Hey, groupies!
When you have found 2-3 articles that you believe are related to the issues you are researching for the America Eats project, use the comment section below to copy/paste links to the online articles you have selected.
No anonymous posting, please!
Include your first name, last initial, EDA period # and EDA teacher name.
Include your topic group # and title (to help with sorting in case of mistaken posts).
Copy/paste the article title and author plus the http:// address for each article chosen.
Let's build a topic library to help your entire topic group.
Ben O. EDA Period 2 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteI don’t agree with this reasoning because i think that we deserve a right to know what we are eating. on the other hand, if it is completely harmless, and they are actually conserving resources by feeding us cloned cows, and people get kind of freaked out when they hear that they are eating a cloned animal, it is somewhat unnecessary. With that said, i still think that we deserve to know if we are eating meat grown in a lab or not.
I think that if i knew i was eating a cloned animal, i would be grateful that they told me, but i would still be pretty weirded out by it. For example, when i eat yogurt and i am informed that there is live bacteria on it, i feel kind of queasy, but atleast i know. I think that if a company decides to use some kind of cloned meat, then we should know before we eat it.
I definitely agree with him much more than i do with the California Farm Bureau. If we are paying for it, we deserve the right to assume that are food is what it says it is. But i don’t think we actually have that right to assume with everything that’s going on behind our backs at the “farms” (factories). I mean, Kevin Kowalcyk and his parents had no expectation that their son might have gotten e-coli from that burger and died, and they shouldn’t have had to. We deserve to expect our food to be what it is portrayed to be, but we can’t.
These labels on cigarettes, alcohol, boardgames, etc. actually would make me more comfortable using the products, it assures me that the company producing them doesn’t have any issue letting me know the bad things that could happen in result of their product. I think
that overall, these labels have more of a positive impact than a negative one.
Yes, these things would just lower my desire to buy them, considering i don’t buy them anyway due to the headaches they give me. But these labels just make them seem, really kind of dangerous to even drink one. It would definitely make me think twice about buying one.
Usually, if i really want something the bad things i hear about it aren’t going to stop me. For example, if i wanted to go to McDonald’s, someone telling me that it’s greasy and fattening, and clogs your veins and all that, wouldn’t stop me from going and eating it. but on the other hand, if someone were to SHOW me the effects of it, and what’s REALLY inside of it (fillers, pink slime etc.) Then that would be a whole nother story.
I think that it is really shady and not right. If we can say anything we want about the President of the United States, and be fine, but we can’t criticize (or even say we don’t want to eat) food from these major food companies without being sued, then something is definitely wrong here.
That’s really scary. If something so moving, like her son dying, wasn’t enough to get her to speak up, then she must have a really good reason not to. Which is scary. The thing is, if she says anything about the big company, and her word is publicized, the company has all the big time lawyers to back them up, and she has nothing. So really she was in between a rock and a hard place.
One pro is that they know what’s going on so they know what to look out for. One con is that they know what really goes on, and it might be kind of sickening. Another con may be that they can’t say anything about it because of their legal dedication to that industry. So there are definitely ups and downs.
I think we all as a community should have a say in it. The saying really is true though, we vote with our dollars. Think about it, if a big chunk of people started buying grass fed beef, the price would probably start dropping, and if the price started dropping, and people knew the benefits from it, more and more people would start buying it, until it became the main thing that everyone was buying. And then the big chain companies would want to win their customers back, and switch over to grass fed. That would be awesome if that happened.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSam H EDA#4 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteA: I see why he says that it puts fear into people's mind but i think that some fear is good because we do not know that this food is one hundred percent safe to eat and i think that people should have a right to fear that until we know that there is nothing wrong with the food. I don’t want to have a huge food source that is completely contaminated with bad things so all in all i think that people should have a right to fear this food or at least not trust it one hundred percent.
I think that is would help know what they are eating and if the companies don’t lie about it then i think people are less inclined to be afraid. Personally I think that if I knew what was in the food I was eating I would feel a lot more comfortable. Though it could raise fear in some people because after seeing or hearing something like that people could become afraid which there is nothing wrong with. I also think that if the makers of the product here something like that they should fix the product and prove that it’s safe if they want people to continue to buy it.
’
He thinks that it is one of the most important battles to fight and i would agree with him because I believe that we have the right to know what is in our food so that we can make informed choices. The companies however may not ever want there to be a debate over this because it could cost them time and money and potentially put them out of business which is probably the worst case scenario
I think that they really don’t have an affect on people because not matter what the warning label says people still by them anyway and I also think that this goes back the others question does labeling put fear into people. If there are people who will buy cigarettes even though they have a warning label people will still buy food with warning labels
I don’t think that this would affect me a lot I would still buy them just maybe not as much or as often. The other thing is that this may not affect everyone and so I wouldn’t stop buying them unless I got some of these symptoms. I would personally feel better making the choice to drink them knowing that they are bad rather than drinking them not knowing that they can be harmful to health.
I personally think that if there was food facts in things like McDonalds people would be less likely to eat out there or at any fast food restaurant for that matter. I really don’t think that there is really any better way than to let people know and educate them on how bad for your health that is can be.
I think that she is being sued because so many people watch her show all the time and if she says that she doesn’t like the food and that she thinks it’s ban hundreds of people will hear and see that and they might agree with her and stop eating it. The companies are suing her because they don’t want people to think that there food is bad and not get as good business along with that I also think that it has a lot to do with money too because first of all they are suing her which gets them money. They would also lose money if people don’t buy their food.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCharlene K. EDA #1 Pelfrey Part 1
ReplyDeleteThis reason can be agreed upon or disagreed upon, the reason could be valid for certain consumers over reaction causing a disruption in the buying and selling of the product but in all actuality the consumer should and does have the right to know exactly what is in their food. Food is recalled when information is left out of the nutrition label, this subject should be treated exactly the same way as it is nutritional information.
’
Information about food would raise my fear at first by simply making me think of all the products I have eaten over the years but in the long run it would help me realize what is good and what is not. Which companies use clones, which companies treat animals and workers badly. It would help me make better decisions not only for me but for the environment as well because if people knew what they were eating things would change.
California Farm Bureau’s position is that consumers should be blissfully unaware of their food content, that consumers would panic. The CFB wants to treat all consumers like children or more accurately like cattle. Michael Pollan says that consumers should have the right to know what's in their food and how its grown. Maybe a slight panic over content might not be so bad, if the food companies have nothing to hide then why are they working so hard to make sure that no information about the products they sell us ever get out.
America in general is behind on labels like these, if you were to go to a gas station and look at a pack of cigarettes there would be a small label saying that cigarettes cause can cause cancer and such, on alcohol it should explain the risk of birth defects and so on, when a consumer looks at an appliance they can deduce that by using it the wrong way, such as a hairdryer, a person can electrocute his or herself. Most of the time people choose not to read the large warnings, not a lot of people want to bargain when death and dismemberment is on the other side. A warning label might force people to think about where their food really comes from.
Charlene K. EDA #1 Pelfrey Part 2
ReplyDeleteNot a lot of people truly understand the negative health effects that come with drinking energy drinks, people don’t usually understand that a healthy diet will give them all the energy they need to get through the day without the negative side effects that energy drinks harbor such as an overabundance of caffeine and sugars. If there were warning labels large enough to draw attention, people might read them and really understand what they are putting in their bodies. It might not help too much though, too many people are addicted to energy drinks and it might not be enough to simply tell them how bad it is for them.
Labels are a sort of taboo in supermarkets these days, the average consumer doesn’t really check the contents of his or her food unless said consumer is on diet or trying to limit down on something, but even then they mostly trust the “low fat”, or “0 calorie” decoration on the cover. It would be much more effective to make nutrition facts the biggest thing on the package, the first thing a consumer sees instead of a shark with a hat or a dinosaur telling anyone who cares to listen that their brand has less calories.
In general it is just disturbing to think that a person can be sued by a major corporation for simply stating their opinion. One of the main rights our country was founded upon was the right to free speech. Notice I say “was”, That particular law goes against our constitutional rights to protect corporations that are clearly doing wrong things.
It is horrible and sickening that not only did Barbara Kowalcyk lose her son to an over glorified meat company, she can't disclose any information to help anyone else keep themselves and their families safe. It is horrifying to think that the people in government positions have such loyalties to their old employers that they would bend the law to such severity. There should be positives, they would have seen what goes on behind closed doors and been able to stop it but they only make it worse.
’
Consumers should have the right to make every decision regarding the food that we eat. Consumers should know what goes on every step of the food process and be able to say no when we see something that we don't like. Nothing should be hidden from the consumer.
Cliff D. Mrs Carr Per. 1
ReplyDeleteProp. 37: Genetic Food Labels Defeated by: Stacy Finz
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Prop-37-Genetic-food-labels-defeated-4014669.php
Prop. 37: Why it's good that California said no to GMO labeling by: Daniel Hayden
http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic-farming-gardening/blogs/prop-37-why-its-good-that-california-said-no-to-gmo-labeli#
Yes on Prop. 37 by: Stacy Malkan
http://www.carighttoknow.org/cost_statement
Drew G. Period 1 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteMike Adams “Whats Really in Our Food”http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/
Melissa Healy “Government to food industry: More nutrients and less junk in kids' food and advertising for kids'food(please)” http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/28/news/la-heb-kids-food-advertising-20110428
Thomas B. Kelley & Ronald Collins “Repeal Colorados Food Sedition Law” http://www.cspinet.org/foodspeak/oped/food_sedition.html
Andres C. EDA#3 Pelfrey
ReplyDeletehttp://www.occupymonsanto360.org/2012/02/23/monsantos-government-ties/ By: Occupy Monsanto. Title: Monsanto’s Government Ties. Summary: People are having conflicts with former Monsanto company workers working in the government, for one example is Margaret Miller, she contributed to a scientific report while working at Monsanto, shortly after worked for the FDA and had to review the same report she helped make.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/business/16clone.html?ref=cloning&_r=0 By:Andrew Martin and Andrew Pollack Title: F.D.A. Says Food From Cloned Animals Is Safe Summary: The F.D.A said that cloned meat is safe to eat, this made most food companies extremely happy, people are still concerned about cloned foods, but the food companies aren’t. They actually are rejoicing about the fact that the government has decided to pass it as safe, but some people think it was only passed because of some former Monsanto workers.
Tess M. EDA period 3 Pelfrey Part 1
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with this reasoning because I think that people need to know what they are putting in their bodies. If it is something that would be creating fear then they should not be eating it in the first place. Some may say that ignorance is bliss and that they don’t believe the food they are eating is doing any harm to their bodies. I think that if a person is paying for food, they deserve to know every single thing that has put into their food.
I think that it depends on the food. If there are no harmful ingredients in my food then it obviously won’t scare me, but if there is a harmful ingredient such as ammonia, then I would definitely be fearful and would not want to eat that product anymore. Others might say that you cannot be afraid of something if you know nothing about it, but I disagree with this.
Michael Pollan clearly believe that people should know what is in their food while the California Farm Bureau thinks that people should be ignorant of such things. They both make a good point, but I have to agree with Michael Pollan because I think people have a right to know what is in the food that they are eating.
’
There are many products that have warnings on them. Cigarettes have cancer warnings on them, but the people that smoke either do not pay attention to these warnings or do not care. Cleaning products have a warning label telling users to call poison control if any is swallowed.
Even toothpaste has a warning label on it saying that if too much is consumed at one time to call poison control. I think that it is a person’s personal decision whether or not they are going to pay attention to these labels.
’
I have never had an energy drink and I do not plan on it. I have always known that they are bad for you so I have decided not to drink them. I know that if I saw a warning label like that on a product that I used I would not use or consume it anymore. I do not think that it is alright to risk your health over something as frivolous as a beverage.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteI think that labels are fairly effective in helping consumers make decisions about their foods. For the consumers that pay attention and read them they can be very helpful because these people most likely care about what they are putting into their bodies. For the consumers who don’t pay attention to labels they obviously aren’t going to help at all because those consumers don’t care in the first place. I think a more effective way of educating people about their food would be to maybe have advertisements on the television that provide a little more information about common food products. Also, documentaries such as Food Inc. really help to notify the public.
’
I think it is ridiculous that she got sued for speaking her mind. The first amendment says that she has the right to freedom of speech. I don’t think that their should be a law that prohibits people from saying bad things about a food item. I think that we should have the right to say what we think and speak our minds. I think that this law is an infringement on the first amendment.
I think that the reason she did this is because she does not want to get in trouble with the company that produced the meat that killed her son. I think that this is horrible and that she has the right to say what she wants, especially since this company is responsible for the death of her child. Her speaking out about it would prevent it from happening again to another child so I think she should be able to.
The pros of them working for the government are that they might be able to make stricter regulations that prevent these companies from producing harmful products. They might also be able to educate people about what it is that these companies do. Unfortunately, these people probably still have loyalties to the companies that used to employ them rather than the american people.
I think that the consumers should have the right to decide these things. The consumers are the ones whose money is going towards these products. We live under a democracy so I think that we should have the right to vote on these matters.
Calvin T. EDA Period 5 Pelfry
ReplyDeleteTopic 8 The Veil
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020044923_gmo03m.html by Mellisa Allison This article says a ballot in California was deafeated; it was a ballot to have GMO’s labeled
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/genetically-modified-food_n_1690653.html by Cara Santa Maria This article shows different views about GMO’s. Also it shows actually what the science of GMO’s are.
http://www.care2.com/causes/what-monsanto-and-pepsi-dont-want-you-to-know-about-your-food.html by Emily L. This article shows how much money companies like Monsanto spent to kill Prop 37
Gabi P. Period 4 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteTopic 8 The veil
Scared Of Genetically Modified Food? It Might Be The Only Way To Feed The World
Article by Michael J. Coren
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681081/scared-of-genetically-modified-food-it-might-be-the-only-way-to-feed-the-world
Riley Knouse, EDA Period 6 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDelete'Oprah' Case To Test Food-Libel Law -- Beef Industry Says She Damaged Sales
By Aaron Epstein
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19971229&slug=2580600
Veggie Libel Suits Are Meant to Slapp Free Speech
http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn733veggiesed
Monsanto Website
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/moe-parr.aspx
Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers
By CBSNews
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4048288.html
Initiative to require labeling GMO food to be submitted
Melissa Allison
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020044923_gmo03m.html
Spilling the Beans: Unintended GMO Health Risks
By Jeffrey Smith
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_11361.cfm
Helena F. EDA Period 5 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteTopic 8: The Veil
Cloned Meat May Already Have Invaded Our Food Supply, Posing Alarming Health Risks
http://www.alternet.org/story/147878/cloned_meat_may_already_have_invaded_our_food_supply,_posing_alarming_health_risks By: Martha Rosenberg This article is agreat source of information on the cloned meat epidemic in North America.
Save seed cleaners
http://aidindia.org/main/content/view/758/355/ By: Linn Cohen-Cole This article “describes the struggle to protect people's right to save seeds.”
Ashley A. EDA #4, Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteTopic 8: The Veil
Title: "New Mexico lawmakers reject bill on genetically modified food" by Julie Ann Grimm
http://www.currentargus.com/ci_22580592/new-mexico-lawmakers-reject-bill-genetically-modified-food
Title: "Anti-GMO protests continue" by Chris D'Angelo
http://thegardenisland.com/news/local/anti-gmo-protests-continue/article_a506965a-7681-11e2-861d-001a4bcf887a.html?comment_form=true
Title:"What You Need to Know About Genetically Engineered Food" by Greg Jaffe
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/what-you-need-to-know-about-genetically-engineered-food/272931/
Gabi P. EDA Pd. 4 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteTopic 8 The veil
Mcdonald's food now comes with warning label
By Sporty Afros(?)
http://sportyafros.com/nutrition/mcdonalds-food-now-comes-with-a-warning-label/
Haley Lowe, Period 6, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeletehttp://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/moe-parr.aspx
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-10-20/politics/cheeseburger.bill_1_cheeseburger-bill-fast-food-chains-food-industry?_s=PM:POLITICS
http://cldc.org/2012/01/09/aeta-veggie-libel/
Bryn T-B, EDA period 6, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteTopic 8- The Veil
“Battle Brewing Over Labeling of Genetically Modified Food” by Amy Harmon and Andrew Pollack http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/science/dispute-over-labeling-of-genetically-modified-food.html?_r=0
"Let's Throw the Book at 'Veggie Libel Laws'" by Ellen Goodman http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-01-13/news/1998013094_1_winfrey-oprah-cow-disease
Kailey S. EDA Period 2, Ms. Pelfry
ReplyDeleteTopic 8: The Veil
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/the-ag-gag-laws-hiding-factory-farm-abuses-from-public-scrutiny/254674/
This article is a bit biased, but it addresses the “Ag Gag” law which criminalizes anyone trying to find out about animal abuse and hazardous conditions in factories. A man tells a personal account of how he spied in factories, the things he observed, and the reasons behind and consequences of these goings ons.
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/food-how-altered/
This article is about Genetically Modified foods and plants. Since we have to learn to look at things both ways, this article is important because it looks at all the positive things that genetically modified food has to offer, and answers some of the most frequently asked questions about it.
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/moe-parr.aspx
This is not necessarily an article, but it is relevant. This is Monsanto’s argument against Moe Parr (seed cleaner from Food Inc.) that brings to light their opinion on things. This page also has a link that address Food Inc., the company’s opinion on it, and answers some questions viewers had about issues brought up in it. It also has a link to Monsanto’s official injunction (charge) against Parr.
http://www.rd.com/slideshows/6-gross-food-ingredients-you-didnt-know-you-were-eating/
This one’s not really an article, just some more disturbing ingredients consumers don’t typically know they are eating.
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-10-20/politics/cheeseburger.bill_1_cheeseburger-bill-fast-food-chains-food-industry?_s=PM:POLITICS
This is a short article that is a bit outdated, but of makes it more clear as to what “cheeseburger laws” are.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021929_groceries_food_products.html
This is definitely a very biased article, but it brings up some of the ways that food manufacturers deceive their customers, and hide important information from them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/03/everything-you-need-to-know-about-californias-genetically-modified-food-debate-in-one-post/
This article is very impartial and basically just sums up all current knowledge about genetically modified foods and answers frequently asked questions about them.
Tess M. EDA Period 3 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteTopic 8: Should a company have the power to decide what information to give to consumers about the food it produces?
Nutrition Facts Required For Fast Food by Dan Harriman
http://www.livestrong.com/article/287794-nutrition-facts-required-for-fast-food/
This article talks about how in 2010 President Obama signed a bill that requires fast food restaurants to list the amount of calories in each item. The article claims that this causes consumers to make healthier decisions.
Why Aren’t G.M.O. Foods Labeled? by Mark Bittman
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/why-arent-g-m-o-foods-labeled/
This article is slightly biased, but it talks about the dangers of cross-breeding G.M.O. foods with organic foods and it discusses what is being done to have these foods labeled.
Living in Color: The Potential Dangers of Artificial Dyes by Rachel Hennessy
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelhennessey/2012/08/27/living-in-color-the-potential-dangers-of-artificial-dyes/
This article discusses the concerns about artificial dyes in common food and cosmetic products. It talks about how throughout history many common dyes have been found to be dangerous and how some dyes are linked to ADHD.
Evelyn S, EDA Period 4, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDelete#8 The Veil
My Dream Food Label by Mark Bittman
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/opinion/sunday/bittman-my-dream-food-label.html
Companies Set to Fight Food-Label Plan by Monya Baker
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=companies-set-to-fight-food-la
Cristian R. EDA Period 1, EDA Teacher Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390876/Unlabelled-clone-meat-allowed-shop-shelves-food-safety-proposals-ripped-up.html BY: SEAN POULTER
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/lawyers-pepper-food-firms-lawsuits-over-labeling-1B6001022
By: Herb Weisbaum , NBC News
Alex B. EDA P1, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteProp 37: Why California’s Ballot Initiative on GM Food Is About Politics More than Science by Bryan Walsh
http://science.time.com/2012/11/06/prop-37-why-californias-ballot-initiative-on-gm-food-is-about-politics-more-than-science/
Food Labeling Proposition 37 Down by Double Digits by CBS San Francisco
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/11/06/california-considers-prop-37-labeling-requirement-for-gmo-food/
Why Did Prop 37 fail? by Karl Haro van Mogel
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/11/why-did-proposition-37-fail/#.USOxjqXFV7s
Holden K. EDA #2 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about the miRNA that is transferred into our body when we consume a large quantity of genetically modified products. This means that the gene regulators in plants mix with our RNA.
http://www.t
heatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/the-very-real-danger-of-genetically-modified-foods/251051/
In this article, the author gives us reasons why we have a right to know what is in out food. However, it is strongly biased towards the author's point of view.
http://food-ethics.com/2010/09/28/the-right-to-know-what-im-eating/
This article mentions multiple instances in which people are sued for voicing their opinion. Even the president was almost sued for saying he didn't like broccoli.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june98/fooddef_1-20.html
Keaton D, EDA, Period 2, Mrs. Pelfrey
ReplyDeletehttp://food-ethics.com/2010/09/28/the-right-to-know-what-im-eating/
This website has good information about the topic. It may be a bit bias because the website is about eating healthy.
http://healthychild.org/blog/comments/do_you_have_a_right_to_know_whats_in_your_food/
On this website, it gave some great opinions along with good facts. It talks about laws that may be passed to make it so all food labels ust show what is in the food. Bias? Yes. Lots on info? Yes!
Nicole R. EDA period 4 Pelfrey
ReplyDeletehttp://www.policymic.com/articles/5226/gmo-foods-why-we-shouldn-t-label-or-worry-about-genetically-modified-products This says why they should not have to lable Genetically modified products becuase there is no reason.
http://www.pcccourier.com/2012/10/02/prop-37-no/ This article is bias. It is saying that GMO’s are safe.
Rachel S, EDA Period 4, Mrs Carr
ReplyDelete"Proposition 37: Proposal to label genetically modified foods is defeated" by Dana Hall and Matt O' Brien http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_21943915/proposition-37-trailing-early-returns
"12 Dangerous And Hidden Food Ingredients In Seemingly Healthy Foods" by Vivian Goldschmidt http://saveourbones.com/12-dangerous-ingredients/
"Consumer Products Contain Potentially Harmful Chemicals Not Listed on Labels" by http://www.silentspring.org
http://www.silentspring.org/our-research/research-updates/consumer-products-contain-potentially-harmful-chemicals-not-listed-lab
Do Corperates have too much power over what we eat?
ReplyDeleteEdmin published this.
Many people are trying to change the way food is being exposed to consumers and what details we should know about them.
http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/3819
Prop 37, Your right to know.
The Corperatate Institute.
We were close to having a law passed where all the food companies would have to put on their labels that it has GMO and other chemicals.
http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/08/prop37/?gclid=COW-vqLAxbUCFch7QgodvXcAhQ
Organic Companies are worrying about GMO in products.
New York Times.
If there is GMO in almost half the things that people eat, organic companies will soon be forgotten about, and then there will be no organic food around. Since no one is buying the organics now theres an oversupply.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/business/organic-food-purists-worry-about-big-companies-influence.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Bailey L. EDA Period 6 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteArticles that relate to Topic 8:
Veggie Libel Laws
By Dean Williamson
https://www.bozo.coop/co-op-food-blog/veggie-libel-laws
Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or helpful?
by Deborah B. Whitman
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
Veggie Libel
Agribusiness Seeks to Stifle Speech
by Ronald K. L. Collins
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Environment/Veggie_Libel.html
Chloey S. EDA Period 6 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteVeggie Libel Laws: Attempts At Silencing Animal Rights Advocates
Civil Liberties Defense Center
http://cldc.org/2012/01/09/aeta-veggie-libel/
Defaming a ham sandwich–Food Libel Laws
Defaming a ham sandwich–Food Libel Laws
http://reputationlaw.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/defaming-a-ham-sandwich-food-libel-laws/
Veggie Libel - Agribusiness Seeks to Stifle Speech
Ronald K. L. Collins
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Environment/Veggie_Libel.html
Ben O. EDA Period 2 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteArticle 1
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june98/fooddef_1-20.html
This is an article about the lawsuit against Oprah for speaking out against the beef industry
Article 2
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/fda-dont-ask-do/
This article is a little biased, but mainly facts. About the FDA and cloned meat
Article 3
http://www.labelgmos.org/the_science_genetically_modified_foods_gmo
This is an article about GMO’s (genetically modified foods)
Sydney Hoover EDA Period 1 Pelfrey
ReplyDeletehttp://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-labeling.aspx
Biased in Monsanto's Favor, Provides accurate but biased-ly worded in Monsanto's favor.
http://www.change.org/petitions/change-food-libel-laws-to-allow-us-to-know-the-truth-about-our-food
Good info, again, slightly biased.
http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/37/
Strictly information on prop 37
http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.5/cattlemen-struggle-against-giant-meatpackers-and-economic-squeezes/the-big-four-meatpackers-1
No bias, information on meat companies
Emily M. EDA Period 1 Pelfrey
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/3123#.USZIPaXFV7s This article talks about how people want to know whats in their food.
http://organicconnectmag.com/wp/food-labels-do-you-know-whats-in-your-food/#.USZQ_6XFV7s This article is about what's in your food.
http://www.carighttoknow.org/about This is about Prop. 37.
Vanessa O. Period 4 Pelfrey
ReplyDeletehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324162304578301384017030830.html
This talks about cloned meat and how its made.
http://www.monsanto.com/improvingagriculture/Pages/producing-more.aspx
This is Monsanto saying how they are improving farming even with biotechnology.
Kat H, EDA Period 4 Carr
ReplyDeletehttp://www.treehugger.com/green-food/gmo-bans-laws-and-labels-from-around-the-world.html
http://www.kashrut.com/articles/LabelingLaw/
Sam H. Period 4 Pelfrey
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/11/12/food-labels-multiply-some-confuse-consumers/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/18/fda-labeled-free-modification/
Khaila H-D, EDA Period 4 Pelfrey
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/02/gmo-labeling-bill-introduced-in-congress/#.USe4MaVQV7t
Article has bias in favor of labeling GMOs. Some really useful quotes for a debate.
http://www.science20.com/michael_eisen/gmos_gene_transfer_neither_unnatural_nor_dangerous-91184
Defiantly a helpful article for proving that GMOs are NOT dangerous. Source may be considered sketchy and biased.
Elizabeth M. EDA Period 1 Mrs.Carr
ReplyDeleteFront Groups Against Prop 37: Foes of Honest Labeling Pose as Fake Cops and Phony Democrats to Trick Voters
http://www.carighttoknow.org/foes_of_honest_labeling
Should Monsanto be able to patent genes? Supreme Court may take up the case, in part. by Occupy Monsanto
http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/Occupy,Monsanto,GMO,Genetic,Engineering,Modified,Organism,Food,Sustainable,Local,Locavore,Organic,RoundUp/clarence-thomas/