Ryan Sharp
English 10
Tobacco Advertising and its Effects on Young People.
In this world there are many injustices that deal with our children. A main injustice is the advertising of tobacco directed to our youths. Every day 3,000 children start smoking, most of them between the ages of 10 and 18. These kids account for 90 percent of all new smokers. In fact, 90 percent of all adults state that they first start smoking as a teenager. The statistics clearly show that young people are the prime targets of tobacco sales.
The head of these media companies are Marlboro and Camel. Marlboro uses a western character known as The Marlboro Man, and Camel uses the "smooth character" Joe Camel. Joe Camel who is shown as a camel with complete style has been attacked by many Tobacco-Free Kids organizations as a major influence on the children of America. Researchers at the Medical College of Georgia report that almost as many 6-year olds recognize Joe Camel as they do Mickey Mouse. That is very shocking information for any parent to hear. Children are attracted by these advertisements because they like cartoons, and they think that a cartoon is harmless and what the cartoon does is harmless too. There is so much cigarette advertising out there a child is sure to be struck by its attention.
The companies deny that these symbols target people under 21 and claim that their advertising goal is simply to promote brand switching. Illinois Rep. Richard Durbin disagrees with this statement stating "If we can reduce the number of young smokers, the tobacco companies will be in trouble and they know it". The companies go toward a market that is not fully aware of the harm that cigarettes are capable of to keep their industry alive and well.
When kids were asked why they started smoking, they gave two contradictory reasons: They wanted to be a part of the crowd. Children don't want to be left out, they want to be wanted. If their peers are smoking then they will want to smoke too. They also wanted to reach out and rebel at the same time. When children are told over and over by more authoritative people not to do something, then they are going to do it. They do this just to get back at the authorities or to satisfy their curiosity. Teens also think of smoking as a sign of independence. The surprising thing is that these kids know that they are being influenced by cigarette advertising.
Here are three things on how to stop the future of America from smoking. Try to convince your children that smoking is not cool. If a child is talked to by there parents then they will listen to what they have to say. Talk to your kids at a young age about the dangers of smoking. If children are informed of the dangers cigarettes provide then they will prevent themselves from smoking. Identify family members who smoke and ask them to quit. If children are not around the habit then they won't have a reason to pick it up.
Children are the most valuable assets we are given in life. Let's try to educate them while they're young to be independent thinkers and to not be swayed by the tobacco companies who are trying to take advantage of their mind and body.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Genetically Altered Food
Environmental sctence
Genetically Altered Foods
It is quite evident that as technology advances m the scientific sense, we as Americans are becoming more interested. One of the conflicts that have raised concern here lately is that on genetically altered foods. By no surprise, one of the major questions of many is whether or not these foods are safe. As altered foods continue to be produced, we will begin to see much
controversy. As the growing industry expands, soils the research, not only nationally, but also
internationally.
This topic has proven to be an environmental issue, particularly by the money that has been involved, as well as the concern for ones health. To the knowledge of most, the United States can
be very manipulative or should I say persuading, so therefore it doesn't take much on their part to
convince the regulators that the crops are safe. Those who protest have debated on a
list of concerns dealing with this issue. For example, one of which brings a question to the
environmental policies. It states that Stimulating the resistance of cslve use or such herbicides (Nature 559). "
A lot of concern has come from one certain crop and that is maize, which was altered to an extent. The development was done by a company known to be Swiss, called "Ciba-Geiby". That which was debated dealt with the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) stating that "A gene resistant to the antibiotic ampicillin used in an early stage of the developmental process, could theoretically be passed to man via bacteria lodged in the gut of animals which eat the maize unprocessed (559)". In response to this attack, the company said that there would need to be a great amount of events that would have to take place. The transferring of DNA to the bacteria is just one of which was addressed. Therefore, the issue isn't settled. One then can only assume that until a hault is put on altering, the industry will keep producing.
My opinion is that as long as there has been no proof of illnesses with the experiments and procedures that have taken place, well then I am for it. So I'm no doubt in agreement with the farmers, who are doing this in an attempt to lower costs. The opinion is very much valid, because if you can cut cost and increase in yields, well then more power to you. Another positive aspect is, as of right now not a single soul has ended up being harmed. The opposing's opinion is valid also, though I think they are trying to look to much into the issue by critiquing it, instead of backing the agri-business by creating a line of trust.
I think that the farmers should continue to do what helps their livelihood, as long as no proof is found on dangers. If or when proof is found, I think the regulators should then step in and make some guidelines. So, if this is not hanning us and the environment, why not keep pursuing larger dollar signs?
References
Nature. "Distrust in Genetically Altered Foods" Vol. 303. 17 Oct 1996. issue 6601 pp. 559-60.
Miller, G.T. 1996, Sustainmg the Earth. Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York, NY.
Genetically Altered Foods
It is quite evident that as technology advances m the scientific sense, we as Americans are becoming more interested. One of the conflicts that have raised concern here lately is that on genetically altered foods. By no surprise, one of the major questions of many is whether or not these foods are safe. As altered foods continue to be produced, we will begin to see much
controversy. As the growing industry expands, soils the research, not only nationally, but also
internationally.
This topic has proven to be an environmental issue, particularly by the money that has been involved, as well as the concern for ones health. To the knowledge of most, the United States can
be very manipulative or should I say persuading, so therefore it doesn't take much on their part to
convince the regulators that the crops are safe. Those who protest have debated on a
list of concerns dealing with this issue. For example, one of which brings a question to the
environmental policies. It states that Stimulating the resistance of cslve use or such herbicides (Nature 559). "
A lot of concern has come from one certain crop and that is maize, which was altered to an extent. The development was done by a company known to be Swiss, called "Ciba-Geiby". That which was debated dealt with the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) stating that "A gene resistant to the antibiotic ampicillin used in an early stage of the developmental process, could theoretically be passed to man via bacteria lodged in the gut of animals which eat the maize unprocessed (559)". In response to this attack, the company said that there would need to be a great amount of events that would have to take place. The transferring of DNA to the bacteria is just one of which was addressed. Therefore, the issue isn't settled. One then can only assume that until a hault is put on altering, the industry will keep producing.
My opinion is that as long as there has been no proof of illnesses with the experiments and procedures that have taken place, well then I am for it. So I'm no doubt in agreement with the farmers, who are doing this in an attempt to lower costs. The opinion is very much valid, because if you can cut cost and increase in yields, well then more power to you. Another positive aspect is, as of right now not a single soul has ended up being harmed. The opposing's opinion is valid also, though I think they are trying to look to much into the issue by critiquing it, instead of backing the agri-business by creating a line of trust.
I think that the farmers should continue to do what helps their livelihood, as long as no proof is found on dangers. If or when proof is found, I think the regulators should then step in and make some guidelines. So, if this is not hanning us and the environment, why not keep pursuing larger dollar signs?
References
Nature. "Distrust in Genetically Altered Foods" Vol. 303. 17 Oct 1996. issue 6601 pp. 559-60.
Miller, G.T. 1996, Sustainmg the Earth. Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York, NY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)