Category: American government

The topic I have chosen to discuss is the Public Health Act 2005. This ACT allows the protection and promotion of the States’ public Health. In this essay I will describe the jurisdiction, context and principles, recent amendments and intent of the law in promoting and protecting population health and safety. I will identify target/ population groups affected by the legislation. I will identify the main stakeholders involved in addressing the law and the reasons for either supporting or opposing it. Finally, I will discuss the implications of the legislation in protecting and improving the health and safety of the population.

Public Health Law Act 2005 delivers the basic protections necessary to protect public health through cooperation between the state government, local governments, health care providers and the community (Government Queensland, 2019). This is achieved by preventing, controlling, reducing and responding to risks of public health relation. (Government Queensland, 2019) In terms of context, the Act was the result of an extensive review of the previous Public Health Act 1937. This Act introduced `public health risk’, to aid with certain types of environmental health risks such as breeding grounds for mosquitoes, vermin infestations, and hazardous water or waste that was included in the Public Health Act 1937 (Queensland Bills Explanatory Notes, 2005) A recent amendment created 1st January 2018 was implemented to prevent and control the spread of infectious disease to children by legally disallowing child care facilities to accept unvaccinated children. (Government Queensland, 2019) Therefore this Act aided in the protection children and subsequently their families and broader communities from the spread of infectious disease/ illness.

I think the target groups affected by the legislation include; health care practitioners, local and state governments, and individuals and or community members of the public who have a vested interest in their health and the health of their families, friends and communities.

One main player in support of the Act would be health care practitioners as they work alongside the government to provide insight on areas of health that need to be addressed. By monitoring the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of primary health care services and relaying it back to the government to improve their legislation, this can directly impact them. For example, it can create a safer and more structured environment for them to work in. Legislation formalises certain aspects of the job that need to be defined with guidelines and structures, health organizations can therefore become universal and consistent. On a side note, health care practitioners can feel empowered knowing their insights are being heard and used to develop new legislation.

Community members are another main focus in addressing the law. Laws are created to better serve the population and if an issue arises that will have a direct implication to the population then the law needs to appropriate the issue. For example, the government needed to take legal action in response to COVID-19. The ACT allowed government to close public spaces such as playgrounds and outdoor fitness stations in the hopes of keeping the community safe (ACT Government, 2020)

When it comes to protecting and improving the health and safety of the population via legislation we would first need to evaluate the elected government. For example, a democratically elected government uses powers to protect and promote the health of the population. (Institute of Medicine (US) Committee , 2002)

An implication that may arise is the notion of common good. Has legislation allowed the community/ state interest to come before individual interest? Take the coronavirus outbreak as an example. On March the 22nd Scott Morison made the decision for Australia is close all non-essential services as coronavirus cases arose rapidly in the country (Doherty, 2020). Gyms, cinemas, pubs, places of worship all contribute significantly to the overall health and well-being of an individual. Gyms provide an area where individuals can let off steam and destress, an outlet for mental well-being as well as physical wellbeing to strengthen. Places of worship provide a space where the individual can discover their self-identity and belonging which is integral to their mental and social well- being. A complete state of health is more than just being free from disease or illness, it’s the linkage of all three social, mental and physical wellbeing (World Health Organization, 2020). When the government banned these places, he further isolated groups of people and this may have significant implications on the individuals state of mind. Also, what will happen to all the owners or workers of these businesses? Yes, the ban will prevent the onset and spread of covid-19 but many people will lose or have already lost their income and this may result in an economic recession. Rational thoughts and feelings of how they are going to pay the bills and fears of the unknown will create an environment where people aren’t working to the best of their abilities and therefore will have negative consequences throughout the country.

References

1. ACT Government. (2020). Covid-19. Australia: ACT government.
2. Doherty, B. (2020). Non-essential’ services: what do Australia’s latest coronavirus restrictions mean? Australia: The Guardian.
3. Government Queensland. (2019). Public Health Act 2005. Brisbane: Queensland Government.
4. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee . (2002). The Future of the Public’s Health in the 21st Century. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
5. Queensland Bills Explanatory Notes. (2005). Public Health Act 2005. Australia: Austilii.
6. World Health Organization. (2020). Constitution . Geneva: WHO.

The U.S. has always been a defining country in the world, however sometimes other countries have a cultural impact on the United States such as Vietnam in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The 60’s was a time defined by change, one of the major contributing events is the Vietnam war.The Vietnam War was a devastating tragedy that cost thousands of lives for no reason.The Vietnam war changed the modern American social landscape and thoughts on our government and culture.

The Vietnam War destroyed the trust and faith of United States citizens in the government. At first it seemed like it would be like any other modern war, however it dragged on for years and years losing more and more troops with no end in sight.This caused chaos and confusion back in the United States .The president at the time Lyndon B. Johnson was telling us citizens of the United States that everything was fine and we were winning the war but he was lying straight to our faces as revealed by the televised footage of the ongoing war.This was the first time , at least in modern history that any United States president lied to the citizens with proof exposing his lie ( keep in mind this was before Richard Nixon).Worst of all he kept us in the war for several more years telling us we would win when there was no hope left. This disaster angered and confused many teenagers at the time.The teens saw their friends and family getting killed for a war we were losing and shouldn’t have been in the first place. They were probably asking why the government was lying to them and what else they could be hiding.

As the teens grew restless so did the rest of the United states. The teenagers decided it was time to take matters into their own hands.Soon they started protests all over the U.S. and participating in taboo activities such as : LSD, smoking marijuana as well as other drugs.They also lost faith in God and became less religious rebelling against traditional social norms of the U.S.. They started listening more to what at the time was called “devil’s music.” and following the crazy lifestyles of their role models like : Jim Morrison,John Lennon and Jimmy Hendrix. These habits caused divisions of families everywhere from the traditional church going, loving , happy families of the 1950’s to chaotic destroyed families. Not to mention when veterans returned home from their impossible war they were disrespected and shunned when they did nothing wrong. “Wowwk and other wounded servicemen felt excitement at being back on American soil. But looking out the window and seeing civilians stop to watch the small convoy of hospital-bound vehicles, his excitement turned to confusion. “I remember feeling like, what could I do to acknowledge them, and I just gave the peace signal,” Wowwk says. “And instead of getting return peace fingers, I got the middle finger.” The veterans received little to no support with finding work or a home for themselves.Then finally we escaped the war in 1975, however it was too late the deed was done America would never be the same again. The counter culture movement of the 1960’s permanently shifted Americans ideals away from their former glory to a new,different,lower standard.

After this point America was a completely different country then before. The United States became a divided nation. We lose more and more of our original values and we become strangers to our old traditions.Instead of being united we have over time divided more and more.We can not agree right and wrong anymore and constant political chaos that never ends. Will the U.S. ever return to its former glory? Will the United States ever be the same again?

Introduction: The Vietnam War and Its Impact on America

The Vietnam War is one of if not the most devastating war that America had to fight. It was also the longest war in American history until Afghanistan and remains one of the wars who had the most impact on American society. During these 20 years (1955 to 1975), many lives were taken away, and most of them being civilians. Its significant role helped shaped the history of America. Many factors, who were triggered during the war, influenced the consequences that would come later to America and the rest of the world.

Although the Vietnam War caused many negative consequences on the American society such as social, economic and political consequences and its trust against the government, it still helped shape what we could call today Modern World History.

Economic Consequences: The Cost of War

The post-war era was hard for the American economy because of the huge sums of money that were given to the military and the war during the Vietnam War. This war was one of the most expensive war for America with a cost of $168 billion in total and that impacted greatly the growth and expansion of the economy.

Many factors influenced the lack of stability of the economy in the USA at that time. One of them where because at the same time as being involved in the Vietnam War, the United States were also involved in a Cold War with the Soviet Union. Both cost a lot of money, the war had to fund the armament, the transportation, and other equipment in order to win but the Cold War had also monetary funds for new technologies and other departments. For example, in 1961, the Soviet Union sent the first man in space, which made the USA want to surpass them. They decided then to send the first man to the moon and succeeded but in order to triumph, they had to fund the space department which would mean less money went to war.

The war was also very costly to the United States: the government had to make changes in the way of living in the US. When President Lydon B. Johnson declared a “War on Poverty”, some changes were made to be able to finance both “guns and butter” but at the end, they could not help the community much because of all the money that was wasted in the war. In 1967, the government cut $6 billion from the domestic budget in order to put it in the war budget, which led to slowed country economy. One of the changes that were made was making the preschools free in order to educate more people. The government also decided to take more taxes from society, for example, Johnson created 10% of surcharge on American goods, in order to stabilize the economy.

But the war also led to positive changes around the economy, for example, between 1962 and 1965, the was low inflation due to … which led to almost full employment and a favorable balance of trade.

Social Unrest: Draft Resistance and Loss of Trust in Government

During the Vietnam War, American society started to lose trust in the government because of the army and what they were doing to the Vietnamese and their villages. The government also changed after the Vietnam War to improve future conflicts.

To have enough soldiers for the war, the military was composed of volunteer men, mostly drafted men. But advancing throughout the years in the war, more and more men were starting to protest the drafting of the war, which led to a draft resistance. Many men like college students were deprived of a future the day that they receive the draft in the mail and that was why, in the 1960s, students on campuses started to begin anti-war protests to make the government change their minds about drafting. Many actions were done to show their dissatisfaction but not only the students were participating: some were burning their draft card and others fled the country, but they all wanted the same result, that the military was not composed of drafted men. As many as half a million men would participate in these protests in order to change the law. That is why, after the Vietnam War ended, Congress decided to end the military draft and replace it with an all-volunteer army.

The citizens of the United States also started to lose the trust they had of the government throughout the Vietnam War. Throughout this period, the government lied to society about what was happening or what would happen in Vietnam. An example would be the My Lai massacre in 1968, where half a hundred unarmed Vietnamese civilians were murdered by U.S army. Lieutenant William Calley Jr., who was the leading officer, was the only soldier who served prison time, but he was accompanied by many other soldiers. This event was a turning point in the American public opinion because it demonstrated the collapse that was happening in the behavior of the US troops and it diminished the moral argument about the need to save Vietnam from communism.

The “Vietnam Syndrome”: Political Repercussions and Ideological Shifts

After the end of the war, US politics developed a term named the “Vietnam Syndrome”. The connotation could be different according to the political party that was using it. For the Left, it was positive, where it meant preventing communism and intervene abroad for “democracy and freedom”. This made the United State lose the superiority that it had gained along the years. But George H.W. Bush declared that the United States got rid of the Vietnam Syndrome after finishing the Gulf War, in 1991.

For politicians on the Left, Vietnam Syndrome was a positive constraint, they questioned the need to prevent Communism and intervene abroad for “democracy and freedom”. The Democrats majority in Congress had enacted the War Powers Resolution of 1973 forbidding the President from sending the army into combat in more than 90 days without Congress’s consent. They also believed that if the U.S. were to intervene again in a similar situation, they would probably get a similar result as they had in Vietnam.

For the Rights, Vietnam Syndrome lowered morale and limited the U.S. from conducting necessary military intervention all around the world, so they would need to overcome it as soon as possible if they wanted to reassert their position in the world.

The Trauma of War: Veterans’ Struggles and Mental Health

Coming back from the war, veterans suffered from both physical and mental illnesses due to the horrors that they lived. Around 58,000 Americans died, 303,000 were wounded and 750 became prisoners, and yet the project to contain communism still failed. An experience like the Vietnam War can be traumatic for a young generation who was forced to initially enter this war. For most of them, the experiences that they lived on the battlefield were traumatizing.

‘Imagine if you had just graduated out of high school and were sent to guerrilla warfare far away from your home. During the war, you were exposed to a lot of stress, confusion, anxiety, pain, and hatred. Then you were sent back home with no readjustment to the lifestyle in the states, no deprogramming of what you learned from the military, and no ‘welcome home’ parades. You are portrayed to the public as a crazed psychopathic killer with no morals or control over your aggression. You find that nobody you can talk to or can understand what you’ve been through, not even your family. As you re-emerge into civilization, you struggle to establish a personal identity or a place in society because you lack the proper education and job skills. In addition, no support groups help you find your way, making you feel even more isolated, unappreciated, and exploited for serving your country.’ As Thompson Kenrick writes in “Photographic imagery and the Vietnam War: an unexamined perspective” young men who were drafted to war and had to leave their life behind, without being able to do anything about it. When coming back, they were left out and would not be integrated back in society because of what they were represented as.

Both men and women who came back suffered from many different mental diseases due to stress and anxiety. Between 500,000 and 700,000 (15-20%) Vietnam Veterans suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In those numbers, 11,500 of them were women (with 90% being nurses) were also touched. (Alan Rohn, “How Did the Vietnam War Affect America?” The Vietnam War, 5 May 2016, thevietnamwar.info/how-vietnam-war-affect-america/).

Social Movements, Protests, and the Legacy of the Vietnam War

During the war, anti-war demonstrations, protest, and the media all influenced why, from a social point of view, the war ended. Many social impacts are related or similar to the political impacts due to the relation between the society and its government.

To begin with, most of the war veterans who came back already had a disadvantage on their hands: more than 700,000 of them came from a poor background and had a hard time adjusting to the life in America.

The G.I. Bill Improvement Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-202) was an act to “increase the rates of vocational rehabilitation, educational assistance, and special training allowance paid to eligible veterans and persons, to make improvements in the educational assistance programs, and for other purposes.” Many people where inspired by this act and decided to create studies, for example ‘Legacies of Vietnam: Comparative Adjustment of Veterans and Their Peers,’ (‘Legacies’), where the post-life of war veterans would be followed, and it had the point of showing the difference in the style of life and the significant changes.

Mass protests were also a consequence of the war that had many impacts on society and the beliefs of the people. One famous protest during the Vietnam War occurred in the Kent State University in Ohio, in May 1970. Four students were killed and nine were wounded when the Ohio National Guard members fired into a crowd of protests against the war. The event trigged a dramatic impact who provoked student strike in universities nationwide and forced the facilities to close. This shooting has come to symbolize the deep political and social divisions that have divided the country during the time of the Vietnam war.

Though the negative consequences that the war engendered such as social, economic and political consequences and its trust against the government, the Vietnam war still helped shape what we could call today Modern World History. Although this War happened less than 45 years ago, it will still be remembered as a catastrophic war and will still impact the citizens and the decisions that America will make in the future.

The history of America in terms of minorities has always been a rollercoaster of hardships and triumphs. Minorities included every ethnic group that was not born in America and people of color. These minorities included, but were not limited to; immigrants, Mexicans, Japanese Americans, and African Americans. There are certain eras in which minorities soared and others in which minorities were treated with discrimination in the face of injustice. It is important to note that though there had been highs for minority rights throughout sometimes in the history of America, there was always deep underlying discrimination and unfair treatment towards minorities no matter which era America was going through.

The progressive era is described as, “a way of describing a broad, loosely defined political movement of individuals.” (Foner, 692) These groups of loosely defined individuals would do so in hopes of the possibility of bringing about changes in the American political and social aspects of the American way of living. During this specific era, women were also among minorities and would not be treated the same as men. For women, during the progressive era, there were some highs for them on account of protecting standing up for one another. There were female organizations that were created to protect women and children from the possibility of being treated unfairly to be able for men to take advantage of them and to protect against the middle class who felt threatened by women.

In the cities, women were able to make a name for themselves. There was “new visibility of women in urban public places…” (Foner, 700) Women were now seen as “working women” Throughout the urban parts of town, instead of being stepped over, women were able to work in shops, spend their money at these shops and go to entertain themselves at the dances and theatres freely. This coming from same America that saw women as degrading and not as worthy as the masculine gender was a big deal for all women. This, according to the text, “indicated that traditional gender roles were changing dramatically in Progressive America.” (Foner, 700) The idea of gender roles had a very clear line and bar set for it before this time but once the progressive era began, the lines were blurred and it was acceptable to see our women as strong and independent in nature.

During the progressive era, though immigrants had been immigrating for years at this point, the percentage of immigrants coming to America was at its peak during the progressive era. This prompted all immigrants, especially Mexican Americans, on their quest for freedom.

Most, if not all, immigrants came to America during this era hoping to find new beginnings and opportunities to live the American Dream. What the found was not the exact thing that they had envisioned. Immigrants were grateful that America was immensely better than their home origin region but they still suffered throughout a lot. Each benefit of immigrating to America came with a huge downside. For example, there were plenty of ways to make money with all sorts of jobs but immigrants were only given the bottom of the barrel jobs that could lead them nowhere near to what the white man American way of living was. They were giving jobs but they were giving long hours in unsafe work environments. Though they were given many hours, they were severely underpaid and suffered through it all because it was either to deal with it or go back to where they came from. Immigrants suffered discrimination in the workplace environment and throughout their everyday life.

They lived throughout their own ethnic group religions, nowhere near the white Americans. The text states, “Mexican immigrants became poorly paid agricultural, mine and railroad laborers.” (Foner, 699) And these jobs were given with no possibility to advance. They got the job they were given and learned to live with it. Though these aspects of life were not what they expected, they still got to enjoy some of the things that America had to offer. This included cities and activities, despite not having the appropriate amount of money to do so, they were in America and they were supposedly free.

The Civil Rights movement was an empowering and emotional era for the United States. Minorities stood up for themselves like no other. Question the elected officials and the constitution concerning what their definition of “freedom” was because they were not following it correctly. There were definitely more highs during Civil Rights for minorities than there was during the Progressive Era.

Groups during the Civil Rights Movement immensely made a difference in the motion of deterring the plight of minorities in America. Throughout the civil rights era, there was a “rising tide of protest” in which a committee is known as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee which dedicated its group to “replacing the culture of segregation with a ‘beloved community’” (Foner,985) Different communities and groups were launched from all places to accelerate the Civil Rights Movement.

Minorities and the injustice and unfair treatment they had endured for years were finally getting noticed and were being paid the attention that they had been needing for years! The Congress of Racial Equality, better known as CORE created many internal movements such as Freedom Riders who would fight for the ending of segregation on bus rides.

Both the Progressive Era and the Civil Rights Era incorporated such movements and parts that made way for equality and justice in the face of minorities. When looking at and comparing the two to see whether one helped alleviate these injustices faster than the other, the Civil Rights Era would take the reign. Though the progressive era was filled with high moments in history for some minorities, there was not enough being done throughout the communities to fix the wrongs that were happening to the majority of the minority population. The Civil Rights Era was filled with nothing but a voice to change these injustices. Hence the name was given to the Era. The Civil Rights Era definitely progressed the speed at which human rights were given and allowed for minorities. The government was bought into question, people worked together and would not face down, it was powerful and it was a time of protest to fight for what was right.

Reference:

1. Foner, E. ​Give Me Liberty Vol. 2 ​(2016) Pgs. 691-724, 983-1024

The Declaration of Independence was an extremely important factor throughout our society’s history. This document thoroughly formed the existing colonies into an independent country, finally they were separated from Great Britain. These principles shaped our country into one of the most accepting and substantial places of the time.

The Declaration of Independence was the first to support the colonists wishes. The colonies believed Great Britain was treating everyone really unfair and unethical. The British passed many tax laws that badly affected the colonists, protesting and riots was not making the cut. The colonies needed something stronger if they wanted to be treated right with their own laws and government commands. Colonies now had the ability to announce their independence. This option is best because it filled the colonies needs and keeps the two parties at peace.

Patrick Henry of Virginia wanted to use his voice and mind to show his thoughts and get people to follow his. In section 4, paragraph 4, Patrick Henry recited his most famous speech: “There is no longer any room for hope”, he began. “If we wish to be free . . . we must fight! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston. The war is inevitable—and let it come!”. Patrick used his self to bring people in agreement. This was the peaceful option rather than forcing people in an unhappy environment like the British were doing.

There new government needed factors or principles to rely on. A man named Jefferson explained that it is unfair to have a duty to obey the king, it is unfair to force someone under a government in which they have no say in. His arguments were thought of as related to the principle of natural rights. This means that everyone should be given the same rights because “All people are born equal in God’s sight”. If a government fails to protect their people’s thoughts and rights it makes it ok for “the people to alter or abolish it”. This is important because they have a plan for most circumstances. There for there is less chance for failure Also after the government fails, the people have a free path to form a new and better government that will protect them as people and respect their happiness.

On July 4, the final version of the Declaration of Independence was approved. The people understood that the actions they were going to make was against Great Britain. Still some brave people pledged and surrender their lives in hopes to get what they wanted, to make their country a safe place to live. This pledge was extremely important because it meant they are willing to sacrifice themselves to protect what they have made with each other.

Over all, the Declaration of Independence was their key to the colonists dream life and they gave so much so this would follow through. Principles that formed this community such as ‘all men have basic human rights given to them by God’ was important because it gave the people a strong structured way of life. They believed in feelings over war and wanted happiness and freedom all over there independent colonies.

I will be arguing if the government should ban all junk food in this essay. I believe that the government should ban all junk food because junk food is unhealthy, junk food may be bad for brain function, big fast-food companies have tried to make their food less ‘junky’ and junk food can have negative effects on bone health.

The first reason why the government should ban all junk food is that junk food is unhealthy. Junk food is extremely unhealthy and can mutate fit, healthy humans into obese, lazy people. Is this what we want our planet to become for our future generations? I don’t think any of us would want that. Junk food is packed with calories and fat. Eating too much junk food can cause your life to be shortened, this is dreadful. This is why I believe that the government should ban junk food.

The second reason why the government should ban all junk food is that junk food may be bad for brain function. According to WebMD, eating junk food excessively could result in decreases in brain function. According to Consumer Health Digest, several types of food are bad for brain health. The additives and preservatives in fast food can have impairing effects on cognition. Foods with a high level of salt also have been shown to reduce cognitive performance. Studies have also shown us that fatty foods impair cognition. In addition, foods that contain residual amounts of pesticides might cause negative effects on brain well-being. Many healthy foods contain chemicals that are necessary for optimal brain function, such as Omega-3s. According to the University of Maryland, Omega-3s are extremely important to us. A deficiency of Omega-3s has been associated with several common mental health disorders, such as depression and ADHD. It’s even thought that a deficiency of Omega-3s could make one more prone to develop severe mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Banning junk food could motivate people to eat more healthy food. This could reduce mental health problems. This is why the government should ban all junk food.

The third reason why the government should ban all junk food is that fast-food chains have tried to make their food less ‘junky’. While many things on the McDonald’s menu are still very much junk food, the chain has begun to make an effort to lessen the number of trans fats in their foods. According to CBS, one of their frying oils is no longer trans-fat free. This assists to reduce the negative effects of the grease on the cardiovascular system. Furthermore, they have begun to incorporate healthier menu options in addition to the unhealthy food they offer. For example, McDonald’s has started offering a variety of salads. In addition, they have begun to offer snack wraps with a relatively low number of calories. This shows us that people are becoming more and more health-conscious. Therefore, many people would likely be in favor of the government banning junk foods.

The fourth reason why the government should ban all junk food is that junk food can have negative effects on bone health. During childhood, bones are developing. Growing children need a significant quantity of calcium each day for bone development. Without enough calcium, serious defects in bone development can occur. A poor diet can increase one’s risk of developing osteoporosis, according to UPI. Adding to the lack of calcium in junk food, many junk foods contain high sugar and fat levels. This can weaken bones. As junk foods are consumed more and more, this may cause kids to continue to eat a poor diet as they grow. It’s thought that the first six years of life are crucial in ensuring that a proper diet for bone health is maintained throughout one’s life. This is why the government should ban all junk food.

However, there are some effects of banning junk food such as the economy. Every moving Junk Food franchise accumulates approximately $1,000,000 every single day. There are around 25 franchises all over the UK. Multinational companies like Doritos, etc. also make in the millions and billions. So, there would be a lot of money, international money, would be drawn in every month. This is the negative effect of banning all junk food.

Another effect of banning junk food is that some people are addicted to it and it might be hard for them to leave it. It would be hard for them since they eat it a lot. However, this could also make them change their bad eating habits and make them into healthy people.

I have argued that the government should ban all junk food because junk food is unhealthy, junk food may be bad for brain function, big fast-food companies have tried to make their food less ‘junky’ and junk food can have negative effects on bone health. However, there are some negative effects of banning junk food such as the economy. Another effect of banning junk food is that some people are addicted to it and some might find it hard to leave it.

“You are what you eat”. This quote is often attributed to the nutritionist Victor Lindlahr who wrote a book in the 1940s by the same title. His wisdom still rings true in our ears today. How aware are we of what goes into our food today? Does it really matter? The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard recently began to be implemented on January 1st of this year. It provides a national standard for all food labeling companies to include information on all bioengineered food, or food that contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This standard comes in response to consumer concerns over whether or not GMOS contain hidden substances toxic to humans. Some consumers are concerned over the amount of GMOs that humans consume in general considering their prevalence in almost everything we eat, especially in common crops, such as corn or potatoes. However, while many people think that the GMOs themselves are harmful, the labels are really the issue at hand. GMOs should not be labeled because it compels the speech of companies, negatively stigmatizes them, raises the price of food for all Americans, and hurts farmers and the agriculture industry as a whole.

A GMO, or genetically modified organism, is “a plant, animal, microorganism or other organism whose genetic makeup has been modified in a laboratory using genetic engineering or transgenic technology” (Westgate). They are also sometimes referred to as bioengineered or biotechnology. While the term ‘genetically modified organism’ may appear very transparent and straightforward, there is quite the controversy surrounding the use of GMOs. Before the United States Department of Agriculture established the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, Vermont was the first state to have passed a mandatory GMO labeling law. However, this mandatory labeling law caused more hurt than it helped as it pitted the state government against various food manufacturers in a battle on whether or not labeling GMOs was constitutional.

Companies being forced to label their products containing GMOs according to Vermont’s law indeed violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Classified as compelled speech, this law would require all food manufacturing companies to label all products containing any trace of genetically modified organisms. Additionally, both international and local companies wanting to sell products containing GMOs in Vermont would be required to label their goods. In a law journal written by attorney Lucas Westerman, he proves that the labeling of GMOs is erroneous because it is inherently misleading and a “contributing factor to consumer confusion regarding GMOs”, not a substantial consumer interest or way of advancing said interest, and “not narrowly tailored to fulfill the objective of consumer interest” (Westerman, 225). If GMOs were required to be labeled though they aren’t intrinsically bad, there would be nothing to stop other things from following in their wake and requiring mandatory labeling as well. Labeling something automatically creates a bias, whether it be good or bad, towards any object. For example, medicine is labeled because the wrong dosage or intentional misuse could result in various life-threatening situations and even death. Cigarettes are labeled because they are known to cause cancer and other complicated health problems. However, labeling diapers containing polymers, such as sodium polyacrylate, would be ridiculous because they are essential to making diapers more absorbent and performing their proper function. Though one may not initially understand how a polymer works, consumers place their confidence in manufacturers and sufficient research has been done to show that they are non-toxic. Likewise, consumers may not completely understand GMOs but until there is research with verifiable evidence that GMOs are harmful, we shouldn’t be biased towards them. Mandatory GMO labeling will only further persuade consumers that there is something hidden or malevolent about them.

On the other side of the issue, Westerman does clarify that voluntary labeling initiatives could potentially resolve consumer issues with GMOs and give “interested consumers a choice without burdening the entire food industry with expensive re-labeling requirements” (Westerman, 225). Groups such as the Non-GMO Project and the Just Label It! organization raise money to spread awareness against the ‘potential threats’ of GMOs and the increase of pesticides used on crops. They also use funds to put their own ‘non-GMO’ labels on approved foods. While the effort these groups are putting in to persuade consumers to choose products free of GMOs is admirable, even the executive director of the Non-GMO Project Megan Westgate states that “the safety of GMOs is unknown…in the absence of credible independent long-term feeding studies” (Westgate). Rather than use money raised to fund such studies to assure consumers that there really is a ‘potential threat’, these groups would rather label non-GMO products unnecessarily and promote mandatory labeling for bioengineered products. This is not only ineffective and costly, but also contributes even further to the negative stigmatization of GMOs.

Despite the efforts of these non-GMO organizations, the FDA has stated that GMOs are safe for consumption and can have a positive impact on non-GMO crops. In the defense of GMOs, reporter Kevin Mooney wrote an article in the Washington Examiner scrutinizing the intentions of non-GMO activists.

Under FDA guidelines, ‘GMO-Free’ and ‘No GMOs’ labels are impermissible if they include explicit or even implied health claims that non-GMO products are safer for humans and the environment. Before any health claim can be made, there must be substantial scientific agreement, according to the FDA. That’s a problem for the Non-GMO Project, or at least it would be, if the law was enforced. The FDA has asserted on multiple occasions that GMO products measure up to the same health and safety requirements as do organic foods (Mooney).

The FDA expressly prohibits labels that imply that non-GMO foods are better than foods containing GMOs. Therefore, the labeling of any product is more detrimental and detracting as consumers may believe that GMOs are less healthy than ‘organic’ or ‘all-natural’ foods, many of which are treated with more harmful pesticides than GMOs themselves. In an experiment comparing crop damage and insecticide use in various states, doctor of biology Diana Gitig reported that the mere planting of GMOs helped prevent pesticide use on commercial crops. By planting genetically modified corn that expresses a natural pesticide near regular varieties of corn, scientists noted a decrease in moth populations throughout the experiment and even during their mating season (Gitig). Consequently, the amount of pesticide use was decreased eighty-five percent, from six pesticide applications, to only one! The GMO plants with the gene expressing a natural pesticide did not need the extra application of chemical pesticide; however, the ‘organic’ crops did. If GMO crops had to be labeled for sale, farmers would be less likely to use them and there would be less crops for general sale and consumption. GMOs don’t need to be labeled because they also help regular crops, decrease the need for pesticides, and help crops become safer for consumers.

Safety is clearly a priority and concern for consumers and producers alike. Contrary to popular beliefs held by anti-GMO organizations, there actually have been a number of studies done to show that the use of bioengineering on crops has no detrimental effects to an organism’s health abnormal from that of a regular crop. German doctor and professor Gerhard Flachowsky conducted one such study where common livestock were fed with first generation genetically modified plants and then had their digestive tract and tissues tested for the modified DNA and proteins of the plant. Flachowsky found that not only was there “no significant differences in the safety and nutritional value of feedstuffs containing material derived from the so-called 1st generation of genetically modified plants” compared to the non-genetically modified plants, but also that “no residues of recombinant DNA or novel proteins [were] found in any organ or tissue samples obtained from animals fed with” the genetically modified plants (Flachowsky). More studies are currently being done or are currently being proposed to test heavily genetically modified organisms (two or more generations of large changes to DNA) but small genetic changes to help reduce production costs and preserve crops are safe and approved by the Food and Drug Administration and do not need to be labeled.

Even though genetically modified products are considered safe by the FDA, companies are still required to label their products under the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. There are currently two options for companies producing genetically modified products: they can either start putting labels on their product or they need to find a way to source ingredients that are not genetically modified. If manufacturers start putting labels on their products, costs in production will rise slightly to account for the cost of the physical label. However, there is also a cost associated with the amount of business lost from consumers reading and perceiving the GM label. In a study done by food and agricultural economist D. A. Yeh, these costs of mandatory GMO labeling were measured. After examining 1,300 subjects, researchers determined that products with ‘Not-GM’ labels were treated the same as if they weren’t labeled at all when compared to unlabeled products. When faced with a choice of ‘Not-GM’ and unlabeled products while also in the presence of GM labeled products, consumers no longer differentiated between products without GMOs, regardless of its label (Yeh). However, the consumer’s willingness to buy products containing GMOs decreased by 23.7 percent. Effectively, companies without a way to source products free of GMOs will lose about one-fourth of their sales from having to label their products.

If companies want to avoid the potential decrease in sales from having to label their products, their other option is to find a way to reformulate their products with non-GM ingredients. Doctor and agricultural economics professor Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes wrote an article describing the various impacts this would have on the agricultural industry. He examined price premiums across four foods: salad and cooking oil, breakfast cereal, tortilla chips, and ice cream. With the increase of ninety-two percent and almost sixty-two percent in price premiums of organic and non-GMO foods respectively over seven years, he concluded that the cost of reformulation for companies using GM ingredients in their food would skyrocket production costs and therefore skyrocket consumer prices as well by almost ten percent (Kalaitzandonakes). That might not seem like a terrible trade-off for Whole Food shoppers, but it will break the bank for food-stamp recipients and other customers struggling to make ends meet. Exorbitant prices for produce and non-GM food will lead to a decrease in demand, and therefore a decrease in the agricultural industry as a whole. Many farmers and agricultural companies will be put out of business because they are not able to afford non-GM alternatives.

Non-GM alternatives are just not as viable as products containing GMOs, especially considering that virtually everything we eat already has GM ingredients from alcohol and canola oil to ice cream and yeast products. In addition to being more expensive than genetically modified varieties, they also require more water and are not as resilient as their GM counterparts. Crop and environmental scientist Dr. Elisa Peligrino did a study on the resilience of genetically engineered (GE) maize where she found that the “GE maize performed better than its near isogenic (non-GE) line: grain yield was 5.6 to 24.5% higher with lower concentrations of mycotoxins (−28.8%), fumonisin (−30.6%) and thricotecens (−36.5%)” (Peligrino). With the same amount of water required for a regular corn crop, the GE corn crop yielded almost one-fourth more crops than its regular counterpart and was much more resilient to different types of blight that normally affect corn crops. Other genetically modified crops similarly conserve water, are generally more hardy than normal varieties, and can provide sources of vital nutrients not commonly found in developing third world countries. For example, a type of rice called ‘golden rice’ for its unusual yellow color and high vitamin A content could be the solution to vitamin A deficiencies in Bangladesh if it manages to get its governmental approval and consumer acceptance (Stokstad). Genetically modified crops and ingredients have the potential to make a great impact both locally and internationally on problems such as malnutrition and starvation. However, if mandatory labeling for GMOs continues to be pursued, consumers and farmers alike will be convinced that the additional costs attached to GM products outweigh their benefits and ultimately cripple the entire agricultural industry.

Genetically modified organisms are commonplace in the agricultural industry today and highly practical. Not only are they cost effective and decrease the need for pesticides, they could also be the key to solving nutritional problems throughout the world and help efficiently increase the general supply of food. While non-GMO activists have the right to be concerned about the prevalence of GMOs, both the Food and Drug Administration and many scientists have conducted research on the safety of GMOs and have deemed them to have no negative health effects. Indeed, the mandatory labeling of genetically modified products should be stopped to conserve the freedom of speech for companies, prevent the further negative stigmatization of GMOs, continue to maintain and potentially decrease the price of food, and help preserve business for local farmers and the agricultural industry. As all consumers consider the benefits of genetically modified organisms, their consumption and support of these products will not only contribute to further research and advances in biotechnology, but they will also be essential in fighting against world hunger and supporting local farmers and the agricultural economy.

The United States of America (USA), is a federal republic composed of 50 states, 3.8 million sq. miles (9.8 million km2) and with a population over 325 million, the United States is the world’s third largest country by total area. According to the Census Bureau (United States Department of Commerce), median household income was $59,039 in 2016. After years of stagnant growth, in 2016, according to the Census, median household income reached a record high after two consecutive years of record growth. The United States with Canada and 18 European countries founded the OECD, Americans have benefited from their country’s strong voice and leadership role at the organization. With decisions of huge importance being made every day on complex matters like international taxation and making trade work for all, it made the United States vital to have a seat at the table and to be fully engaged in the process. There is the importance of US support to the OECD as the US contributed $71 million.

America leads at the OECD; it keeps American businesses competitive in the world. The US was simultaneously the world’s largest producer and consumer of oil; and the world market was dominated by a group of multinational companies, five of which were headquartered in the US following the breakup of John D. Rockefeller’s original Standard Oil monopoly. Oil-exporting countries were eventually motivated to form OPEC as a counterweight to this concentration of political and economic power. During 2014–2015, OPEC members consistently exceeded their production ceiling. These developments led in turn to a plunge in US oil import requirements (moving closer to energy independence), a record volume of worldwide oil inventories, and a collapse in oil prices that continued into early 2016.

As OPEC members grew weary of a multi-year supply contest with diminishing returns and shrinking financial reserves, the organization finally attempted its first production cut since 2008. The U.S. is not expected to join BRICS soon for the purpose of economic growth. Its estimated growth to be around 2% over the next few years. The U.S. GDP is the biggest in the world at 18 Trillion-plus dollars, although BRICS combined has a GDP of 37 Trillion dollars. Majority of its energy comes from fossil fuels, 65% i.e., from coal, petroleum, and natural gases, and around 20% energy comes from nuclear energy sources while 15% is derived from renewable energy sources.

Summary of INDC: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) entered into force in 1994, US signed the convention on June 12, 1992, ratification accepted on October 15, 1992, and came into force on March 21, 1994. Figure 1: Shows participation in different global climate actions by US (Image source: USA First NDC Submission pdf )Kyoto Protocol:A primary driver for the failure of the U.S. to ratify the Kyoto Protocol was the domestic concern that middle-income developing countries were not required to take action to address their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions despite their growing capability. Pressure from the U.S. gas and oil lobbies to scuttle the deal had been strong prior to the deal, and after George W. Bush became president in 2001 he announced that America was pulling out. For the other nations, the Kyoto Protocol took effect in February 2005. Attempts to work out another deal that would include developing nations continued to create tensions, especially between the U.S. and a rapidly growing China. The Copenhagen Accord, drifted with the US in one side and others united with not wanting to legally binding or commit to a binding successor to Kyoto protocol. Kyoto protocol was continued. After completion of the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period in 2012 in Doha amendment, it was decided to extend the period to 2020. But only 96 countries ratified the Doha Amendment, which would have kept their reduction goals under the Kyoto Protocol in place until 2020. 144 countries more are needed for the amendment to go into force.

Paris Agreement, after years of failure to reach an international consensus on a plan of action to replace the Kyoto pact, U.N. negotiators agreed in Paris that all nations would work to keep the global temperature rise this century “well below” 2? above pre-industrial levels and to make serious efforts to keep the rise at just 1.5?. More financing was promised for developing countries in particular to reduce emissions, and new structures for reporting national GHG emissions and mitigation policies were agreed upon.

However, President Donald Trump withdrew his country from the Paris Agreement, which has since been ratified by 162 parties, including all of the major developed and emerging economies, leaving the U.S. as the sole major polluter to opt out.

The government’s job in the American economy changed drastically from the 1870s through the 1920s due to the rise of big businesses.

First, we must examine any events that occurred during this time and the effects it had on the community. The Gilded Age took place during the 19th century and is “ the golden age of technological innovation” (Nygren lecture, “Gilded Age, pt. 1”). Society shifted away from agriculture and towards industrialization, which is something not everyone was prepared for. American industrial capitalism developed significantly as well as manufacturing and mass production. Machines used to make steel went from 13,000 tons to 10 million tons (Nygren lecture, “Gilded Age, pt. 1”). The invention of railroads helped promote growth and expansion in many different industries by making transportation faster and bringing many city’s wealth. Goods could be transported from one country to another more efficiently. Urban population increased from 31 million to 76 million (Nygren lecture, “Gilded Age, pt. 1”). People that have lived in poverty in Southern and Eastern Europe emigrated to the Northern and Western States because they saw this as an opportunity for prosperity. Economic growth increased as well as the distance between the rich and poor.

Before the Gilded Age workers were mainly farmers who had the opportunity to work at the speed they desired. Due to technological advancement there were now more factory workers. Andrew Carnegie played a role in big businesses and was dominant for being “self made” (Nygren lecture, “Gilded Age, pt. 1). He was able to financially gain due to him founding the Carnegie Steel along with many other things. Big businesses were expanding and being acknowledged as a great source of power. There was lots of competition and companies began coming up with strategies that promoted organization and financial gain. It was becoming difficult for some companies to compete in the market place so they confided in the government for grants and subsidies. The government did not want any intervention during this period.

The rise of industrial capitalism revolutionized American socioeconomic life in the late 19th century by affecting the way people lived. The Gilded Age promoted economic growth, but caused problems in society. Living conditions have become more expensive. The amount of workers that were skilled and unskilled enlarged. Many of the people emigrating to the United States were unskilled. They were willing to work in dangerous environments for a long period of time with little pay. Poor Americans were not being treated fairly, so they didn’t have alot of liberty. Trade unions in industrial cities were established and grew rapidly. The workers wanted to have control over their working conditions. Carnegie was against labor unions as well as government interference. Carnegie felt that he solved the problem between the rich and the poor by offering more jobs and, “Those who accumulated money had an obligation to use it to promote the advancement of society” (Document 103, p.32). He used his wealth to benefit society through railroads, coal mines, factories, and many more. Other politicians were seen as helpless and dishonest. They were greedy and did things to their benefit. William Graham Sumner was a social darwinist that believed in the government not interfering and he gave credence to inequality. He felt that government interference threatened the liberty of people.It does not solve the problems that arise within the economy. He felt that social classes owed one another and that the working class was not gaining from the prosperity of wealth. This caused people to feel as if their liberty was being overlooked. The increase in Social Darwinism promoted “a negative definition of freedom as limited government and an unrestrained free market. It also helped to persuade courts, in the name of liberty of contract to overturn state laws regulating behavior of corporations”(Document 104, p.36).

Americans of different classes and backgrounds responded to the problems of the industrial age differently. Big businesses supported no government interference because they didn’t have to pay taxes, so they were able to stay rich. African Americans and famers did not like the fact that the government was not helping because it allowed them to stay poor. Coming from a wealthy background kept alive a rich status. If you came from a not so wealthy background then it was said that that status would be maintained. Certain people were able to make more money than others due to lack of government interference which caused social classes to divide ((Nygren lecture, “Gilded Age, pt. 2).

It’s time we at long last take a gander at the cons of the conflict rather than the pros. Numerous individuals need a decent paying job yet aren’t able to due to not being able to go to college, so they turn to food chains and restaurants for pay employment. In our reality, you need to work for something to succeed at anything in everyday life, so the legislature shouldn’t need to raise the minimum wage. A few people get the opportunity to flourish and have a future and head off to college or a specialized school yet decide not to. Individuals who head off to college buckle down and acquire their instruction since they need to be fruitful throughout everyday life.

Raising the minimum wage would hurt laborers significantly, particularly low-gifted specialists. It would bring about employment loses “nearly 1.3 million jobs will be lost if the federal minimum wage is increased to $9.50 per hour”, as mentioned by Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser (2010). Considering that, raising it would hurt the economy and the unemployment rate.

Raising the minimum wage will cause for teens to think working at a fast-food restaurant will be easy and a sustainable way of living instead of going off to college to get a real job benefiting society. Teens need jobs to encounter the workforce and increase significant abilities for future business.

Raising minimum wage has some different downsides like making school less appealing to student because they think they can settle and make a living off McDonald’s rather than striving for higher education. Corporate-law scholar, Stephen Bainbridge says: “When faced with the choice of earning an immediate income or the potential of a better income after four or more years of additional schooling, young people tend to lean towards the former”. Teens would prefer to get money at the earliest opportunity so they can go hang out with friends and do as they please instead of waiting till after college.

Raising the minimum wage would also force businesses to raise prices to compensate for what they must pay their employees now. “If businesses are forced to pay more to employ workers, budgets are affected accordingly. To help with the bottom line, prices may go up as a way of retaining money spent on providing extra compensation to minimum wage workers” (‘Reasons Why the Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised’). At the point when costs go up that means you need to pay more for things you wish to buy, causing you to spend more of your paycheck. The issue would keep flying back up about compensation.

Although, despite all opposing arguments, people still think minimum wage should be raised. “Congress to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 it will put more money into the pockets of hard-working Americans” (Cap Action War Room/ Think Progress: ‘10 Reasons to Raise the Minimum Wage’).

This is true that people would make more money and carrying it to their home. Therefore, minimum wage should be kept at what it is now, and the government shouldn’t be allowed to raise it in fear of negatively affecting our economy.