Need to get a gm food presentation 3 days business us letter size

Best websites to write presentation gm food us letter size writing asa british

Introduction Genetically modified (GM) crops have been internationally produced for 20 years and in spite of the substantial quantification of the economic, environmental, and health benefits from the adoption of GM crops, opposition to GM crops remains firmly rooted within many organizations and countries.While GM crops have undergone risk assessments in over 30 different countries without the detection of any increased risk to humans, livestock, or the environment, myths, rumors, and outright lies continue to be perpetuated by environmental nongovernmental organizations (eNGOs) about the damages, dangers, and threats posed by GM crops.

The eNGO movement has interfered with biosafety regulatory approval frameworks in many developing countries to ensure that no GM crops are ever approved 5 Jan 2017 - The result of this is regulatory delays for the approval of new GM crops and frequent international commodity trade failures, where shipments have been rejected due to the low-level   (2016) found that approvals in the United States required an average of 686 days compared to 995 days in the EU..The eNGO movement has interfered with biosafety regulatory approval frameworks in many developing countries to ensure that no GM crops are ever approved.

When trace amounts of GM crops are detected in non-GM shipments, borders are slammed shut, causing trade conflicts lasting several years.Given the 20 years of GM crop adoption, numerous studies have reported on the substantial benefits, yet regulatory and trade barriers abound.GM crops have proven to be safe and yet the eNGO community spends billions lobbying and fighting against their use (Byrne 2015).Why is this the case? What is responsible for the continued opposition? The answer is politics.

Science-based regulation of innovation in numerous jurisdictions has been replaced by socioeconomic regulation, a nefarious scheme advanced by eNGOs through the liberal interpretation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB).The CPB has been manipulated to such an extent by eNGOs, that it is only now revealing the hidden objective of the CPB, which is to put a halt to all forms of agricultural research and development in developing countries.Developing countries are expected to reach food security through small-scale, largely organic crop production (UNCTAD 2013).The question of how to improve global food security when opposition to one of the proven beneficial technologies is so seemingly entrenched is indeed a modern day dilemma.

This article summarizes the literature on the global economic, environmental, and health benefits of GM crops.

This is followed by a discussion of the regulatory challenges that have been precipitated following the advent of the CPB.Documentation of the trade barriers that exist regarding GM crops rounds out the evidence compiled on the mistreatment of GM crops.The remainder of the article discusses the crucial steps that will be required to truly advance global food security in the face of such organized opposition.Global Benefits of GM Crops While GM crops have undergone risk assessments in over 30 countries, at present, they are only produced in 28 countries (James 2015).James identifies that 180 million hectares of GM crop production occurred in 2015, involving over 17 million farmers.

Two thirds of the countries adopting GM crops are developing countries.While some GM crop varieties have limited production, such as papaya, eggplant, alfalfa, and sugar beets, the benefits of GM crops focus on the observed effects of the four dominant GM crops: canola, corn, cotton, and soybeans.The benefits from GM crops can be differentiated into three main categories, economic, environmental, and health.Economic benefits of GM crops With the adoption of GM crops rapidly expanding over the first two decades of availability, the benefits from the technology must be significant, otherwise farmers would have begun to return to previous crop options.One team of authors has annually examined the economic impacts of GM crops and their most recent data on the 2014 cropping year estimates that the global economic benefits of GM crops exceeded US$17 billion (Brookes and Barfoot 2016).

Cumulatively, over the period from 1996 to 2014, the authors estimate that the economic benefits of GM crops have reached US$150 billion.The production increases from GM crops have a substantial contribution to improving global food security as Brookes and Barfoot estimate that over the 19-year period of GM crop production, an additional 158 million tons of soybeans and 322 million tons of corn have been produced that would not have resulted without the technology.Studies on the economic benefits from GM crops first began to appear about the turn of the millennium, with many of these based on the results from experimental field trial data that were then extrapolated to the crop production area, using an estimated adoption curve.These were rudimentary studies that provided an initial sense of what degree of benefits might be observed, particularly in developing countries.By the time the technology had been adopted for a decade, studies of greater rigor began to appear, based on farmer surveys.

Several articles undertook a detailed assessment of the numerous studies that began to regularly appear following the first decade of GM crop adoption.The first of these was conducted by Carpenter (2010), which examined 168 studies on GM crop yields, finding that 124 of the studies reported yield increases, 32 no change, and only 13 reporting lower yields.(2011) examined 203 peer reviewed studies, concluding that yield increases are evident with GM crop adoption, but noted that these increases were due to reduced insect and weed population pressures and not due to actual genomic yield increases.(2013) examined 97 studies comparing yield increases between GM and non-GM, finding GM crops outperformed conventional crop in both developed and developing countries.The most recent study was conducted by Kl mper and Qaim (2014), who undertook a meta-analysis of 147 studies on the impacts of GM crops, finding that chemical pesticide use decreased by 37%, crop yields increased by 22%, and farmer profits increased by 68%.While these overarching studies provide an international sense as to the distribution of benefits observed from GM crops, it is useful to draw on some specific examples to further illustrate the level of benefits that have been observed.Subramanian and Qaim (2010) examined Bt cotton adoption in India, finding that it raised vulnerable household incomes (those defined as living on <$2/day) by 134%.(2010) led a study on the economic benefits of GM corn adoption in the United States, finding that GM corn created $6.8 billion in extra value, with 60% going to nonadopters due to lower insect pressures.Based on a farm survey of nearly 600 canola producers, Gusta et al.(2011) found that GM canola resulted in annual benefits of $350–$400 million in Western Canada.Yorobe and Smale (2012) identified that GM corn adoption in the Philippines increased household income from $400/year to $600/year, a 50% increase.

(2014) found Bt cotton adoption in Burkina Faso resulted in a profit of $150/ha versus $70/ha for conventional cotton.(2014) estimate the cumulative global benefits from GM soybeans to be $46 billion over the 15-year period from 1996 to 2010.Environmental benefits of GM crops The first studies examining the environmental benefits of GM crops were undertaken following the adoption of Bt cotton in China.

(2001) surveyed Chinese farmers in 1999, finding that the adoption of Bt cotton allowed farmers to spray less frequently, in some instances dropping from 30 per season to 3, but more commonly from 12 to 3–4.(2010) update the Chinese Bt cotton story observing that across the entire sample region insecticide applications dropped from 14 kg/ha to 4 kg/ha.1 The spillover of environmental benefits from the lengthy adoption of Bt cotton began to be observed as the authors reported finding that in some non-Bt cotton fields the amount of insecticide used dropped from in excess of 40 kg/ha to >10 kg/ha.

Similar environmental benefits from the adoption of Bt cotton in India were quantified by Subramanian and Qaim (2010), where they found Bt cotton reduced pesticide use by 41%.A detailed study of the environmental changes following a decade of GM canola production in Western Canada identified substantial benefits.Prior to the commercialization of GM canola, the chemicals available to be applied to canola for weed control were limited, with the majority requiring soil application.The commercialization of herbicide-tolerant varieties of GM canola allowed producers to begin to use foliar chemical applications.The result of this was that the environmental impact of the chemicals applied to canola dropped by 53% when compared to the chemicals that were previously used on canola (Smyth et al.

When comparing chemical applications between GM canola production and the alternate scenario where GM canola had not been commercialized, the authors found the total volume of chemicals applied to canola dropped by 1.The rapid adoption of GM canola provided improved weed control options, which reduced the use of tillage as a form of weed control, resulting in one million tons of carbon being either sequestered by the soil or no longer released from implement passes (Smyth et al.

Brookes and Barfoot (2016) show CO 2 emission reductions equal to removing 10 million cars for 1 year.Recent research shows the environmental costs of not adopting GM crops.However, in 2004 a moratorium was implemented across Australia against growing GM canola.It was not until 2008 when the central canola producing states of New South Wales and Victoria lifted the moratorium, followed by Western Australia in 2010.

An examination of the environmental costs of the Australian moratoriums was undertaken that estimated what the adoption level for GM canola could have been after one decade of production, from 2004 to 2014, had the moratorium not been implemented (Biden 2016).The delayed adoption of GM canola production in Australia cumulatively resulted in the application of an additional 6.5 million kg of chemical active ingredient.The application of these additional chemicals were done through an additional 7 million field passes, requiring 8.The environmental impact of the additional chemicals applied was 14% higher than would have been the case if GM canola had not been subjected to an adoption moratorium.Finally, an estimated 24 million additional kilograms of greenhouse gases were released due to the nonadoption of GM canola.Health benefits of GM crops Some of the most significant benefits from GM crops, yet least widely recognized, are the health and lifestyle benefits.Identified benefits in this area range from a reduction in pesticide poisonings to less time spent hand weeding fields.One continuous criticism advanced by critics of biotechnology and GM crops, such as Vandana Shiva, is that GM cotton is responsible for thousands of small landholder farmers committing suicide every year.

Shiva and her ilk intentionally ignore the facts about Indian farmer suicide and continue to perpetuate lies about the unfortunate situation of farmer suicides.Research on this subject was conducted by Gru re and Sengupta (2011) and documented a one-third reduction in the suicide rate following the release of Bt cotton among Indian farmers based on extrapolating the pre-Bt cotton commercialization suicide rate.Research from South Africa following the adoption of GM corn documents the first lifestyle benefits of the technology.Gouse (2013) surveyed small landholders finding that GM corn adoption had resulted in 10–12 fewer days of female hand weeding per season.This research identified that the women farmers spent this time predominantly in one of two areas, hauling more water for their vegetable gardens or spending time with their children.

While the economic and environmental benefits of GM crops are important, they definitely pale in comparison to the health benefits of reduced pesticide poisoning.(2014) surveyed Bt cotton farmers in Burkina Faso over the first 3 years of adoption.While the economic benefits discussed above are significant, the health benefits far outweigh the economic benefits.Their farm survey results identified that an estimated 30,000 fewer cases of pesticide poisoning per year were occurring among Bt cotton farmers.

Best website to order a gm food presentation writing from scratch single spaced 50 pages / 13750 words 8 hours

While the health benefits in Burkina Faso are important, they are dwarfed by the health benefits identified by Kouser and Qaim (2011) regarding pesticide poisoning reductions following Bt cotton adoption in India.Their research estimated that the number of pesticide poisonings was reduced by between 2.They estimated that the financial savings for the Indian Ministry of Health ranged between US$14 and 51 million A Typical GM's Agenda. Although most corporations today have formal planning processes that produce written plans, GMs' agendas always include goals, priorities, strategies, and plans that are not in those documents. This is not to say that formal plans and GMs' agendas are incompatible, but they differ in at least three  .They estimated that the financial savings for the Indian Ministry of Health ranged between US$14 and 51 million.

Every developed and developing country that has adopted one of the available GM crops has experienced at least one of, if not all of increased yield, reduced chemical use, and/or fewer cases of pesticide poisoning.

With hundreds of studies now quantifying the various benefits, where is the holdup? Why is adoption in developing countries not happening at a faster rate than it is? What or who is responsible? The article now turns its attention to a discussion of the regulatory barriers that have been systematically structured to frustrate innovations in agriculture Global GMO Scandal. How corporations engineered the non-regulation of dangerous genetically modified foods. Government officials around the globe have   [3] While most industry manipulation and political collusion is more subtle, none was more significant than that found at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)..With hundreds of studies now quantifying the various benefits, where is the holdup? Why is adoption in developing countries not happening at a faster rate than it is? What or who is responsible? The article now turns its attention to a discussion of the regulatory barriers that have been systematically structured to frustrate innovations in agriculture.Regulatory Challenges Facing GM Crops Domestic regulatory systems are now part of corporate investment strategies (Smyth et al Global GMO Scandal. How corporations engineered the non-regulation of dangerous genetically modified foods. Government officials around the globe have   [3] While most industry manipulation and political collusion is more subtle, none was more significant than that found at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)..Regulatory Challenges Facing GM Crops Domestic regulatory systems are now part of corporate investment strategies (Smyth et al.In January 2012, BASF announced that it was moving its agricultural research division from Europe to the United States due to the timeliness of regulatory decisions in Europe (BASF, 2012).It is even possible to view the Bayer acquisition of Monsanto as being a mechanism for Bayer to move underutilized, if not stranded, capital invested in plant variety development in Europe to the United States, given the European aversion to agriculture innovations in plant technologies.

Regulatory systems in some jurisdictions are being driven by politics, not science.Politicization of risk has occurred in the European Union (EU) as they have fully incorporated a rigid version of the precautionary principle into their regulatory framework for GM products (Smyth et al.The EU's rigid application is an inappropriate interpretation of the precautionary principle.As was established by the World Trade Organization's (WTO) ruling in the 2006 case by Argentina, Canada, and the USA against the EU's moratorium on GM crops, the precautionary principle requires some form of evidence to be invoked.

This has reduced the EU regulatory system for GM crop approvals to utter gridlock with only a single variety being approved for commercial production in the past decade.Even decisions regarding approval for import take longer in the EU than in the United States.(2016) found that approvals in the United States required an average of 686 days compared to 995 days in the EU.Currently, >10% of global industry research and development (R&D) on agriculture is spent in the EU versus one-third 20 years ago (Little 2015).

While it would not be possible to attribute all of this loss in R&D investment to the EU's present regulatory regime, the regulatory framework has to be considered as having a substantial impact on this investment decline.(2016) have completed a thorough analysis of agricultural R&D spending, finding that in 2011, global investments totaled US$69 billion.High-income countries accounted for 55% (down from 69% in 1980), while middle-income countries accounted for 43% (up from 29% in 1980).

The lack of coordinated regulatory capacity for GM crops is causing untold delays in the adoption and diffusion of the technology.

For example, by October 2015, EU Member States had to inform the European Commission as to whether they would opt out of EU-wide GM crop approvals as has been mandatory since 2003.By this deadline, 19 of 28 MS indicated they would opt out (Smyth et al.The EU is no longer capable of approving GM crops for production and is struggling to manage to approve GM crops for import.Varieties of GM crops submitted in 2005 for import approval (predominantly for animal feed use) still have not been approved over 11 years later.

While existing and previous technologies to develop new crop varieties has posed a significant quandary for EU regulators, new plant breeding techniques may be an even greater challenge.New plant breeding techniques that provide no identifiable markers that can be used to verify the technology utilized to create the new variety now have their initial varieties undergoing risk assessment and approval.Examples of these technologies are targeted mutagenesis techniques such as oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis (ODM), zinc finger nuclease (ZFN), meganuclease technique, and transcriptional activator-like effector–nuclease (TALEN), and gene silencing techniques such as clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR).Many of these technologies have been classified as forms of mutagenesis in the United States, with the resulting products not subject to GM crop regulations.Examples such as Innate potatoes developed by Simplot and Arctic apples developed by Okanagan Specialty Fruits document the acceptance of innovative plant breeding technologies in some parts of the world.

In an open letter to the European Commission, leading eNGO groups across Europe have attacked these new breeding techniques (NBTs), calling for every single new NBT to be classified as a GMO technology and therefore rejected for use within the EU (Panella et al.The easing of regulatory burdens on innovative agricultural biotechnologies does not seem to be on the horizon as recent and ongoing trade negotiations have not satisfactorily addressed the subject.The recent Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the EU does have provisions for addressing regulatory issues, but in the era of biotechnology, there is no ability to resolve disputes.Therefore, regulatory issues will simply be discussed and discussed for years with no mechanism for resolution.

The CETA clearly states that trade barriers such as the low-level presence of EU-unapproved GM varieties will be referred to the Dialogue on Biotech Market Access Issues.Even though it is clearly acknowledged that there are outstanding trade and regulatory barriers, CETA does nothing to resolve these other than to refer the topics to an ongoing dialog process that lacks any formal definition.The language used in the CETA documents is also present in the language of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the current negotiations between the US and the EU on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP).Perhaps the single biggest regulatory barrier to biotechnology is the inappropriate interpretation and application of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB).The CPB was negotiated at the end of the last millennium as an environmental response to the WTO's unwillingness to open to the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement to consumer aversion to biotechnology and GM crops.

In December 2000, agreement was reached on the CPB, as a supplement agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity.The CPB came into effect as an international agreement in 2003, focusing solely on the trans-boundary movement of living modified organisms (LMOs).The EU pushed heavily for the establishment of the CPB, which incorporates the precautionary principle to the fullest extent.The EU had previously lobbied the WTO to have the SPS Agreement revised to reflect consumers’ socioeconomic concerns, however, they were unsuccessful in these efforts.Currently, 170 countries have ratified the CPB, while leading GM crop-producing countries such as Argentina, Australia, Canada, and the United States are not parties.

One consequence that was not clearly evident at the time of the CPB's negotiation and coming into effect was the disastrous effect that would be created from the movement away from science-based regulation.With the hidden agenda of undermining agricultural research and development (R&D) in developing countries, the eNGOs that lobbied vociferously for the ratification of the CPB have been successful at ensuring the inclusion of socioeconomic issues that have no data, no methodology, and no ability to contribute meaningfully to biosafety (Ludlow et al.The eNGO community has advanced nebulous socioeconomic considerations (SECs) such as gender impacts; farmers’ rights; cultural, spiritual, and ethical aspects; land tenure; labor and employment; rural–urban migration; impacts on consumer choice; and impacts on market access as issues that require assessment prior to the approval of a GM crop.Virtually all of these have limited or nonexistent data in developing nations, lack credible methodologies that would be required to undertake an assessment, and lack any benchmark capability to know if the resulting impact would be positive or negative.

Given all of these attributes, it is clear that SECs are simply a disguised objective to ensure that all agricultural R&D is delayed, if not outright prevented, in most developing nations.The extreme of SEC inclusion is evidenced by the biosafety regulations of Mali, whereby no negative socioeconomic impact from the commercialization of a GM crop is allowable (CBD 2014).In the history of innovative products and technologies, there is not a single one that has resulted in zero adverse effects occurring.The adoption of fire to heat caves resulted in burns; learning how to sail boats resulted in people drowning; and the invention of cell phones resulted in deaths due to texting while driving.Mali's regulatory barrier to GM crops makes it abundantly clear that the CPB is a disguised barrier to all crop R&D in developing countries.

Regulatory barriers of this nature have substantial impacts on R&D investment decisions, as demonstrated by BASF's decision to transfer all of its agricultural R&D assets out of Europe to North America.While private companies have the luxury of being able to relocate assets in an effort to secure a higher return on investment (ROI), public sector investors are not afforded such luxury.In most developing countries, public research centers invest in the development of local crop variety improvements and will frequently partner with international agencies, organizations, and companies in the development of new plant varieties.These centers will have minimal ROI expectations as the royalties from new crop varieties will be a low percentage of seed prices.A 2-year delay in the regulatory approval of a new crop variety with a ROI rate of 20% has been shown to eliminate all positive returns (Smyth et al.

With national research centers relying on ROI revenue to fund new variety R&D, the revenue loss will have devastating effects.Not only is biotech research jeopardized in developing countries, but all agriculture research is in danger of being ended, especially if the eNGO community is successful in getting the various new breeding techniques to be regulated as GMO technologies.Should the full list of NBTs be classified as GMOs by eNGOs for developing country regulators, investment in agricultural R&D could be expected to virtually cease, given the very low probability that any resulting product could ever be approved through an SEC-based regulatory system.Trade Impacts From GM Crops International commodity trade has never taken place at a purity level of 100%.

This is particularly impossible as the purity level for certified seed, the seed that the pedigreed seed industry sells to farmers, is sold at a purity level of 99.At this level, there is an allowance of one quarter of a percent for weed seeds and one quarter of a percent for other crop varieties.Given that the grain, pulse, and oilseed production process starts with 0.

5% impurities, commodities cannot make it through the entire growing, harvesting, and transportation stages without an increase in the presence of impurities or off-types.

While challenging to verify due to the private nature of commodity contracts, conversations with those in the grain trade industry indicate that contracts are typically written with impurity thresholds of 3–5%.The lower the threshold, the higher the price the importer has to pay.Shortly after the commercialization of GM crops, adoption and import moratoriums began to be enacted.The most significant of these was the GM crop moratorium that the EU implemented from 1998 to 2003.While this was ultimately ruled as a trade barrier in 2006 by the WTO, the damage had already been done.

Global commodity trade has been adversely affected by the low-level presence (LLP) of approved GM varieties as well as the adventitious presence (AP) detection of unapproved GM varieties in non-GM markets.Prior to 2003, regulation and approval of GM crops in Europe was done individually by Member States.When issues of LLP and AP occurred, the resulting fields were either destroyed or harvested and the resulting crop contained (Hobbs et al.Incidents of this nature happened over several years without international borders being closed to commodity trade.

Order an gm food presentation 20 pages / 5500 words us letter size harvard business

In 2003, the EU removed its GM crop moratorium and established the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which coincided with an end to rational approaches to LLP and AP detection.Following 2003, any LLP or AP detection results in an immediate closure of EU borders to commodity trade, costing billions in lost trade opportunities (Smyth et al.In some instances, this has resulted in shipments of conventional commodities being destroyed due to false-positive GM crop detections (Kalaitzandonakes et al What Effective General Managers Really Do Harvard Business Review.In some instances, this has resulted in shipments of conventional commodities being destroyed due to false-positive GM crop detections (Kalaitzandonakes et al.

Examples exist in American exports of corn and rice to the EU, while Canada's flax market was adversely affected by the closure of the EU border to Canadian flax exports.In September 2009, GM flax was detected in Canadian flax exports to the EU.The EU immediately closed the border to all flax shipments from Canada.The border closure lasted 4months, until an industry stewardship testing protocol could be developed, agreed upon, and implemented.This stewardship protocol ensures that every field of Canadian flax is tested for GM flax and this testing protocol continues all the way along the flax handling system, rail, interlake freighters, and transoceanic vessels.

The 4-month export loss cost the Canadian flax industry C$30 million, while in the EU the border closure resulted in losses of €40 million to their flax processing industry and over 600 jobs (Ryan and Smyth 2012).The initial agreement regarding the stewardship testing protocol was to test all shipments for a period of 5 years, costing $1 million per year.This testing protocol was to have ended in 2014; however, no incentives to end the testing program exist and it will continue to cost the Canadian flax industry $1 million per year for the foreseeable future.The EU was Canada's leading flax export market, so Canada cannot risk ending testing protocols given the importance of the EU market, while on the other hand, the EU is not going to suddenly drop requirements that Canadian flax no longer be tested, given how political the issue of GM comingling is in Europe.Unless a sunset clause is agreed to upon negotiation of a testing protocol, the testing for LLP of GM crops will continue to cost the commodity trade industry in perpetuity.

American commodity exports have similarly been adversely affected.Herculex I corn was approved in the United States and was submitted to the EU for import approval in 2000.When import approval was not shortly received, the industry undertook export testing to ensure this variety did not reach the EU.The EU's regulatory system managed to approve the import of Herculex I corn, taking 6 years to do so; however, during this period, traces of Herculex R corn were detected in EU shipments.The corn industry's challenge of perfectly ensuring that zero Herculex R corn entered the EU animal feed market caused corn gluten feed exports from the US to the EU to drop by 30–40%.

By 2009, Herculex R was approved for import, but the corn market was disrupted for 3 years, all over a variety of corn that was used as an ingredient in livestock feed.Rice exports from the US to the EU suffered a similar fate.Trace amounts of LL601 rice were detected in EU in 2006.The problem in this instance was that LL601 had not received variety approval in the United States, so its AP in rice shipments was a major concern for the rice industry.Over 1000 lawsuits were launched against Bayer, the developer of LL601, ultimately costing over $2 billion in settlement costs.

By 2012, the issue was finally resolved with the last of the court cases being completed, however, the US rice export market to the EU was only 40% of what it had previously been.The message that these commodity trade problems send to developing countries considering the adoption of GM crops is resoundingly negative.If industrial countries like Canada and the United States struggle to manage identity preservation systems and export GM-free shipments to the EU, how would developing countries be able to exceed the Canadian or American systems, especially given the limited resources and inland testing capability? Developing countries that rely on EU markets for exported products see the GM crop LLP trade backlash and ongoing costs, which negatively impacts developing country decisions to adopt GM crops.In fact, the EU has gone as far as threatening developing countries into ensuring that they do not adopt GM crops.In 2014, the EU's Ambassador to Kenya, Lodewijk Briet was quoted as saying: “Local farmers will find it difficult to export their crops to Europe if they adopt the Genetically Modified (GM) crops” (Gathura 2014).

If threatening developing countries is not despicable enough, the EU also blackmails countries into ensuring that they adopt the innovation-killing interpretation of the CPB if they want to export agricultural products to the EU.The WTO allows countries to apply different tariff rates to specific countries for specific products that are not granted to all other trading partners.Essentially this allows countries to export their products at a lower tariff rate than competing export countries.The EU requires that any country wanting the lower tariff rate to have ratified the CPB: “the CPB aims to ensure a balance between the sustainable use of modern biotechnology and economic interests.The protocol governs the trans-boundary movement of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), and authorizes states to prevent the import of GMOs according to the precautionary principle” (European Commission, 2016: 13).

The CPB is the biggest international barrier to innovative agricultural technologies, GM crops, and NBTs presently in existence.In addition to this, the EU forces developing countries wanting preferred tariff rates to be a member of the CPB and the EU threatens developing countries that if they adopt GM crops, they will lose access to EU markets.Developing countries witness how the EU shuts its borders to Canadian and US exports when the LLP of approved and unapproved GM crops are detected.The EU and its vigorous application of the CPB leaves most developing nations feeling they simply have no option when it comes to domestically deciding whether or not to adopt GM crops and rather that this decision has already been made for them by the EU and particularly by EU-based eNGOs.

If all this was not deemed a significant enough deterrent to developing countries, in the spring of 2016, the European Parliament completely abandoned a previous G7 commitment to improving food security.

In 2012, the G7 group of countries launched the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition program in an effort to lift 50 million people out of poverty.In June 2016, Members of the European Parliament (MEP) called on developing countries to reject the program, calling it “a mistake.” MEPs demanded “that the G7 abandon its commitment to GMOs in this public-private partnership” and this type of farming practice “destroys family farming and reduces biodiversity” (The Guardian, 2016).The EU and its eNGOs spend billions annually to prevent GM crops from being adopted in developing countries.In 2015, it is estimated that the anti-GM movement spent US$10 billion fighting biotech around the globe (Byrne 2015).

In 2011, the big six multinational biotechnology development companies spent US$8.6 billion on agriculture R&D (Hobbs 2014).Clearly, GM crops and their benefits is a political issue for eNGOs and given their investments opposing the technology, it is too financially lucrative for them to ever back away from.With the relentless pressure from the eNGO community to erect regulatory barriers against commercializing GM crops taken together with the EU's rejection of the peer reviewed scientific evidence GM crop benefits, its intimidation of developing countries into signing the CPB, and blackmailing developing countries to not adopt GM crops, global food security is not going to increase given the present state of international regulation and trade for GM crops.Breaking the Food Security Barriers Politics, not science, is driving the international agenda pertaining to GM crop approval, adoption, and trade.

If science was the determining factor for the debate about the benefits of GM crops, then the opposition to GM crops should have waned considerably over the past decade.If, as Byrne (2015) identifies, the eNGO movement is spending in the region of US$10 billion annually fighting against GM crops, then one would expect that these eNGOs would be generating even larger sums of revenue.The continuation of eNGO opposition to GM crops in the face of mounting economic, environmental, and health benefits can be attributed to two factors.First, it is obviously profitable for the eNGO movement to maintain its opposition to GM crops.

This allows them to raise more revenue, hire additional staff, and grow their movements, thus increasing their ability to ensure that developing countries implement socioeconomic-based regulatory systems that must reject GM crop variety approval applications.Second, the eNGO movement has gained substantial political influence with governments regarding biotechnology.Nowhere is this more clearly evident than in Europe, where when given the choice of approving or rejecting GM crops at the domestic level, two thirds of EU members chose to reject the technology.Continued eNGO opposition to GM crops is both profitable and powerful.The eNGOs have a 20-year head start on those in industry and academia in vociferously opposing GM crops and have seemingly successfully adopted the tobacco industry's strategy whereby they criticize those that engage in research on the benefits of GM crops.

The CPB has been operating for nearly 15 years to entrench structural opposition to agriculture R&D and innovation.Agricultural innovations face a decade worth of work to remove the barriers to improving global food security so that there is a chance to feed the world of 2050.Global food security can improve, if and only if, two radical changes are made.The first change will be to aid and assist developing countries in opting out of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.As long as the CPB is a tool for the EU and its cadre of eNGOs, to dictate and manipulate food security in developing countries, these countries will continue to face starvation and malnourishment.

Academics need to be engaged in quantifying the benefits of various types of GM crop adoption (and NBTs) as well as the costs of not adopting GM crops.Australia's GM canola moratorium cost farmers nearly $500 million in lost revenue (Biden 2016).Federal governments and philanthropic organizations need to partner to establish matching funding programs, allowing for the submission of peer reviewed research grant applications, thus ensuring that rigorous methodologies are employed to undertake research on the cost of delayed GM crop adoption.Grants of this nature could fund the research necessary for developing countries to better appreciate the costs that the CPB is inflicting and to develop the research and data required to opt out of the CPB.The second requirement will be to develop a means of fencing Europe out of global commodity trade.

GM crop adopting nations like Canada, USA, and Australia need to seek new regional trade agreements with developing countries regarding agricultural commodity trade.This will especially be the case for products developed via NBTs.All agriculture trade ties between the EU and developing countries need to be severed.The EU threat must be removed so that developing countries can freely decide for themselves whether or not to adopt new technologies such as GM crops.The eNGO community's ability to dictate first world food choices to malnourished developing countries has to end.

To successfully achieve this, political lobbying will be required to encourage governments to the benefits of developing country trade agreements.Mid-century food security is achievable, but it will require some difficult decisions to be made.

Where to buy a custom gm food presentation 100% plagiarism free 48 hours writing from scratch college american

The political power wielded by European-based eNGOs has thoroughly corrupted these organizations as they have successfully manipulated the CPB into becoming an agreement that encourages the rejection of scientific innovation and one that ultimately supports environmental and biodiversity degradation.Continuing with the situation of EU and eNGO manipulation and corruption will only ensure that the future of food security is thoroughly jeopardized, placing the lives of hundreds of millions of developing world citizens at risk.Humanity dictates that the EU and these nefarious eNGOs be expeditiously removed from the formula for food security .

Humanity dictates that the EU and these nefarious eNGOs be expeditiously removed from the formula for food security.

Conflict of Interest How corporations engineered the non-regulation of dangerous genetically modified foods Government officials around the globe have been coerced, infiltrated, and paid off by the agricultural biotech giants.In Indonesia, Monsanto gave bribes and questionable payments to at least 140 officials, attempting to get their genetically modified (GM) cotton approved.1 In India, one official tampered with the report on Bt cotton to increase the yield figures to favor Monsanto.2 In Mexico, a senior government official allegedly threatened a University of California professor, implying “We know where your children go to school,” trying to get him not to publish incriminating evidence that would delay GM approvals.3 While most industry manipulation and political collusion is more subtle, none was more significant than that found at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The FDA’s “non-regulation” of GM foods - Genetically modified crops are the result of a technology developed in the 1970s that allow genes from one species to be forced into the DNA of unrelated species.The inserted genes produce proteins that confer traits in the new plant, such as herbicide tolerance or pesticide production.The process of creating the GM crop can produce all sorts of side effects, and the plants contain proteins that have never before been in the food supply.In the US, new types of food substances are normally classified as food additives, which must undergo extensive testing, including long-term animal feeding studies.

4 If approved, the label of food products containing the additive must list it as an ingredient.

There is an exception, however, for substances that are deemed “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS).GRAS status allows a product to be commercialized without any additional testing.According to US law, to be considered GRAS the substance must be the subject of a substantial amount of peer-reviewed published studies (or equivalent) and there must be overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the product is safe.Nonetheless, in a precedent-setting move that some experts contend was illegal, in 1992 the FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS as long as their producers say they are.

Thus, the FDA does not require any safety evaluations or labels whatsoever.A company can even introduce a GM food to the market without telling the agency.Such a lenient approach to GM crops was largely the result of Monsanto’s legendary influence over the US government.According to the New York Times, “What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsanto and, by extension, the biotechnology industry got.When the company abruptly decided that it needed to throw off the regulations and speed its foods to market, the White House quickly ushered through an unusually generous policy of self-policing.Henry Miller, who had a leading role in biotechnology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994, “In this area, the U.

government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do.” Following Monsanto’s lead, in 1992 the Council on Competitiveness chaired by Vice President Dan Quayle identified GM crops as an industry that could increase US exports.On May 26, Quayle announced “reforms” to “speed up and simplify the process of bringing” GM products to market without “being hampered by unnecessary regulation.” 5 Three days later, the FDA policy on non-regulation was unveiled.

The person who oversaw its development was the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Michael Taylor, whose position had been created especially for him in 1991.Prior to that, Taylor was an outside attorney for both Monsanto and the Food Biotechnology Council.After working at the FDA, he became Monsanto’s vice president.In the summer of 2009, the Obama administration put Taylor back in the FDA, as the US Food Safety Czar.Covering up health dangers - The policy he oversaw in 1992 needed to create the impression that unintended effects from GM crops were not an issue.

Otherwise their GRAS status would be undermined.But internal memos made public from a lawsuit showed that the overwhelming consensus among the agency scientists was that GM crops can have unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects.Various departments and experts spelled these out in detail, listing allergies, toxins, nutritional effects, and new diseases as potential problems.They had urged superiors to require long-term safety studies.6 In spite of the warnings, according to public interest attorney Steven Druker who studied the FDA’s internal files, “References to the unintended negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency scientists).

” 7 FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl wrote about the policy, “What has happened to the scientific elements of this document? Without a sound scientific base to rest on, this becomes a broad, general, ‘What do I have to do to avoid trouble’-type document.It will look like and probably be just a political document.

It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects.” 8 The FDA scientists’ concerns were not only ignored, their very existence was denied.

Consider the private memo summarizing opinions at the FDA, which stated, “The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.” 9 Contrast that with the official policy statement: “The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.” 10 On the basis of this manufactured and false notion of no meaningful differences, the FDA does not require GM food safety testing.To further justify their lack of oversight, they claimed that GM crops were “substantially equivalent” to their natural counterparts.But this concept does not hold up to scrutiny.

The Royal Society of Canada described substantial equivalence as “scientifically unjustifiable and inconsistent with precautionary regulation of the technology.” In sharp contrast to the FDA’s position, the Royal Society of Canada said that “the default prediction” for GM crops would include “a range of collateral changes in expression of other genes, changes in the pattern of proteins produced and/or changes in metabolic activities.” 11 Fake safety assessments - Biotech companies do participate in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA, but it is derided by critics as a meaningless exercise.Companies can submit whatever information they choose, and the FDA does not conduct or commission any studies of their own.

Former EPA scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman, who analyzed FDA review records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, states flatly, “It is clear that FDA’s current voluntary notification process (even if made mandatory) is not up to the task of ensuring the safety of future GE genetically engineered crops.

” He says, “The FDA consultation process does not allow the agency to require submission of data, misses obvious errors in company-submitted data summaries, provides insufficient testing guidance, and does not require sufficiently detailed data to enable the FDA to assure that GE crops are safe to eat.” 12 Similarly, a Friends of the Earth review of company and FDA documents concluded: “If industry chooses to submit faulty, unpublishable studies, it does so without consequence.If it should respond to an agency request with deficient data, it does so without reprimand or follow-up.If a company finds it disadvantageous to characterize its product, then its properties remain uncertain or unknown.If a corporation chooses to ignore scientifically sound testing standards .then faulty tests are conducted instead, and the results are considered legitimate.In the area of genetically engineered food regulation, the ‘competent’ agencies rarely if ever (know how to) conduct independent research to verify or supplement industry findings.” 13 At the end of the consultation, the FDA doesn’t actually approve the crops.Rather, they issue a letter including a statement such as the following: “Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA.As you are aware, it is Monsanto’s responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe, wholesome and in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements.” 14 The National Academy of Sciences and even the pro-GM Royal Society of London 15 describe the US system as inadequate and flawed.The editor of the prestigious journal Lancet said, “It is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992.

The policy is that genetically modified crops will receive the same consideration for potential health risks as any other new crop plant.This stance is taken despite good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist.

Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.” 16Promoting and regulating don’t mix - The FDA and other regulatory agencies are officially charged with both regulating biotech products and promoting them—a clear conflict.

Suzanne Wuerthele, a US EPA toxicologist, says, “This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment.The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.” Canadian regulators are similarly conflicted.The Royal Society of Canada reported that, “In meetings with senior managers from the various Canadian regulatory departments .their responses uniformly stressed the importance of maintaining a favorable climate for the biotechnology industry to develop new products and submit them for approval on the Canadian market.The conflict of interest involved in both promoting and regulating an industry or technology .is also a factor in the issue of maintaining the transparency, and therefore the scientific integrity, of the regulatory process.

Genetically modified food controversies wikipedia

In effect, the public interest in a regulatory system that is ‘science based’—that meets scientific standards of objectivity, a major aspect of which is full openness to scientific peer review—is significantly compromised when that openness is negotiated away by regulators in exchange for cordial and supportive relationships with the industries being regulated.

” 17The conflict of interest among scientists at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) GMO Panel is quite explicit.According to Friends of the Earth, “One member has direct financial links with the biotech industry and others have indirect links, such as close involvement with major conferences organized by the biotech industry APPENDIX E: EXAMPLE OF CONSENT LETTER. Consent Letter Depth Interview. Informed Consent: FSA GM Labelling Research. I confirm that I have had an information sheet about the research and have had the opportunity to ask questions about this research and have had them answered satisfactorily. I understand  .According to Friends of the Earth, “One member has direct financial links with the biotech industry and others have indirect links, such as close involvement with major conferences organized by the biotech industry.

Two members have even appeared in promotional videos produced by the biotech industry.Several members of the Panel, including the chair Professor Kuiper, have been involved with the EU-funded ENTRANSFOOD project.The aim of this project was to agree to safety assessment, risk management and risk communication procedures that would ‘facilitate market introduction of GMOs in Europe, and therefore bring the European industry in a competitive position I have been struck by the extent to which the public debate on GM crops continues to be highly polarised   Chapter 3: Current and potential uses of GM crops in developing countries 19   10 Between 1987 and 1998 the percentage of people living on less than US$1 a day in sub-Saharan Africa remained unchanged..The aim of this project was to agree to safety assessment, risk management and risk communication procedures that would ‘facilitate market introduction of GMOs in Europe, and therefore bring the European industry in a competitive position.’ Professor Kuiper, who coordinated the ENTRANSFOOD project, sat on a working group that also included staff from Monsanto, Bayer CropScience and Syngenta.” The report concludes that EFSA is “being used to create a false impression of scientific agreement when the real situation is one of intense and continuing debate and uncertainty.

” 18 This parallels the deceptive fa ade at the FDA.The pro-GM European Commission repeats the same ruse.According to leaked documents obtained by Friends of the Earth, while they privately appreciate “the uncertainties and gaps in knowledge that exist in relation to the safety of GM crops .the Commission normally keeps this uncertainty concealed from the public whilst presenting its decisions about the safety of GM crops and foods as being certain and scientifically based.” Further, in private “they frequently criticize the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and its assessments of the safety of GM foods and crops, even though the Commission relies on these evaluations to make recommendations to member states.and to justify its decisions to approve new GM foods.

” 19 For example, the Commission privately condemned the submission information for one crop as “mixed, scarce, delivered consecutively all over years, and not convincing.” They said there is “No sufficient experimental evidence to assess the safety.” 20Evaluations miss most health problems - Although the body of safety studies on GM foods is quite small, it has verified the concerns expressed by FDA scientists and others.The gene inserted into plant DNA may produce a protein that is inherently unhealthy.The inserted gene has been found to transfer into human gut bacteria and may even end up in human cellular DNA, where it might produce its protein over the long-term.

Toxic substances in GM animal feed might bioaccumulate into milk and meat products.Farmer and medical reports link GM feed to thousands of sick, sterile, and dead animals.But there is not a single government safety assessment program in the world that is competent to even identify most of these potential health problems, let alone protect its citizens from the effects.21 A review of approved GM crops in Canada by professor E.Ann Clark, for example, reveals that 70% (28 of 40) “of the currently available GM crops .

have not been subjected to any actual lab or animal toxicity testing, either as refined oils for direct human consumption or indirectly as feedstuffs for livestock.The same finding pertains to all three GM tomato Decisions, the only GM flax, and to five GM corn crops.” In the remaining 30% (12) of the other crops tested, animals were not fed the whole GM feed.

They were given just the isolated GM protein that the plant was engineered to produce.But even this protein was not extracted from the actual GM plant.Rather, it was manufactured in genetically engineered bacteria.This method of testing would never identify problems associated with collateral damage to GM plant DNA, unpredicted changes in the GM protein, transfer of genes to bacteria or human cells, excessive herbicide residues, or accumulation of toxins in the food chain, among others.Clark asks, “Where are the trials showing lack of harm to fed livestock, or that meat and milk from livestock fed on GM feedstuffs are safe?” 22 Epidemiologist and GM safety expert Judy Carman shows that assessments by Food Safety Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) similarly overlook serious potential problems, including cancer, birth defects, or long-term effects of nutritional deficiencies.

23 “A review of twelve reports covering twenty-eight GM crops - four soy, three corn, ten potatoes, eight canola, one sugar beet and two cotton - revealed no feeding trials on people.In addition, one of the GM corn varieties had gone untested on animals.Some seventeen foods involved testing with only a single oral gavage (a type of forced-feeding), with observation for seven to fourteen days, and only of the substance that had been genetically engineered to appear the GM protein , not the whole food.Such testing assumes that the only new substance that will appear in the food is the one genetically engineered to appear, that the GM plant-produced substance will act in the same manner as the tested substance that was obtained from another source GM bacteria , and that the substance will create disease within a few days.All are untested hypotheses and make a mockery of GM proponents’ claims that the risk assessment of GM foods is based on sound science.

Furthermore, where the whole food was given to animals to eat, sample sizes were often very low - for example, five to six cows per group for Roundup Ready soy - and they were fed for only four weeks.” 24 Hidden information, lack of standards, and breaking laws - Companies claim that their submissions to government regulators are “confidential business information” so they are kept secret.Some industry studies that have been forced into the public domain through Freedom of Information requests or lawsuits have been appalling in design and execution.This is due in part to the lack of meaningful and consistent standards required for assessments.Gurian-Sherman says of the FDA’s voluntary consultation, “Some submissions are hundreds of pages long while others are only 10 or 20.

” 25 A Friends of the Earth report on US regulation and corporate testing practices states, “Without standardization, companies can and do design test procedures to get the results they want.” 26 Regulators also reference international standards as it suits them.According to the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, for example, FSANZ “relaxed adherence to international standards for safety testing when that better suited the Applicant’s submitted work, and imposed international standards whenever that was a lower standard than we recommended.- The declaration of GRAS status by the FDA deviated from the Food and Cosmetic Act and years of legal precedent.

In Europe, the law requires that when EFSA and member states have different opinions, they “are obliged to co-operate with a view to either resolving the divergence or preparing a joint document clarifying the contentious scientific issues and identifying the relevant uncertainties in the data.” 28 According to FOE, in the case of all GM crop reviews, none of these legal obligations were followed.29 Humans as guinea pigs - Since GM foods are not properly tested before they enter the market, consumers are the guinea pigs.But this doesn’t even qualify as an experiment.There are no controls and no monitoring.

Without post-marketing surveillance, the chances of tracing health problems to GM food are low.The incidence of a disease would have to increase dramatically before it was noticed, meaning that millions may have to get sick before a change is investigated.Tracking the impact of GM foods is even more difficult in North America, where the foods are not labeled.Regulators at Health Canada announced in 2002 that they would monitor Canadians for health problems from eating GM foods.A spokesperson said, “I think it’s just prudent and what the public expects, that we will keep a careful eye on the health of Canadians.

” But according to CBC TV news, Health Canada “abandoned that research less than a year later saying it was ‘too difficult to put an effective surveillance system in place.’” The news anchor added, “So at this point, there is little research into the health effects of genetically modified food.So will we ever know for sure if it’s safe?” 30 Not with the biotech companies in charge.Consider the following statement in a report submitted to county officials in California by pro-GM members of a task force.“ It is generally agreed that long-term monitoring of the human health risks of GM food through epidemiological studies is not necessary because there is no scientific evidence suggesting any long-term harm from these foods.

” 31 Note the circular logic: Because no long-term epidemiological studies are in place, we have no evidence showing long-term harm.And since we don’t have any evidence of long-term harm, we don’t need studies to look for it.What are these people thinking? Insight into the pro-GM mindset was provided by Dan Glickman, the US Secretary of Agriculture under President Clinton : “What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good, and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked.And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid.That, frankly, was the side our government was on.Without thinking, we had basically taken this issue as a trade issue and they, whoever ‘they’ were, wanted to keep our product out of their market.And they were foolish, or stupid, and didn’t have an effective regulatory system.

There was rhetoric like that even here in this department.You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of the issues being raised.So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches.” 32 Fortunately, not everyone feels that questioning GM foods is disloyal.On the contrary, millions of people around the world are unwilling to participate in this uncontrolled experiment.

Manufacturers in Europe and Japan have committed to avoid using GM ingredients.

Best websites to order an gm food presentation academic 147 pages / 40425 words british phd

And the US natural foods industry, not waiting for the government to test or label GMOs, is now engaged in removing all remaining GM ingredients from their sector using a third party verification system.The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America will circulate non-GMO shopping guides in stores nationwide so that consumers have clear, healthy non-GMO choices.With no governmental regulation of biotech corporations, it is left to consumers to protect themselves The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries Conacyt.

With no governmental regulation of biotech corporations, it is left to consumers to protect themselves.

To learn how to choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit .By Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology Author of: Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods 1 “Monsanto Bribery Charges in Indonesia by DoJ and USSEC,” Third World Network, Malaysia, Jan 27, 2005, /GE/2005/ 2 “Greenpeace exposes Government-Monsanto nexus to cheat Indian farmers: calls on GEAC to revoke BT cotton permission,” Press release, March 3, 2005, /india en/news/details?item id=771071 3 Jeffrey M Get an gm food presentation online Academic 85 pages / 23375 words Chicago/Turabian double spaced.By Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology Author of: Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods 1 “Monsanto Bribery Charges in Indonesia by DoJ and USSEC,” Third World Network, Malaysia, Jan 27, 2005, /GE/2005/ 2 “Greenpeace exposes Government-Monsanto nexus to cheat Indian farmers: calls on GEAC to revoke BT cotton permission,” Press release, March 3, 2005, /india en/news/details?item id=771071 3 Jeffrey M.Smith, Seeds of Deception, (Iowa: Yes! Books, 2003), 224 Get an gm food presentation online Academic 85 pages / 23375 words Chicago/Turabian double spaced.Smith, Seeds of Deception, (Iowa: Yes! Books, 2003), 224.4 See Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 5 Dan Quayle, “Speech in the Indian Treaty Room of the Old Executive Office Building,” May 26, 1992.6 See Smith, Seeds of Deception; and for copies of FDA memos, see The Alliance for Bio-Integrity, 7 Steven M.

Druker, “How the US Food and Drug Administration approved genetically engineered foods despite the deaths one had caused and the warnings of its own scientists about their unique risks,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity, / 8 Louis J.Pribyl, “Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92,” March 6, 1992, p:// /FDAdocs/04/ 9 Linda Kahl, Memo to James Maryanski about Federal Register Document “Statement of Policy: Foods from Genetically Modified Plants,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity(January 8, 1992) 10 “Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” Federal Register 57, no.11 “Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada; An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology prepared by The Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada” The Royal Society of Canada, January 2001.12 Doug Gurian-Sherman, “Holes in the Biotech Safety Net, FDA Policy Does Not Assure the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods,” Center for Science in the Public Interest, /new/pdf/fda report 13 Bill Freese, “The StarLink Affair, Submission by Friends of the Earth to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel considering Assessment of Additional Scientific Information Concerning StarLink Corn,” July 17–19, 2001.

Rulis, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA to Dr.Kent Croon, Regulatory Affairs Manager, Monsanto Company, Sept 25, 1996.34 at /~lrd/ 15 See for example, “Good Enough To Eat?” New Scientist (February 9, 2002), 7.

16 “Health risks of genetically modified foods,” editorial, Lancet, 29 May 1999.17 “Elements of Precaution,” The Royal Society of Canada, January 2001.18 Friends of the Earth Europe, “Throwing Caution to the Wind: A review of the European Food Safety Authority and its work on genetically modified foods and crops,” November 2004.19 Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace, “Hidden Uncertainties What the European Commission doesn't want us to know about the risks of GMOs,” April 2006.20 European Communities submission to World Trade Organization dispute panel, 28 January 2005.

Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007 22 E.Ann Clark, “Food Safety of GM Crops in Canada: toxicity and allergenicity,” GE Alert, 2000.23 FLRAG of the PHAA of behalf of the PHAA, “Comments to ANZFA about Applications A372, A375, A378 and A379.” 24 Judy Carman, “Is GM Food Safe to Eat?” in R.

, Recoding Nature Critical Perspectives on Genetic Engineering (Sydney: UNSW Press, 2004): 82–93.25 Doug Gurian-Sherman, “Holes in the Biotech Safety Net, FDA Policy Does Not Assure the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods,” Center for Science in the Public Interest, /new/pdf/fda report 26 William Freese, “Genetically Engineered Crop Health Impacts Evaluation: A Critique of U.Regulation of Genetically Engineered Crops and Corporate Testing Practices, with a Case Study of Bt Corn,” Friends of the Earth U.Rodriguez-Beltran, “Submission on the DAR for Application A549 Food Derived from High-Lysine Corn LY038: to permit the use in food of high-lysine corn, 2006, 28 EU Regulation 178/2002 (Article 30) 29 Friends of the Earth Europe, “Throwing Caution to the Wind: A review of the European Food Safety Authority and its work on genetically modified foods and crops,” November 2004.30 “Genetically modified foods, who knows how safe they are?” CBC News and Current Affairs, September 25, 2006.

, The Health Effects of Genetically Engineered Crops on San Luis Obispo County,” A Citizen Response to the SLO Health Commission GMO Task Force Report, 2006.32 Bill Lambrecht, Dinner at the New Gene Caf , St.Martin's Press, September 2001, pg 139What Effective General Managers Really Do The Idea in Brief General managers (GMs) with highly structured workdays and rigid schedules close off channels—such as chatting in hallways and calling impromptu meetings—that would otherwise provide vital information and valuable relationships.Unplanned and unstructured activities help GMs address two critical challenges: figuring out what to do and winning widespread cooperation.

The key tools for meeting these challenges are flexible agendas and broad networks of relationships.With flexible agendas, GMs capitalize on unanticipated opportunities that emerge in day-to-day events.With broad networks, GMs can use impromptu encounters to exert influence far beyond their chain of command.The Idea in Practice Effective GMs rely on agenda setting and network building to achieve their goals.Agendas comprise activities that accomplish multiple goals, are consistent with all other corporate goals and plans, and are within the GM’s power to implement.

These agendas address the GM’s long-, medium-, and short-term responsibilities.They include a broad range of financial, product, market, and organizational issues.Networks extend up, down, and laterally to include everyone on whom the GM depends.He or she creates an environment in which network members work on the manager’s agenda and cooperate for the greater good.Effective GMs use direct and indirect influence to get networks to respond to their agendas.

Examples of direct influence Persuading someone to act in a way that supports the agenda Negotiating a trade Convincing a network member to approach a non-network member Requesting several network members to take actions that influence others All effective GMs get things done using these methods.The very best GMs mobilize more people to do more things through a wider variety of “reactive” behaviors: days not planned in much detail and filled with short, seemingly disjointed conversations.A chance hallway encounter with a member of the network that lasts two minutes can accomplish as much, if not more than, an arranged meeting that would require 15–30 minutes.Impromptu conversations are highly productive only when the GM has his or her agenda clearly in mind, and network relationships firmly in place.Top managers can boost their GMs’ effectiveness if they fill GM slots with candidates who know the organization and its people well.

These individuals will more quickly develop a strong agenda and network.don’t overemphasize the formal tools and simplistic situations of some management training courses.In particular, it’s best to avoid time-management programs predicated on rigid scheduling.do not overload a new GM with a lot of specific assignments during the first three to six months.

Instead, allow him or her time for collecting information, establishing relationships, and setting basic direction.

minimize required participation in the organization’s formal planning systems that focuses on rigid number crunching.Instead, encourage the new GM to focus on long-range strategic thinking and net-work building.Here is a description of a typical day in the life of a successful executive, in this case the president of an investment management firm.Michael Richardson arrives at work after a short commute, unpacks his briefcase, gets some coffee, and begins a to-do list for the day.7:40 Jerry Bradshaw arrives at his office, which is right next to Richardson’s.One of Bradshaw’s duties is to act as an assistant to Richardson.7:45 Bradshaw and Richardson converse about a number of topics.Richardson shows Bradshaw some pictures he recently took at his summer home.

8:00 They talk about a schedule and priorities for the day.In the process, they touch on a dozen different subjects relating to customers and employees.8:20 Frank Wilson, another subordinate, drops in.He asks a few questions about a personnel problem and then joins in the ongoing discussion, which is straightforward, rapid, and occasionally punctuated with humor.8:30 Fred Holly, the chair of the firm and Richardson’s boss, stops in and joins in the conversation.

He asks about an appointment scheduled for 11 o’clock and brings up a few other topics as well.8:40 Richardson leaves to get more coffee.Bradshaw, Holly, and Wilson continue their conversation.A subordinate of a subordinate stops in and says hello.

8:43 Bradshaw drops off a report, hands Richardson instructions that go with it, and leaves.8:45 Joan Swanson, Richardson’s secretary, arrives.They discuss her new apartment and arrangements for a meeting later in the morning.8:49 Richardson gets a phone call from a subordinate who is returning a call from the day before.

Organics versus gmo why the debate genetic literacy project

They talk primarily about the subject of the report Richardson just received.8:55 He leaves his office and goes to a regular morning meeting that one of his subordinates runs.Richardson stops one of the people there and talks to him briefly 30 Jan 2008 - 2. The Food Standards Agency is committed to promoting informed consumer choice. 3. There is legislation in place that requires product information on food labels to be easily visible and clearly legible. Despite this, over several years, the Agency's research and public consultations have confirmed that..Richardson stops one of the people there and talks to him briefly.

Basis of the Study Between 1976 and 1981, I studied 15 successful general managers in nine corporations.I examined what their jobs entailed, who they were, where they had come from, how they behaved, and how these factors varied in different corporate and industry settings Clear Food Labelling Food Standards Agency.I examined what their jobs entailed, who they were, where they had come from, how they behaved, and how these factors varied in different corporate and industry settings.The participants all had some profit-center and multifunctional responsibility.They were located in cities across the United States nbd-dhofar.com/coursework/how-to-purchase-a-college-general-studies-coursework-sophomore-proofreading-business-100-plagiarism-free.

They were located in cities across the United States.

They were involved in a broad range of industries, including banking, consulting, tire and rubber manufacturing, television, mechanical equipment manufacturing, newspapers, copiers, investment management, and consumer products nbd-dhofar.com/coursework/how-to-purchase-a-college-general-studies-coursework-sophomore-proofreading-business-100-plagiarism-free.They were involved in a broad range of industries, including banking, consulting, tire and rubber manufacturing, television, mechanical equipment manufacturing, newspapers, copiers, investment management, and consumer products.The businesses they were responsible for ranged from doing only $1 million in sales to more than $1 billion.On average, the executives were 47 years old.Most were paid well over $200,000 in 1982 dollars.

Data collection involved three visits to each GM over 6 to 12 months.Each time, I interviewed them for at least 5 hours, and I observed their daily routines for about 35 hours.The GMs filled out questionnaires and gave me documents such as business plans, appointment diaries, and annual reports.I measured the performance of the GMs by combining hard and soft indices.

The former included measures of revenue and profit growth, both in an absolute sense and compared with plans.The latter included opinions of people who worked with the GMs (including bosses, subordinates, and peers) as well as, when possible, industry analysts.Using this method, I judged most of the GMs to be doing a “very good” job.A few were rated “excellent” and a few “good/fair.

” In many ways, Richardson’s day is typical for a general manager.

The daily behavior of the successful GMs I have studied generally conforms to the following patterns: 1.They spend most of their time with others.The average general manager spends only 25% of his working time alone, and that time is spent largely at home, on airplanes, or while commuting.Few spend less than 70% of their time with others, and some spend up to 90% of their work time this way.They spend time with many people in addition to their direct subordinates and their bosses.They regularly see people who may appear to be unimportant outsiders.The breadth of topics in their discussions is extremely wide.GMs do not limit their focus to planning, business strategy, staffing, and other top-management concerns.

They discuss virtually anything and everything even remotely associated with their businesses.In a half-hour conversation, some will ask literally hundreds of them.During conversations, GMs rarely seem to make “big” decisions.Their discussions usually contain a fair amount of joking and often concern topics that are not related to work.The humor is often about others in the organization or industry.Nonwork discussions are usually about people’s families and hobbies.

In more than a few of these encounters, the issue discussed is relatively unimportant to the business or organization.GMs regularly engage in activities that even they regard as a waste of time.In these encounters, the executives rarely give orders in a traditional sense.

Nevertheless, GMs often attempt to influence others.Instead of telling people what to do, however, they ask, request, cajole, persuade, and even intimidate.GMs often react to others’ initiatives; much of the typical GM’s day is unplanned.

Even GMs who have a heavy schedule of planned meetings end up spending a lot of time on topics that are not on the official agenda.GMs spend most of their time with others in short, disjointed conversations.Discussions of a single question or issue rarely last more than ten minutes.It is not at all unusual for a general manager to cover ten unrelated topics in a five-minute conversation.

The average GM I have studied works just under 60 hours per week.Although GMs can do some of their work at home, while commuting to work, or while traveling, they spend most of their time at their places of work.9:15 He walks over to the office of one of his subordinates, who is corporate counsel.

Richardson’s boss, Holly, is there, too.They discuss a phone call the lawyer just received.The three talk about possible responses to the problem.As before, the exchange is quick and includes some humor.9:30 Richardson goes back to his office for a meeting with the vice chair of another company (a potential customer and supplier).

One other person, a liaison to that company and a subordinate’s subordinate, also attends.The discussion is cordial and covers many topics, from the company’s products to U.9:50 The visitor and the subordinate’s subordinate leave.

He opens the adjoining door to Bradshaw’s office and asks a question.9:52 Swanson comes in with five items of business.9:55 Bradshaw drops in, asks a question about a customer, and then leaves.9:58 Wilson and one of his people arrive.He gives Richardson a memo and then the three talk about an important legal problem.

Wilson doesn’t like a decision that Richardson has tentatively made and urges him to reconsider.The discussion goes back and forth for 20 minutes until they agree on the next action and schedule it for 9 o’clock the next day.Richardson looks over papers on his desk and then picks one up and calls Holly’s secretary regarding the minutes of the last board meeting.10:41 Swanson comes in with a card for a friend who is sick.Richardson writes a note to go with the card.10:50 He gets a brief phone call, then goes back to the papers on his desk.Before Richardson and Holly can begin to talk, Richardson gets another call.

After the call, he tells Swanson that someone didn’t get a letter he sent and asks her to send another.11:05 Holly brings up a couple of issues, and then Bradshaw comes in.The three start talking about Jerry Phillips, whose work has become a problem.Bradshaw leads the conversation, telling the others what he has done during the last few days regarding the problem.After a while, Richardson begins to take notes.The exchange, as before, is rapid and straightforward.They try to define the problem, and they outline possible next steps.

Should companies be required to label genetically modified foods nbsp

Richardson lets the discussion roam away from and back to the topic again and again.Noon Richardson orders lunch for himself and Bradshaw.Bradshaw comes in and goes over a dozen items Genetically modified crops regulatory delays and international trade nbsp.Bradshaw comes in and goes over a dozen items.

Wilson stops by to say that he has already followed up on their earlier conversation.12:10 A staff person stops by with some calculations Richardson had requested research.3. This case considers the FDA approval process for genetically modified animals in light of AquaBounty. Technologies' push to bring AquAdvantage salmon to the market. Issues of effective   United States does not currently have a mandate for the agribusiness industry to label GM foods. In 2001, the FDA  .12:10 A staff person stops by with some calculations Richardson had requested.He thanks her and they have a brief, amicable conversation research.3. This case considers the FDA approval process for genetically modified animals in light of AquaBounty. Technologies' push to bring AquAdvantage salmon to the market. Issues of effective   United States does not currently have a mandate for the agribusiness industry to label GM foods. In 2001, the FDA  .

He thanks her and they have a brief, amicable conversation.

Richardson and Bradshaw eat in the conference room.Over lunch, they pursue business and nonbusiness subjects, laughing often at each other’s humor.They end the lunch talking about a potential major customer.1:15 Back in Richardson’s office, they continue the discussion about the customer.

Bradshaw gets a pad, and they go over in detail a presentation to the customer.1:40 Working at his desk, Richardson looks over a new marketing brochure.1:50 Bradshaw comes in again; he and Richardson go over another dozen details regarding the presentation to the potential customer.1:55 Jerry Thomas, another of Richardson’s subordinates, comes in.He has scheduled for the afternoon some key performance appraisals, which he and Richardson will hold in Richardson’s office.They talk briefly about how they will handle each appraisal.2:00 Fred Jacobs (a subordinate of Thomas) joins them.He goes over Jacobs’s bonus for the year and the reason for it.Then the three of them talk about Jacobs’s role in the upcoming year.They generally agree, and Jacobs leaves.Richardson asks a lot of questions and praises Kimble at times.The meeting ends on a friendly note of agreement.3:00 George Houston comes in; the appraisal format is repeated.3:30 When Houston leaves, Richardson and Thomas talk briefly about how well they have accomplished their objectives in the meetings.Then they talk briefly about some of Thomas’s other subordinates.

3:45 Richardson gets a short phone call.Swanson and Bradshaw come in with a list of requests.3:50 Richardson receives a call from Jerry Phillips.He gets his notes from the 11 o’clock meeting about Phillips.

They go back and forth on the phone talking about lost business, unhappy subordinates, who did what to whom, and what should be done now.It is a long, circular, and sometimes emotional conversation.By the end, Phillips is agreeing with Richardson on the next step and thanking him.4:55 Bradshaw, Wilson, and Holly all step in.Each is following up on different issues that were discussed earlier in the day.

Richardson briefly tells them of his conversation with Phillips.5:10 Richardson and Wilson have a light conversation about three or four items.He describes a new personnel problem, and the three of them discuss it.

More and more humor enters the conversation.5:30 Richardson begins to pack his briefcase.Five people briefly stop by, one or two at a time.The behavior Richardson demonstrates throughout his day is consistent with other studies of managerial behavior, especially those of high-level managers.Nevertheless, as Henry Mintzberg has pointed out, this behavior is hard to reconcile, on the surface at least, with traditional notions of what top managers do (or should do).1 It is hard to fit the behavior into categories like planning, organizing, controlling, directing, or staffing.The implication is that such behavior is not appropriate for top managers.But effective executives carry our their planning and organizing in just such a hit-or-miss way.

How Effective Executives Approach Their Jobs To understand why effective GMs behave as they do, it is essential first to recognize two fundamental challenges and dilemmas found in most of their jobs: figuring out what to do despite uncertainty and an enormous amount of potentially relevant information; getting things done through a large and diverse group of people despite having little direct control over most of them.These are severe challenges with powerful implications for the traditional management functions of planning, staffing, organizing, directing, and controlling.To tackle those challenges, effective general managers rely on agenda setting and network building.The best ones aggressively seek information (including bad news), skillfully ask questions, and seek out programs and projects that can help accomplish multiple objectives.During their first six months to a year in a new job, GMs usually spend a considerable amount of time establishing their agendas; they devote less time to updating them later on.Effective executives develop agendas that are made up of loosely connected goals and plans that address their long-, medium-, and short-term responsibilities.The agendas usually address a broad range of financial, product, market, and organizational issues.They include both vague and specific items.(See the exhibit “A Typical GM’s Agenda.

”) A Typical GM’s Agenda Although most corporations today have formal planning processes that produce written plans, GMs’ agendas always include goals, priorities, strategies, and plans that are not in those documents.This is not to say that formal plans and GMs’ agendas are incompatible, but they differ in at least three important ways.First, the formal plans tend to be written mostly in terms of detailed financial numbers.GMs’ agendas tend to be less detailed in financial objectives and more detailed in strategies and plans for the business or the organization.Second, formal plans usually focus entirely on the short and moderate run (3 months to 5 years), whereas GMs’ agendas tend to focus on a broader time frame, which includes the immediate future (1 to 30 days) and the longer run (5 to 20 years).

Finally, the formal plans tend to be explicit, rigorous, and logical, especially regarding how various financial items fit together.GMs’ agendas often contain lists of goals or plans that are not explicitly connected.Executives begin the process of developing their agendas immediately after starting their jobs, if not before.They use their knowledge of the businesses and organizations involved along with new information that they receive each day to quickly develop a rough agenda—typically, a loosely connected and incomplete set of objectives, along with a few specific strategies and plans.

Then over time, as they gather more information, they complete and connect the agendas.

In gathering information to set their agendas, effective GMs rely more on discussions with others than on books, magazines, or reports.These people tend to be individuals with whom they have relationships, not necessarily people in “appropriate” jobs or functions (such as people in the planning function).In this way, they obtain information continually, not just at planning meetings.And they do so by using their current knowledge of the business and organization and of management in general to help them direct their questioning, not by asking broad or general questions.Having acquired the necessary information, GMs make agenda-setting decisions both consciously (or analytically) and unconsciously (or intuitively) in a process that is largely internal.

Indeed, important agenda-setting decisions are often not observable.In selecting specific activities to include on their agendas, GMs look for those that accomplish multiple goals, are consistent with all other goals and plans, and are within their power to implement.Projects and programs that seem important and logical but do not meet those criteria tend to be discarded or at least resisted.In addition to setting agendas, effective GMs allocate significant time and effort to developing a network of cooperative relationships among the people they feel are needed to satisfy their emerging agendas.

This activity is generally most intense during the first months in a job.

Need to purchase gm food presentation confidentially 100 pages / 27500 words us letter size british double spaced

After that, GMs’ attention shifts toward using their networks to implement and to help update the agendas.Network-building activity is aimed at much more than just direct subordinates.GMs develop cooperative relationships with and among peers, outsiders, their bosses’ boss, and their subordinates’ subordinates GM Labelling Food Standards Agency.GMs develop cooperative relationships with and among peers, outsiders, their bosses’ boss, and their subordinates’ subordinates.

Indeed, they develop relationships with (and sometimes among) any and all of the hundreds or even thousands of people on whom they feel in some way dependent.

Just as they create an agenda that is different from, although generally consistent with, formal plans, they also create a network that is different from, but generally consistent with, the formal organizational structure AquaBounty Technologies the FDA and Genetically Modified Foods.Just as they create an agenda that is different from, although generally consistent with, formal plans, they also create a network that is different from, but generally consistent with, the formal organizational structure.(See the exhibit “A General Manager’s Network.”) A General Manager’s Network The nature of their relationships varies significantly, and GMs use numerous methods to develop them buy custom human nutrition thesis Proofreading Chicago 144 pages / 39600 words.”) A General Manager’s Network The nature of their relationships varies significantly, and GMs use numerous methods to develop them.They try to make others feel legitimately obliged to them by doing favors or by stressing their formal relationships.They act in ways that encourage others to identify with them.

They carefully nurture their professional reputations.They even maneuver to make others feel that they are particularly dependent on them for resources, career advancement, or other support.In addition to developing relationships with existing personnel, effective GMs also often shape their networks by moving, hiring, and firing subordinates.In a similar way, they also change suppliers or bankers, lobby to get different people into peer positions, and even restructure their boards.And they try to create an environment—in terms of norms and values—in which people are willing to work hard on the GM’s agenda and cooperate for the greater good.

Although executives sometimes try to create such an environment among peers, bosses, or outsiders, they do so most often among their subordinates.Execution: Getting Networks to Implement Agendas GMs often call on virtually their entire network of relationships to help implement their agendas.I have seen GMs call on peers, corporate staff, subordinates reporting three or four levels below them, bosses reporting two or three levels above them, suppliers and customers, and even competitors to help them get something done.In each case, the basic pattern was the same.The GM was trying to get some action on items in his agenda that he felt would not be accomplished without his intervention.

And he chose the people and his approach with an eye toward achieving multiple objectives without disturbing important relationships in the network.GMs often influence people by simply asking or suggesting that they do something, knowing that because of their relationship, he or she will comply.In some cases, depending on the issue involved and the nature of the relationship, GMs also use their knowledge and information to help persuade people to act in a way that supports their agenda.Under other circumstances, they will use resources available to them to negotiate a trade.And occasionally, they resort to intimidation and coercion.

Effective GMs also often use their networks to exert indirect influence on people.In some cases, GMs will convince one person who is in the GM’s network to get a second, who is not, to take some needed action.More indirectly still, GMs will sometimes approach a number of different people, requesting them to take actions that would then shape events that influence other individuals.Perhaps the most common example of exerting indirect influence involves staging a meeting or some other event.GMs achieve much of their more indirect influence through symbolic methods.

They use meetings, language, stories about the organization, even architecture, in order to get some message across indirectly.All effective GMs seem to get things done with these methods, but the best performers tend to mobilize more people to get more things done, and do so using a wider range of tactics to influence people.“Excellent” performers ask, encourage, cajole, praise, reward, demand, manipulate, and generally motivate others with great skill in face-to-face situations.They also rely more on indirect influence than do the “good” managers, who tend to apply a narrower range of techniques with less finesse.How the Job Determines Behavior Most of the visible patterns in daily behavior seem to be direct consequences of the way GMs approach their jobs, and thus consequences of the nature of the job itself and the type of people involved.

Spending most of their time with others (pattern 1) seems to be a natural consequence of the GM’s overall approach to the job and the central role the network of relationships plays.Likewise, because the network tends to include all those the GM depends on, it is hardly surprising to find the GM spending time with many others besides a boss and direct subordinates (pattern 2).And because the agenda tends to include items related to all the long-, medium-, and short-run responsibilities associated with the job, it is to be expected that the breadth of topics covered in daily conversations will be very wide (pattern 3).Other patterns are direct consequences of the agenda-setting approach employed by GMs.

As we saw earlier, agenda setting involves gathering information on a continual basis from network members, usually by asking questions.

That GMs ask a lot of questions (pattern 4) follows directly.With the information in hand, we saw that GMs create largely unwritten agendas.Hence, major agenda-setting decisions are often invisible: they are made in the GM’s mind (pattern 5).We also saw that network building involves the use of a wide range of interpersonal tactics.Since humor and nonwork discussions can be used as effective tools for building relationships and maintaining them under stressful conditions, we should not be surprised to find these tools used often (pattern 6).

Because maintaining relationships requires GMs to deal with issues that other people feel are important (regardless of their centrality to the business), it is also not surprising to find that they spend time on issues that seem unimportant to them (pattern 7).GMs implement their agendas by using a wide variety of direct and indirect influence methods.Giving orders is only one of many methods.Under these circumstances, one would expect to find them rarely ordering others (pattern 8) but spending a lot of time trying to influence people (pattern 9).The Efficiency of Seemingly Inefficient Behavior Of all the patterns visible in daily behavior, perhaps the two most difficult to appreciate are that the executives do not plan their days in much detail but instead react (pattern 10), and that conversations are short and disjointed (pattern 11).

On the surface at least, such behavior seems particularly unmanagerial.Yet these patterns are possibly the most important and efficient of all.The following is an example of the effectiveness and efficiency of “reactive” behavior.On his way to a meeting, a GM bumped into a staff member who did not report to him.Using this two-minute opportunity, he asked two questions and received the information he needed, reinforced their good relationship by sincerely complimenting the staff member on something he had recently done, and got the staff member to agree to do something that the GM needed done.

The agenda in his mind guided the executive through this encounter, prompting him to ask important questions and to request a needed action.And his relationship with this member of his network allowed him to get the cooperation he needed very quickly.Had he tried to plan this encounter in advance, he would have had to set up and attend a meeting, which would have taken at least 15 to 30 minutes—much more time than the chance encounter.And if he had not already had a good relationship with the person, the meeting may have taken even longer or been ineffective.Similarly, agendas and networks allow GMs to engage in short and disjointed—but extremely efficient—conversations.

Consider the following dialogue, taken from a day in the life of John Thompson, a division manager in a financial services corporation.It includes three of Thompson’s subordinates, Phil Dodge, Jud Smith, and Laura Turner, as well as his colleague Bob Lawrence.Thompson: What about Potter? Dodge: Oh yeah.Then what about next week? Dodge: We’re set.He got back from the hospital on Tuesday.Lawrence: Steps into the doorway from the hall and speaks to Thompson.Have you seen the April numbers yet? Thompson: No, have you? Thompson: That’s better than I expected.If he is, he won’t be after I talk to him.Turner sticks her head through the doorway and tells him Bill Larson is on the phone.Will you ask George to stop by later? The others leave and he picks up the phone.

“Bill, good morning, how are you? … Yeah… Is that right? … No, don’t worry about it.Yeah… Okay… Yeah, Sally enjoyed the other night, too.What do you think about the Gerald proposal? Thompson: I don’t like it.It doesn’t fit with what we’ve promised corporate or Hines.” Lawrence: Yeah, that’s what I thought, too.

Global gmo scandal american nutrition association

What is Jerry going to do about it? Thompson: I haven’t talked to him yet.This dialogue may seem chaotic to an outsider, but only because an outsider does not share the business or organizational knowledge these managers have and does not know Thompson’s agenda.More important, beyond being not chaotic, these conversations are in fact amazingly efficient Genetically modified food controversies are disputes over the use of foods and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. The dispute involves consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators,  .

More important, beyond being not chaotic, these conversations are in fact amazingly efficient.

In less than two minutes, Thompson accomplished all of the following: He learned that Mike Potter agreed to help with a problem loan.That problem, if not resolved successfully, could have seriously hurt Thompson’s plan to increase the division’s business in a certain area Best website to buy college presentation gm food single spaced College Freshman Standard Vancouver.That problem, if not resolved successfully, could have seriously hurt Thompson’s plan to increase the division’s business in a certain area.He found out that one of his managers would call someone in Chicago in reference to that loan Best website to buy college presentation gm food single spaced College Freshman Standard Vancouver.He found out that one of his managers would call someone in Chicago in reference to that loan.He found out that the plans for next week about that loan were all set.They included two internal meetings and a talk with the client.

He learned that Ted Jenkins was feeling better after an operation.Jenkins works for Thompson and is an important part of his plans for the direction of the division over the next two years.He found out that division income for April was on budget except in one area, which reduced pressure on him to focus on monthly income and to divert attention from an effort to build revenues in that area.He initiated a meeting with George Masolia to talk about the April figures.Thompson had been considering various alternatives for the CD product line, which he felt must get on budget to support his overall thrust for the division.

He provided some information (as a favor) to Bill Larson, a peer in another part of the bank.Larson had been helpful to Thompson in the past and was in a position to be helpful in the future.He initiated a call to Jerry Wilkins, one of his subordinates, to find out his reaction to a proposal from another division that would affect Thompson’s division.He was concerned that the proposal could interfere with the division’s five-year revenue goals.In a general sense, John Thompson and most of the other effective GMs I have known are, as Tom Peters has put it, “adept at grasping and taking advantage of each item in the random succession of time and issue fragments that crowd his day.

” 2 That seems to be particularly true for the best performers.Their agendas allow them to react in an opportunistic (and highly efficient) way to the flow of events around them, all the while knowing that they are doing so within some broader and more rational framework.The networks allow terse (and very efficient) conversations to happen.Together, the agenda and networks allow GMs to achieve the efficiency they need to cope with very demanding jobs in fewer than 60 hours per week through daily behavior patterns that on the surface can look unmanagerial.What Should Top Managers Do? What are the implications? First and foremost, putting someone in a GM job who does not already know the business or the people involved, simply because he or she is a successful “professional manager,” is risky.

Unless the business is easy to learn, it will be very difficult for the new general manager to learn enough, fast enough, to develop a good agenda.And unless the situation involves only a few people, it will be difficult to build a strong network fast enough to implement the agenda.Especially for large and complex businesses, this condition suggests that “growing” one’s own executives should be a high priority.Many companies today say that developing their own executives is important, but in light of the booming executive search business, one has to conclude that either they are not trying hard or their efforts simply are not succeeding.Second, management training courses, offered both in universities and in corporations, probably overemphasize formal tools, unambiguous problems, and situations that deal simplistically with human relationships.

Some of the time-management programs currently in vogue are a good example of the problem.Based on simplistic conceptions about the nature of managerial work, these programs instruct managers to stop letting people and problems “interrupt” their daily work.They often tell potential executives that short and disjointed conversations are ineffective.They advise managers to discipline themselves not to let “irrelevant” people and topics into their schedules.Similarly, training programs that emphasize formal quantitative tools operate on the assumption that such tools are central to effective performance.

All evidence suggests that while these tools are sometimes relevant, they are hardly central.Why “Wasting” Time Is More Important Than Ever This article grew out of a perplexing inconsistency I observed between the textbook definition of management and how real managers acted on the job.Back in the 1970s, many business school textbooks claimed that managers operated within a highly structured environment, planning their days carefully, for instance, and sharing information in a linear fashion according to a command-and-control hierarchy.But my research strongly suggested that real managers—especially successful ones—actually operated quite differently.They rarely planned their days, often punctuating them with short, unorchestrated, and even personal chats with people outside of their formal chain of command.

“What Effective General Managers Really Do” sought to describe that behavior and explain why it worked so well.Rereading this article nearly 20 years later, I’m struck that it never mentions the word “leadership.” Nevertheless, a good deal of what the people described in the article were doing, especially the most effective ones, was exactly that.The language I used in this article reflects the era.

We didn’t differentiate management from leadership, an important distinction now.

Leaders look beyond the manager’s operating plans.Leaders look both outside and inside; managers do mostly the latter.All of this can be seen in the article, yet the word leadership is missing.The article’s ideas about time management continue to make sense in 1999, perhaps even more so than they did in 1982.

Back then, the typical general manager worked fewer than 60 hours a week.Today executives often put in many more hours as they try to build their companies’ competitiveness.Time-management experts still tell managers to compose lists of priorities and to limit the number of people they see.However, the successful ones I watched rarely did so.They “wasted” time walking down corridors, engaging in seemingly random chats with seemingly random people, all the while promoting their agendas and building their networks with far less effort than if they’d scheduled meetings along a formal chain of command.

These behaviors were once valuable simply for getting work done well.But in today’s intense business environment, they may be essential to prevent executive burnout and promote long-term competitive advantage.Third, people who are new in general management positions can probably be gotten up to speed more effectively than is the norm today.Initially, a new GM usually needs to spend a considerable amount of time collecting information, establishing relationships, selecting a basic direction for his or her area of responsibilities, and developing a supporting organization.During the first three to six months on the job, demands from superiors to accomplish specific tasks or to work on pet projects—anything that significantly diverts attention away from agenda setting and network building—can be counterproductive.

In a positive sense, those who oversee general managers can probably be most helpful initially if they are sensitive to where the new executive is likely to have problems and try to help him or her in those areas.On the other hand, if people have spent most of their early careers in professional, staff, or assistant jobs and are promoted into a general manager’s job where they suddenly have responsibility for hundreds or thousands of people, they will probably have great difficulty at first building a network.They don’t have many relationships to begin with, and they are not used to spending time developing a large network.

Finally, the formal planning systems within which many GMs must operate probably hinder effective performance.A good planning system should help a general manager create an intelligent agenda and a strong network.It should encourage the GM to think strategically, to consider both the long and the short term and, regardless of the time frame, to take into account financial, product, market, and organizational issues.Furthermore, it should be a flexible tool so that, depending on what kind of environment among subordinates is desired, he or she can use the planning system to help achieve the goals.Unfortunately, many of the planning systems used by corporations do nothing of the sort.

Instead, they impose a rigid “number crunching” requirement on GMs that often does not require much strategic or long-range thinking in agenda setting and that can make network building and maintenance needlessly difficult by creating unnecessary stress among people.Indeed, some systems seem to do nothing but generate paper, often a lot of it, and distract executives from doing those things that are really important.Henry Mintzberg, “The Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact,” HBR July–August 1975, p.Peters, “Leadership: Sad Facts and Silver Linings,” HBR November–December 1979, p.A version of this article appeared in the March–April 1999 issue of Harvard Business Review.

Kotter is the Konosuke Matsushita Professor of Leadership, Emeritus at Harvard Business School and the Chief Innovation Officer at Kotter International, a firm that helps leaders accelerate strategy implementation in their organizations.His newest book, Accelerate, was released in April 2014.