circulation. Fracking increases our energy supply, and replaces the use of coal and other harmful sources of energy that were previously used. Fracking is not proven to pollute groundwater, and current evidence can clearly back up all of these positive attributes associated with fracking.

Works Cited

http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking
http://www.what-is-fracking.com
http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_21612903/protest-against-fracking-goes-global
http://energytomorrow.org/energy/hydraulic-fracturing/#/type/all
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/15/156814490/from-coal-to-gas-the-potential-risks-and-rewards


Bigham, Roy. "UNC Chapel Hill Libraries: E-Journal List." Fracking Misunderstanding. Pollution Engineering, 1 Aug. 2012. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. <http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004>.


"Hydraulic fracturing--is it safe? Leading energy research group says it can be." National Driller July 2011: 42+. General OneFile. Web. 15 Sept. 2012.


Peltier, Robert. "Fracking Problems." Power 155.8 (2011): 6. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Sept. 2012.

-Kush Shah-

Could this be an END to Veterinary Medicine?

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/78428166@N00/5559945520/

   Drug-resistant bacteria spreads when farmers mix antibiotics with livestock feed, which improves livestock immune systems and stimulates the animal’s growth. The drug-resistant bacteria circulation can become a serious danger to humans. It causes some viruses and diseases, such as MRSA and E.coli to become untreatable. Many want to ban animal antibiotics altogether, but there’s a need to do more research. Banning all antibiotics has consequences that deserve further evaluation before such a huge and inhumane decision is made. Agricultural antibiotic use leads to antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can affect public health, but banning animal antibiotic usage can affect many pets, household health and common veterinary medicine styles. 

   The Nature article “Pig Out” argues that, “the overuse of antibiotics in farm animals is a global issue. Human propensity for trade and travel ensures that resistant bacteria spreads easily around the world, so as long as any one country pumps its pigs and poultry full of the drugs, everyone is at risk.” The author explains how Denmark reduced the use of antibiotics in their livestock by 60%. The country created surveillance systems that monitored the use of antibiotics and limited the amount of money that veterinarians could make by selling antibiotics. In addition to reducing antibiotic usage, the program also increased pork production by 50%. Denmark accomplished this goal by informing the public about the issue and continues to keep them informed with current data. The Danish Agriculture and Food Council controls almost all the Danish farmers. This council keeps track of antibiotic usage and its effects and then uses this data to keep the regulations active. The author continues to acknowledge that the Food and Drug Administration knows antibiotics are being used regularly in livestock and they also have a way to monitor the usage, but the system is not being used. The author feels that, “researchers should be able to survey ten farms in ten US states, for example, and extrapolate those data nationally to build up an accurate picture of antibiotic use.” The research needs to be reported in order to raise awareness.
    Drug-resistant bacteria cannot be stopped or killed by antibiotics. Antibiotics were created to kill bacteria and now that some strains of bacteria are becoming immune to the antibiotics, the diseases caused by these strong bacteria are more dangerous to humans and animals than ever before. Livestock is spreading these drug-resistant bacteria because the farmers are placing more and more antibiotics into the feed. The author of the editorial “Save Antibiotics for People, Not Poultry” said that humans put their lives on the line by eating the meat, so that farmers make a better profit because the livestock can grow bigger and better. The author of “Harm to Others: The Social Cost of Antibiotics in Agriculture” says the animals are “prisoners” and that they do not have the choice to eat the feed with or without antibiotics.
   Banning antibiotics all together is a very harsh and irrational idea. Research and monitoring on this subject has been completed. Testing has been completed on the amount of antibiotics being placed in livestock feed and data has been collected to determine how and why this usage of antibiotics causes the spread of drug-resistant bacteria. But the research is not enough to make such a huge decision such as banning the use of antibiotics in animals. More examples of how it’s affecting humans, along with true evidence that antibiotics in livestock feeds are causing the spread of drug-resistant bacteria, should be provided to the public.
   To what extent would animals be affected by the banning of antibiotics for agricultural usage? It makes us ask: does this pertain to just livestock such as pigs, chickens, cows, etc. or does it include any type of animal such as household pets? Banning antibiotics must be specific to livestock animals and only antibiotics sold to farmers by veterinarians should be banned. If animal antibiotics are banned, then veterinarian medicine will be greatly affected. Veterinarians will not be able to provide an owner of a cat or dog antibiotics in order to help them recover from a sickness or disease. Stopping veterinarians from doing their job of healing animals is inhumane. Dr. Hurd, the author of “ Commentary: Meat without Drugs Could Be Inhumane,” explains that animals on organic farms are not treated when they’re sick and no antibiotics are given to help their illness. This is wrong; medicine should be available to cure animals of their illness just the same as humans when they are sick. Organic meats are more expensive than standard meats; if antibiotics were banned would the nation, as a whole, want to pay for the more expensive meat? 

   Before jumping to a huge and inhumane decision, more research needs to be completed in order to collect better evidence and determine if antibiotics really should be banned. If antibiotics were banned, there should be strict regulations and guidelines for the protection of household pets that will not prevent veterinarians from doing their job. If the data collected does not provide concrete evidence that the antibiotic usage in animals is not a threat to humans then maybe scientists can take another route to handle drug-resistant bacteria circulation.

Works Cited:

Anomaly, Jonny. “Harm to Others: The Social Cost of Antibiotics in Agriculture.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22.5(2009):423-35. Springer Link. Web. 15 September 2012.

Heilig, Steve, Philip Lee, and Lester Breslow. "Curtailing Antibiotic Use in Agriculture." Western Journal of Medicine 176.(2002): n. pag. PMC. Jan. 2002. Web. 13 September 2012.

Hurd. "Commentary: 'Meat without Drugs' Could Be Inhumane." Drovers Cattle Network. N.p., 26 June 2012. Web. 16 September 2012.

“Pig Out.” Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 21 June 2012. Web. 8 September 2012.


http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Antibiotic_resistant_bacteria

http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AntimicrobialResistance/NationalAntimicrobialResistanceMonitoringSystem/default.htm

http://www.creators.com/opinion/daily-editorials/save-antibiotics-for-people-not-poultry.html

Erica Gurganus

Genetically Modified Foods: It's What's For Dinner

Imagine having the ability to use a seed that produces 32 million more tons of yield than the normal seed for that crop. Imagine if that seed could produce the same amount of yield as competing seeds while using 29 million less acres of land. Now imagine that using this advanced seed creates $10 billion in benefits for farmers yearly. You actually don’t have to use your imagination to picture these scenarios, since these dreams have actually happened. But do these seemingly endless benefits add up enough to outweigh the massive potential negatives? The rapid development of Genetically Modified (GM) crops has given farmers the potential to use super seeds that produce massive yields using less land. However, many people question GM crops’ impact on both human and environmental health. Additionally, seeds created by scientists, and not by nature, provoke scary images of a planet where our food comes from the lab, not from the land. Given all these potentially major consequences, the production of Genetically Modified crops needs to be reigned in as much as possible to protect the health of the world’s population and prevent agribusiness from controlling humanity’s food source.

The purpose of creating a modified crop is to give the crop a beneficial trait that it did not originally have, such as making the crop decompose at a slower rate or making it resistant to a certain type of pesticide. The process that actually creates these crops is a scientifically impressive one; it involves taking a gene with a desirable trait, one which does not occur naturally in the crop being modified, from an organism and inserting it into the crop’s DNA. The gene can be taken from virtually any organism, meaning that a wheat crop could have a cow gene in it. The surface benefits this process begets are obviously quite appealing, because what farmer would not want a crop that would be more resistant to droughts than the alternative?

However, many factors of this process make a lot of farmers and consumers feel uneasy. To begin with, changing an organism’s genetic roots is completely unprecedented. Only in the past few decades has humanity had the technology to alter organisms on such a basic level, so the long term effects on humans consuming modified foods are not fully known by anybody. Furthermore, it is unknown how the organism will react once its DNA has been changed, because it is not meant to have its fundamental structure messed with. Adding a new gene could alter the organism in many other ways, potentially creating harmful mutations or disrupting the normal functioning of other genes. Also, genes can be taken from organisms that are not normally consumed by humans, so it cannot be accurately determined what effects the typically non-edible gene will have when consumed.

 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fmei/3332273870/

Another unknown aspect of GM crops is their allergenicity. Many people have very serious allergies to a variety of substances, such as peanuts. Say, for example, a peanut gene could be inserted into a tomato to make it fully mature in half the normal time, however that particular gene causes people to have peanut allergies. A person with a life-threatening peanut disease could be enjoying a nice pre-dinner salad and then unwittingly suffer a very serious allergic reaction. It is a serious health risk for people to continue developing and consuming these crops without first conducting extensive studies to figure out the effect of allergens in them.

GM crop supporters dismiss many anti-GM claims as what-if scenarios, and their assessment is correct. However, that is exactly why GM crops should be avoided for the time being, because there is simply not enough information out there that proves the crops’ safety. Just like how people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, GM crops should be considered not safe until proven safe in the court of human health. Given that so little is known about how the crops react when modified and how humans react to consuming those crops, it is frightening to know that as much as 70% of the food you would find in a local grocery store contains some amount of genetically modified ingredients.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/kt/3096246152/

Health risks are not the only scary aspect of widespread use of GM crops. The biotechnology corporation Monsanto is the largest seed company on Earth and controls 90% of all GM seeds, and is so evil that it makes Goldman-Sachs look like UNICEF. In 1980, a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court allowed for companies to gain patents on “live human-made microorganisms”, thus indirectly allowing for GM seeds to be patented. Though the ruling was made with good intentions, Monsanto has taken advantage of it and brought it to extreme levels. Since the Supreme Court handed down their 1980 ruling, Monsanto has filed thousands of biotechnology patents and has been awarded at least 646 of them. Though the idea of claiming intellectual property over a seed, arguably the single most fundamental object of nature, may initially seem somewhat preposterous, it is exactly what the chemical giant has achieved in droves.

Even more disturbing than their vast amount of patents on nature is the extent to which Monsanto goes in order to protect these patents. Monsanto makes farmers that use their seed sign contracts that disallow them from saving seeds from year to year, forcing them to purchase new seed each year. Saving seed and using it the next year has been fundamental to human survival since the beginning of agriculture itself, yet it is now legally possible for one corporation to change practices that have been around for millennia. Any farmer who decides to rebel against the iron fist of Monsanto faces the wrath of their giant, relentless legal team. Since 1997, the company has filed hundreds of lawsuits against farmers for alleged patent violations like saving seeds. Monsanto uses their relatively limitless resources to bully farmers in these lawsuits, legally harassing the farmers into submission because they simply do not have the resources to compete with a giant multinational corporation. Most farmers settle before the cases even go to court, because they know paying a settlement will be less costly than long, drawn out legal proceedings that will likely bankrupt them.

You might be curious how it is even possible for such a large corporation to track the use of their seeds so closely. They achieve this through their huge network of investigators, which go through small farming communities and spy on the farmers there, even going so far as taking surveillance video of them, to ensure the terms of their contracts and patents are being adhered to. Anyone who goes against the wishes of the company gets confronted and threatened. In 2002, a Monsanto representative barged into a local store in tiny Eagleville, Missouri, and threatened the store owner with legal action for his alleged unauthorized use of Monsanto seed. The representative even perpetuated the company’s image of being a billionaire bully by reportedly saying “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.” When the company realized that they had accused the wrong person (the man was a store owner, not a farmer), they dropped it quickly and never even apologized, much less offered financial compensation, to the man. The fact that a multibillion dollar corporation aggressively goes out of their way to financially ruin, to the tune of $15 million awarded in royalties, farmers who work hard to earn a modest living is disgusting and is unfortunately quite exemplary of the amount of power large businesses have in this country.

All of these actions are from a company that, again, controls up to 90% of all GM seeds. If we continue to expand our use of GM crops in food, Monsanto will have control over most of our food supply. Their past actions show that their only motives are gaining profit and asserting their dominance over subordinates. The health of the people that end up consuming their product is clearly not very high on their list of priorities. If we simply stand by and allow GM crops to become the standard, not the exception, then one of the most evil corporations in the world will be the ones determining what humans eat. If thinking about that does not make you sick to your stomach, then the genetically modified food on your plate probably will.

Bartlett, Donald L., and James B. Steele. "Monsanto's Harvest of Fear." Vanity Fair, May 2008. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. <http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805>.

Cesca, Bob. "Monsanto: The Evil Corporation in Your Refrigerator." DailyFinance.com. 4 Feb. 2010. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. <http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/02/04/monsanto-the-evil-corporation-in-your-refrigerator/>.

Penner, Rolf. "The Future of Wheat." n.d.: n. pag. National Post (Canada). 19 Aug. 2009. Web. 17 Sept. 2012. <http://www.performanceplants.com/media/the-future-of-wheat>.

Whitman, Deborah B. "Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?" Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? CSA, Apr. 2000. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. <http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php>.

http://www.udel.edu/physics/scen103/CGZ/consofplants.html

http://www.safe-food.org/-issue/dangers.html

Eric Putler

Antibiotics in Farming: Innocent Until Proven Guilty

ANTIBIOTICS IN FARMING: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

http://www.flickr.com/photos/publicenergy/1846375599/sizes/m/in/photostream/

Scientists estimate that the American population experiences approximately 76 million foodborne illnesses each year; a statistic that would look much different if antibiotics were not present in the meat production industry today. Despite their life-saving qualities, antibiotics have raised new concerns relating to developing antibiotic resistance. Many believe that antibiotic resistance transfers to humans after consuming meat infected with an antibiotic resistant bacteria. Many countries have already taken measures to either reduce or altogether halt farm-use antibiotics. The United States’ citizens and other countries as well, continually pressure the United States to follow their lead, but banning antibiotics’ usage seems unreasonable, given the unproven link between human resistance and animal resistance, antibiotics’ usefulnesses, and the fact that the argument banning them lacks validity.

To begin, antibiotic resistance refers to bacteria that builds tolerance to a certain antibiotic treatment after being exposed too frequently or not fully. This leads to problems when people assume that humans receive the resistant bacteria once they consume the infected meat; leaving them defenseless against certain illnesses considered easily antibiotically treated, if they did not posses the resistant bacteria. Despite that the recent antibiotic increase in animals parallels the resistance increase in humans, Dr. Margaret Mellon states, “There is no evidence that antibiotic resistance is not a problem, but there is insufficient evidence as to how big the problem is,” and also, no conclusive evidence of a direct link between the two actually exists. Without this link, arguing antibiotics in farming as a problem for human health seems illogical. 

Though lacking knowledge about a connection between animal resistance and human resistance, some countries have already taken measures against antibiotics; reducing and even banning antibiotics not medically used. The European Union and Canada have established a ban, following Denmark, who banned the use first. Denmark’s antibiotic control system turned out successful, but such methods in the United States would surely harbor less success. We lack a farming industry forum, such as the Danish Agriculture Food Council, that allows all farmers to communicate and connect. Without coordination means, an American ban implies future failure. Also, any issue necessitates public support; something nearly impossible here, with little public awareness and opposing agriculture and veterinary sectors.

Banning American non-therapeutic antibiotics generates another negative when people forget the advantages that the drugs provide for the meat industry. While antibiotic resistance itself remains a problem, its potential impact on human health may not outweigh the economic and health benefits that antibiotics yield. Obviously these antibiotics keep animals healthy and disease-free, but they also impact the business market for producers, consumers, and veterinarians. For one, feeding animals antibiotics daily can increase their weight gain from three to four percent. This increases meat production efficiency relating to both costs and production rates. For example, in 1999, hog producers saved an estimated $63 million employing low-level antibiotic treatments. Not only does it save the farmers money, but it reduces consumer costs and supports healthy competition and research among veterinarians. Without these antibiotics, consumers would face high prices while producers would face high costs; a lose-lose situation.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68751915@N05/6736142729/

In addition to the forgotten benefits that antibiotics supply, the fact that scientists have disproven many ways suggested that antibiotics negatively impact humans serves as another flaw in the argument against them. While the argument continually examines the drug’s non-medical usage, it often fails to mention that farmers employ most antibiotics for treatment. Also, several facts and statistics furnished for the argument render just downright false. For instance, the FDA says farming practices use eighty percent of antibiotics sold, however people cannot accredit this fact, because the FDA doesn’t even monitor human medicinal antibiotics. Other important points include that some animal antibiotics do not even hold fit for human use and that a large discrepancy exists between the number of individual animals versus individual humans. If considered proportionally, humans exercise significantly more antibiotic treatment than animals.

Because the argument for banning non-therapeutic antibiotics falls short from the truth, the evidence behind an animal resistance and human resistance correlation lacks foundation, and antibiotics create several advantages, eliminating their use in the farming industry appears far from reasonable. While further research and monitoring may help to identify successful reduction methods, I do not believe that we have neither enough support nor knowledge to take any further steps today. Currently, viewing antibiotics in farming as a health hazard seems irrational, and antibiotics deserve a more positive reputation until actually proven guilty.

SOURCES 

McEwen, Scott A. “Antimicrobial Use and Resistance in Nature.” Clinical Infectious Diseases 34 (2002): 93-106. Google Scholar. Web. 14 September 2012.

"NPPC Responds To Slaughter's Accusations About Antibiotics." National Hog Farmer 56.6 (2011): 33. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Sept. 2012.

http://whyfiles.org/099food/4.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/safe/overview.html



XOXO Madison Williams

Citations

Citations 

     Go Team aims to make reading blogposts as simple as possible.  Due to our own familiarity with the MLA style and hopefully our target readers' familiarity with it as well, we will be using an adjusted form of the MLA style.  Generally in high school, the MLA style is used and incorporated in courses the most often, so we want to make sure we provide citations that our young readers will understand and be able to easily navigate around.  Most of our citations will be for internet articles or journals which will be formatted in a regular MLA style, but we will provide simply a direct link for internet sources that can be accessed as well.  

    Citations are important to the team, because we want to credit other work while building upon our own argument.  They not only give credit to the original writers, but help establish our own credibility as well.  Readers will have the option to explore our topics in more depth and get a first hand look at the basis of our research.  Not to mention, we are really not tryna get in trouble with the UNC honor court.

This is how we do it:

An Article in a web magazine:

Author Name. "Article Name." Title of the Web Magazine. Publisher Name, Publication Date. Web. Date of Access. 

An Article in an Online Scholarly Journal: 

Author Name. "Article Name." Title of the Publication Volume Number.Issue Number (Year of Publication): Page Numbers. Name of Database. Web. Date of Access. 

Internet Site: 

Actual link to the site. 

Introducing the Team

GO TEAM


As five students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, we are continuously seeking information to further our own education and to share with our readers.The Go Team Blog (GTB) writes for you: people like us around the world. Through collaboration paired with our own individual ideas, we will present blog posts that will educate you on topics such as the natural sciences, social sciences, and art. Expect to read both informative and argumentative blogposts. We hope you see our posts as entertaining, simple, and easy to follow as we do not take ourselves too seriously. Through our posts, we hope that we can inspire you to go find your own answers in the world. Welcome to the team!


Erica Gurganus

Hello there, I’m Erica. Welcome to a blog created by five first-year college students at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. I will be one of the five bloggers and hope you enjoy. I am from Jacksonville, NC and will always call that home. I am a hardworking student who loves to spend time with family and friends. I love fashion, photography and the beach. I’m currently undecided on my major; I plan on exploring during my first year to help me decide. Hopefully you enjoy my fun, spirited, always-with-a-picture posts; and maybe even have a little chuckle here and there. Please stay and look around and give some feedback and thoughts. I would love to hear them!


Taylor Evans

Born and raised in Houston, Texas, I now live in Chapel Hill, North Carolina and attend one of the greatest research universities in the world: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I am a Texas girl through and through, but I believe that the only way to grow as a person is to leave what you know and love and figure out who you are by yourself and in a new environment. I am currently undecided on my major of choice, but I am specifically interested in humanity courses and how the past has shaped our future. Even though I am particularly engaged with the humanities, I have a curiosity that exceeds all the disciplines.



Madison Williams


Hey ya’ll! My name is Madison Williams, and I’m currently a freshmen here at UNC-Chapel Hill. I made the short trek from Wilmington this fall, and I am so excited to start the next chapter of my life. I’m currently a business major, but I can’t wait to explore all of the other future pathway choices here at UNC. Because my major is business, I’m interested in current issues and keeping up with economic trends. I consider myself a leader and held leadership positions in student government and several other clubs in the past. Although I’m serious about academics and in situations when I need to be, I’m generally a laid back and casual stereotypical teenager.




Kush Shah

My name is Kush Shah. I was born in Chicago, Illinois. I am currently a first year at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I used to wrestle varsity for my high school and I placed in the state tournament. I was also the team captain my senior year and have played many other leadership roles in my life. I enjoy playing basketball and love watching it as well. I am a sports fanatic. In my spare time I am hanging out with friends, going to the gym, or spending time with family. I am very focused in my studies and am currently hoping to major in Business. Although I may not be the most intelligent student; I will work as hard as I can to accomplish my goals. I don’t judge other people and am respectful to everyone.





Eric Putler


Hi, I’m Eric Putler. Born in Lafayette, Indiana. I now live in Chapel Hill, North Carolina by way of Vancouver, Canada and Sunnyvale, California. I am a freshman at the University of North Carolina and a recent graduate of St. Francis High School in Mountain View, California. I plan on going to the Kenan-Flagler Business School at Carolina. I have a wide range of interests, of which music and sports are most prevalent, including a probably unhealthy devotion to college football and the Oakland Athletics. In terms of music, I love all types but with a special inclination towards rap music. Dr. Dre is my hero. I hope to provide you, dear reader, with entertaining posts that may even teach you a thing or two.