1. Sofia Piñero Section VE

2.  GE foods, also known as biotech, are crops, livestock, and bacteria that have been altered by artificial gene- transfer in order to yield a certain desired trait.  Some desired traits include herbicide resistance, improved nutritional content, pest resistance, etc. Background Information

3.  Some scientists predict hazardous outcomes with GE (Genetically Engineered) foods, while others state that GE foods are no different than regular foods in terms of health risks.  What most experts agree on: the food regulation system is flawed. The Controversy

4.  GE foods are no different than regular foods in terms of danger.  Too many possibilities with GE foods.  People can always go organic. People for GE Foods Argument

5. Pharmaceutical Crops? Genetic Engineering can help address the issue of hunger and malnutrition around the world. Scientists can engineer crops to contain certain vitamins and nutrients. I.e. “golden rice”

7. http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/Texas_AM_Researchers_Create_Go at_With_Malaria_Vaccine_In_Her_Milk_141985883.html

8. People Against GE Foods Those against biotech foods fear antibiotic resistance, creation of a “super weed”, and other accidental adverse effects on crops, animals, and humans.

9.  With herbicide-resistant crops, some scientists fear that there will be an overuse of the glysophate based Round-up herbicide.  Can cause weeds to evolve into a super-weed.  The spread of a super- weed has already occurred in the UK and Canada, resulting in no GE foods commercially grown there. Creation of a Super-weed?

10. Allergens

11.  A CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) study found that biotech companies haven’t voluntarily complied with federal regulations in the past.  Even Monsanto, an agricultural biotech company, have had errors in their submissions and their products have still made it in grocery stores  Results in Monsanto products being rushed to the grocery stores without proper testing. Flawed Safety Regulation

12.  Genetically engineered products should go through a safety test over time so that it can be introduced into markets without future consequence.  That would mean stricter federal safety regulations for biotech companies like Monsanto to deter them from any attempts around the system. Mediation

13.  Ackerman, Jennifer. “Altered Food, GMO’s, Genetically Modified Food.” National Geographic: Science. National Geographic Mag.,May2002.Web.23March2012  Ausubel, Warren. "Food Additives and Pesticides." Berkeley Technology Law Journal. University of California. n.d.Web. 23 Mar. 2012.  “Are Biotech Foods Safe to Eat?” WebMD, WebMD, LLC., nd. Web.23March2012  Berkowitz, Lana. "Malaria Vaccine in A&M Goats' Milk Could save Lives." Houston Chronicle.Hearst Communications Inc., 3 Mar. 2012. Web. 23 Mar. 2012.  Brown, Paul. “GM crops created superweed, say scientists.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited. 24July2005.Web.23March2012  Byrne, P. "Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods." Colorado State University Extension. Sept. 2010. Web. 23 Mar. 2012.  “Environmental and health impacts of GM crops- the science.” GreenPeace. n.p. September 2011.Web23March2012  Ludwig, Mike. "Feds Approve Monsanto Herbicide-Resistant Crops." Truthout. n.p., 15 Feb. 2011. Web. 23 Mar. 2012  Whitman, Deborah. “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” (2000): ProQuest. Web.23March2012 Works Cited

14. Albaugh, Fieldsend, Olszewski Sofia's presentation centered on genetically engineered food and the controversy that revolves around the topic. She began by stating the many possible benefits that are potentially possible. Some of these benefits are herbicide resistant crops, improved health benefits in the food, pest control, and the most interesting was the goat with a malaria vaccine in its milk. The opposition she said was for people who thought that these altered foods could cause antibiotic resistance, creation of "super weeds", allergic reactions, and potential flawed safety regulations. Her mediation included more research in the potential hazards as well as benefits so that when these products do come to the public, society will have no safety concerns and only reap the benefits instead of having some benefits and some downfalls. She also stated that there should be very strict laws and regulation so that no person will be harmed while trying to be healthier. Sofia did a great job and showed everyone that she had a lot of knowledge in the topic which stems from a lot of research. She did many things great like showing both sides clearly and stating a mediation that will protect the public as well as give benefits. Another good aspect of her presentation was the video. The video really showed the farmers side of the issue and allowed everyone to clearly see firsthand exactly what it is that they are doing. If there is one thing that I think she could of improved on it would be introducing the topic. Although she introduced it I think it would have been more helpful to state the history and show exactly what it is they are trying to do and explain the process instead of just saying there are genetically altering food so the public can have benefits when consuming the product. Response Team Report

15. Overall Comments: Your Response Team didn’t offer much by way of critique, they just said you did a “great job” on Genetically Engineered foods, and the fact is I agree with them. My misgivings are small, and have to do with you, your voice and body language, rather than with the PowerPoint. The slides you put together are among the most interesting and engaging we saw, even humorous at times, yet even the cartoon corn and the kid whose food bit him back were direction pertinent to your discussion of the controversy and your search for mediation. That pertinence derives from sound research, above all and your fine, detailed Works Cited, as well as the intelligent way you handled the team questions, both gave evidence of how thoroughly you dug into this subject. A or 95. ExcellentGoodFairNeeds Work Context Purpose: perceptive definition of central question, visual & verbal; scope is narrow, question consistent throughout X Substance Development: sufficient summary & insight; slides focused & yet fully developed; mix of verbal & visual information X Sources: appropriate for topic, pertinent in placement, and accurately cited; quotations & data introduced correctly X Organization Thesis: a thesis, early or late, that clearly states both sides of question & its mediation X Introduction and Conclusion: overview of organization given at the beginning; conclusion sums up key points X Relationship: relationship of ideas clear; coherent; visual cues guide us through presentation X Style Style: clear & to-the-point text on-screen; same for data on-screen; the verbal component fits the visual X Verbal performance: engaging presence, name given, neither too colloquial nor too formal; no mumbling X Conventions & Correctness  free from data errors  free from word errors (SP, etc.) X Response Team Response: Questions in class & written responses demonstrate understanding; response helps enhance presentation (rated “Excellent,” “Good,” or “Fair.” X