A Response to Genetically Modified Food

The topic of genetically modified foods is one that is similar to the topic of processed foods, which I wrote an expository paper on. Although the paper was informational, if it were a position paper, I would have said that processed foods were not as safe as organic foods. The position Sebastian took on genetically modified foods was similar to the position I would have taken on mass-produced and industrialized foods. Sebastian claims that genetically modified foods are not safe because of allergen and health risk factors, as well as environmental risks. I agree with this position because chemical alterations in food are never guaranteed to be 100% safe. Since we are not all food scientists, we never know what modifications are truly happening to our food.

Genetic modification, which is inserting desirable genes form one organism into another, poses health risks. The first argument made was that allergen genes could be transferred from one organism to another. This could be potentially fatal to somebody who thought a food was originally safe to eat, and was not aware of the allergen. Personally having some food allergies and restrictions, this is troublesome to me. If I unknowingly ate food containing one of the allergens I have, medical problems could arise. As of right now, the main health risk in GM foods is allergenicity. In an article called "Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?", there were some claims of unknown health risks, but scientists could not make any specific correlations proving that genetically modified foods presented human health risks.

Although I believe that genetically modified foods have the potential to be harmful, similar to processed foods, they can be mass-produced. Since genetically modified foods can grow in harsher conditions, the production numbers can increase. I believe this could help solve the problem with undernourishment that is occurring (according to a “World Hunger” presentation given by Faculty Associate Julie Thurlow of the Nutritional Sciences department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, approximately 1 in 6 people throughout the world are undernourished). Genetically modified foods and industrialized foods can be mass-produced and yield bigger products than organically grown foods. However, the health risks that accompany genetically modified foods are too dangerous at this point. Similar to Sebastian's point of view, I believe the production should cease until safer methods are created. Chemical alterations can be helpful and/or harmful; until safer methods are created and used, we should stay away.

Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research - One Final Persuasion

Stem cell research has the potential to provide cures for numerous diseases, which is why it should be federally funded. Unfortunately, the occurrence of cancer, heart failure, kidney disease, diabetes, muscular dystrophy and more is all too common. In order to try and create treatments for these illnesses, extensive research needs to be done on stem cells. An issue with stem cell research is that it is expensive and time-consuming. However, if scientists had a consistent supply of money to use for their research, progress could be made faster. According to Dan Kaufman, M.D., PhD, assistant professor of Medicine in the Division of Hematology, Oncology at the University of Minnesota: “None of this can happen without money…You can have all the embryonic stem cell lines in the world available to use, but if the funds aren’t there, then it doesn’t matter.”

Federally funding stem cell research can help save lives; there are many benefits to reap from stem cell research. Although some people are concerned that it may be unsafe or unethical, their fears can be calmed by the fact that NIH will be creating new guidelines. President Obama claims: “The majority of Americans—from across the political spectrum and from of all backgrounds and beliefs—have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research, that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight the perils can be avoided." According to a recent poll, 67% of the registered voters approved of President Obama providing federal funding for stem cell research. President Obama is opening more stem cell research lines with the new NIH guidelines. With more lines to work on, researchers will have more opportunities to create stem cell treatments.

Governmental federal funding of stem cell research will enhance the safety, effectiveness, and progression of stem cell research. There are also nonprofit organizations that support and donate to stem cell research. If you want to get involved with stem cell research, or find out more information, look at some of the sites listed and described below.

•International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR): http://www.isscr.org/about/index.htm

•Research!America provides ways to advocate and take action for stem cell research, along with polls in different states, stem cell research initiatives, legislation, and additional information: http://www.researchamerica.org/stemcell_issue?gclid=CJSyqNbK354CFQQMDQodJErUMw

•Stem Cell Resources provides a list of numerous organizations that are part of stem cell research. “The organizations listed below provide valuable educational information regarding the developments, applications, and ethical issues surrounding the use of stem cells”: http://www.stemcellresources.org/who_orgs.html

•UW-Madison’s Student Society for Stem Cell Research: meets every other Wednesday night at the Genetics/Biotechnology building on University. For more information e-mail: ssscr.wisc@gmail.com

Celebrity Endorsed Product

Water is a product that is commonly used and obtained by people everywhere around the world. All living species need it to survive. So who knew it even needed to be endorsed? As if water wasn't popular enough already, the brand Smart Water is advertising celebrity Jennifer Aniston to endorse it.

Every time there is a Smart Water ad, Aniston’s face is present. The Smart Water ad reads: "PURE SPECULATION: we’re not ones to sip and tell, but Jen’s pretty into us (and our vapor distilled purity)". The concept of water being purified, having minerals added, and being electrolyte-enhanced seems a little over-the-top. What happened to regular water?

With that being said, endorsing Smart Water with Jennifer Aniston’s face was probably a smart move. She is a popular celebrity and is known by many people, based on the work she has done in the TV and film industry. Therefore, putting her face with the Smart Water ad is an easy way to attract attention. However, the product Jennifer Aniston is endorsing is water, so it’s hard to tell if she is an expert or is qualified to endorse it, mainly because anybody can drink water and verify that it's good for the body. She may not be an expert in the field of chemically engineering water, but she’s an appropriate choice to use in advertisements based on the fact that Aniston “truly embodies what smartwater is all about as she combines substance and style like nobody else”, according to People.

When I was thinking of a celebrity-endorsed product, the Smart Water ad with Jennifer Aniston was the first product that came to my mind. I wouldn’t necessarily say that people would drink Smart Water because Jennifer Aniston drinks it, but her Smart Water ads may come to mind when somebody is wondering what kind of water bottle to drink, which could lead to the desired outcome. Either way, people have to drink water. Whether they will drink it because of Aniston or because they are thirsty is difficult to know.

Same-Sex Marriages

Love, happiness, and marriage are rights that everybody is entitled to. My divorce-attorney father may say that those may not come all together, but every person should at least have the right to experience them.

The first article discussed the religious, procreation, and historical pros of same-sex marriages. One influential point the article made was: “The Supreme Court has declared that marriage is a basic civil right, older than the Constitution itself. When civil rights are at stake there is no such thing as deserving them; they are intrinsic to our very way of life.” Regarding the cons of same-sex marriages, some reasons why it should not be allowed are as follows: income taxes, social security, and medical insurance premiums will rise, children will be indoctrinated, and the workplace will try to indoctrinate workers. However, the monetary issues the article brings up are mainly hypothetical. In addition, indoctrinating children and workers is not a con—people should be accepting of this lifestyle even if they choose not to participate in it.

The first article regarding the pros of same-sex marriage was more convincing than the opposing article. The pro-article supported the arguments with specific examples; one specifically regarding the point of procreation claimed that fertility tests have never been required in order to receive a marriage license—couples are allowed to marry when the woman is beyond child bearing age or a spouse is on their death bed. Therefore, it is unfair to make the argument that same-sex couples will prevent procreation due to the inability to conceive. Many heterosexual couples are unable to conceive, or even choose not to conceive. There is always the option to adopt for homosexual couples.

I have always supported same-sex marriage, so my opinion has not changed. Based on the articles, I now support same-sex marriage even more. It’s unfair to deprive people of the right to express their love and commitment to one another. Although some may be shocked by the idea at first, accepting the idea of same-sex marriages will likely become more socially acceptable as time goes on. More and more we exclude less and less.