Genetically Modified Organisms ( Gmo ) - 1794 Words

Throughout history, humankind has tried to make things easier for themselves by controlling what is around them. This has always been the case and then humans evolved into an agricultural based society. Breeding different strains of plants became something of a popular topic for scientists in hopes to getting the elite possible plants for food. Although time has passed, these practices have continued and technology has expanded and developed. Now rather than breeding two similar plants or animals, mankind has taken it a step further and can alter the genetic sequence of the DNA in species. This option to be able to alter plants and now particularly crops, has raised many moral and safety concerns. Did you know that more than sixty†¦show more content†¦Genetic modification has been going on for years. Yet, not everyone seems to agree that GMOs are favorable to our society. Moreover, it is not a mystery that the human population continues to increase. The world population w as estimated in 2050 to be 9.3 billion, 400 million more than previously estimated. It would seem that GMOs would be seen as a light at the end of the tunnel for 3rd world counties, and the health risks of pesticides, and for the years to come. Nonetheless, many people see GMOs as a major danger to the nation. Genetic engineering and biotechnology is creating new methods to help scientists with the issue of feeding the world. Some people argue that GM technology will replace traditional breeding and this is not the case. The importance of solving the problem of food production for a growing population like ours needs to be without harming the environment and will require traditional breeding and organic farming, plus GM crop technology, used to solve the problem at hand. Our human civilization will have the greatest challenge to ensure sufficient food production in the next few years unless all the methods are used accurately and as necessary. (Herrera-Estrella and Alvarez-Morlaes, 256-257). GMOs are among one of the most tested products. Over 1,500 peer-reviewed studies have yet to find evidence that GMO crops affects humans or livestock. World Health Organization,

Community Readiness For Adolescents And Obesity Prevention

The article by Pradeilles et al., (2016) which is titled, Community readiness for adolescents overweight and obesity prevention is low in urban South Africa: a case study is a case study about teaching and obesity prevention in South Africa. A case study according to Wright (2014) is an approach which is used to describe a community, system, event or individual (p.108).This article explored the relationship between community interaction and teaching about healthy eating habits from religion organizations. This article is trustworthy on many different levels including credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. Through discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of this article will provide evidence to the†¦show more content†¦Pradeilles et al., explain in the method session how a mixed methods design provided a wider in-depth understand on overweight and obese prevention in the community. The Community Readiness Model survey was used to generate to how re ady this community is for obesity interventions and the Focus Group Discussions was complemented by providing an in-depth interpretation of the scores achieved to help to understand what might be appropriate target points for future interventions (Pradeilles et al., 2016, p. 3). This article provides any different areas which prove credibility. The transferability of a study according to Wright (2014) is the concept of external validity which is when the study and its findings could be repeated by other researchers working in different venues (p.115). â€Å"Researchers should provide sufficient information on the informants and the research context to enable the reader to assess the findings’ capability of being fit or transferable† (Cope, 2017, p. 89). The study by Pradeilles et al, provided a detailed time line, note-taking methods and criteria for choice of codes to demonstration its transferability. This study used a mixed research method which involved both qualit ative and quantitative to collect quality and quantity data. Pradeilles et al., (2016) explain the mixed methods design allows the authors to obtain views from a greater number of people in aShow MoreRelatedChildhood Obesity Essay976 Words   |  4 PagesControl and Prevention (CDC), the prevalence of childhood obesity has more than tripled in the past thirty years. As well as having an impact on health, studies have cited a relationship between obesity and poor school performance as well as a child’s readiness for learning and education. This can be correlated with studies finding â€Å"obese children have a greater risk of social and psychological problems, such as discrimination and poor self-esteem† (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, paraRead MoreChildhood Obesity : A Growing Problem1378 Words   |  6 PagesDid you know that obesity has become such a ‘growing’ quandary that for the first time ever today’s children are expected to have a life expectancy that is shorter than their parents (Gance-Cleveland, Gilbert, Kopanos, Gilbert, 2009, p. 72)? Obesity in children and adolescents has become a worldwide epidemic, increasing every year. In fact, childhood obesity in the United States (US) has increased to 17%, which has nearly tripled the prevalence of obesity in the last three decades (Center forRead MoreCommunity Assessment Results And Analysis1093 Words   |  5 PagesCommunity Assessment Results and Analysis Bennington County is made up of Arlington, Bennington, Dorset, Manchester, Readsboro, and Shaftsbury. In July 2015, Bennington County had 36,317 people with the majority being female at 51.5%. The majority of this county is over the age of 65 at 21.7%, with the second highest percent of population being over the age of 18 at 19.3%, and people under the age of 5 make up 4.7% of the population. Unable to find data that directly shows the percentage of adolescentsRead MoreCommunity Teaching Plan1912 Words   |  8 Pagespaper is our proposed plan for teaching those of all ages about obesity; its detrimental effects on the body, short and long term, and how to avoid associated problems, using a healthy varied eating plan and incorporating a daily exercise schedule. The health risks of obesity are the same for all people and the interventions for weight loss are also the same. These interventions are basic, eat healthy and be active. But educating communities and enabling them to make th ese changes are not basic tasksRead MoreThe Rate Of Preterm Birth Essay1491 Words   |  6 Pagesfeeding, digestive, breathing and respiratory problems (CDC, 2015) and low birth weight (March of Dimes, 2014). A major challenge in decreasing the rate of preterm birth is lack of knowledge about the aetiologies and effective strategies for its prevention (CDC, 2015). Premature birth is a major contributor to racial disparity in infant mortality (CDC, n.d.). For instance, its rate has increased more than 20% since 1990 and more than 36% since early 1980s (CDC, n.d.). In 2006 theRead MoreHealth Promotion Community Project Paper3894 Words   |  16 PagesHealth Promotion/Community Health Project and Paper Focus Group of Forest Park Howard Mohr Community Center After-School Program Forest Park, IL By Susan Reighard Population Health Loyola University New Orleans Online Course Instructor: Dr. Angelique White-Williams May 2010 Health Promotion/Community Health Project and Paper: Focus Group of Forest Park Howard Mohr Community Center After-School Program, Forest Park, IL The purpose of this paper is to summarize and detail the observationsRead MoreChildhood Obesity : A Serious Health Concern2047 Words   |  9 PagesChildhood obesity continues to be a serious health concern. It can be attributed to many factors such as family lifestyle, income or socioeconomic background, and culture. According to the CDC (2015), â€Å"the percentage of children aged 6-11 in the United States who were obese increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 18% in 2012. Similarly, the percentage of adolescents aged 12-19 years who were obese increased from 5% to nearly 21% over the same period†. Obesity is a threat to future generations ofRead MoreTeam Blaze : Addressing Childhood Obesity1885 Words   |  8 Pages Team BLAZE: Addressing Childhood Obesity in the Mississippi Delta Kathy Atkins, Jessica Barthelemy, Brittany Booker, Brooke Buchanan, Shelley Burkett, and Laurence Cicilio The University of Alabama at Birmingham NUR 610: Healthcare Systems for Advanced Nursing Practice Summer 2015 Project Description Project Purpose and Basis Team BLAZE (Beginning Life with AmaZing Examples) is a project designed to decrease childhood obesity in low income school districts. Team BLAZE is a schoolRead MoreThe Issue Of Childhood Obesity2238 Words   |  9 PagesSmaller governmental initiatives have proven effective, as well as campaigns run by non-governmental organization, yet a large scale federal initiative has yet to be established. Childhood obesity is an ever growing epidemic that has increased to unacceptable proportions. In order to prevent any further escalation of this public, federal legislation must be advocated for and passed that creates more opportunities for physical activity, increased access to healthy food, and puts an end to dishonestRead MoreBioterrorism Teaching Plan2820 Words   |  12 PagesCOMMUNITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS OF PHOENIX ALISHA HERMOSILLO EMMAH MAINA LISA GREENSPON PRIYA CANALES GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY NRS-422V AUGUST 18, 2013 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS OF PHOENIX Community assessment and analysis by the community health nurse is of vital importance. This means understanding the community at large and in details on health matters and issues affecting health as well as the healthcare system used in the community. This is done through data collection

The Usa Beef Exported To Eu Is Safe And Should Not Be Banned Free Essays

string(151) " four decades have confirmed that the proper use of these compounds, according to approved registered labels, poses no risk to human or animal health\." It has been a decade since the European Union (EU) issued a 10-year ban of U. S. imported beef treated with hormone additives. We will write a custom essay sample on The Usa Beef Exported To Eu Is Safe And Should Not Be Banned or any similar topic only for you Order Now The primary reason set by EU was the fact that â€Å"scientific advertisers are convinced the hormone additives in beef are harmful to human health† (James, Barry 1999). Despite the fact that the World Trade Organization (WTO), the international body that regulates international trade policies and laws, ruled out the ban, the EU preferred to defy such ruling. Such a vital economic event posed multi-faceted effects in the international relations of both nations: economic, political, ethical and cultural relations. The main point is not the ban itself, rather, it is the fact that there has been no solid scientific evidences yet established by the EU before it ordered the ban on US hormone-treated beef. In fact, three neutral members of the WTO panel arbitrators ruled that the EU’s decade-old ban on the import of hormone-treated beef broke global trade rules (Thompson, Sharon R. 1999 cited in Orr, Rena 2001). This paper will focus on the health safety of hormone-treated beef exported by U. S. to the EU. In this premise, this paper will present facts and figures that will prove the safety claims relative to hormone additives using scientific studies by the representatives of both nations. The events leading up to the ban on the domestic use of hormones in cattle raising and on imports of hormone-treated beef are important in explaining the political longevity of the issue in Europe. In many ways the story begins with the emergence of non-governmental institutions, such as the consumer and environmental groups, together with the rise of the European Parliament, each cutting their political teeth on issues that appeared to resonate with public opinion. The beef-hormone controversy was made to measure for these organizations. Trade concerns were not dominant in the early years, and the disciplines applied by trade rules were in any case weak. European livestock producers were searching for ways to stimulate growth in cattle, and took eagerly to the use of hormones, but sometimes with inadequate knowledge of the consequences of misuse of such chemicals. Regulatory control sometimes slipped between the cracks, as coordination and harmonization of national regulations progressed haltingly in the European Union. The United States has about 90% of its beef production raised with growth hormones (Paulson, Michael 1999). Growth hormones are injected to cattle for the purpose of enhancing muscle and fat growth and thereby allowing cattle to produce more milk (Bald, Renee and Bill Bigelow 2002). The process is as simple as injecting tiny pellets of these hormones into the ears of the cattle (Jacobs, Paul 1999). Such hormones are approved and permitted to be legally used as per federal laws by ranchers in producing meaty and lean cows (Paulson, Michael 1999). There are generally six types of hormones used in beef production and three of these are natural sex hormones- testosterone, progesterone and oestradiol-17 beta (Bald, Renee and Bill Bigelow 2002). In the fact sheet published by Health Canada (2005), hormonal growth promoters are defined and explained as follows: â€Å"Hormonal growth promoters are naturally occurring or synthetic products. They are approved for use in beef cattle. The effect of hormonal growth promoters (HGPs) is to increase lean tissue growth. Fat deposition is reduced and since fat is so energy dense, food conversion efficiency is increased. The result is a healthier product which is produced at a lower cost to the consumer. † The fact sheet also defined the growth hormone somatotropin as â€Å"a naturally occurring substance in both humans and animals. It is responsible for skeletal, organ and cell growth’’ and Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) as â€Å"a synthetic version of the naturally occurring growth hormone somatotropin which is approved for use in the US to increase the production of milk in dairy cattle. † The safety of growth promoters has been confirmed by the Codex Alementarius. Codex Alementarius with FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives recommended minimum daily intake of 17 beta estradiol, progesterone and testosterone but maximum residue limit was not indicated (Orr, Rena 2001). â€Å"This means that the available data on the identity and concentration of residues of the veterinary drug in animal tissues indicate a wide margin of safety for consumption of residues in food when the drug is used according to good practice in the use of veterinary drugs† (ibid). As background information, the Codex program is under the supervision and sponsorship of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization. The said program aims to develop food standards that would fit the requirements or needs of participating nations of which as of 2001 as already 150 nations. Primarily, Codex program targets to minimize non-tariff trade barriers. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), on the other hand is an independent international arm composed of experts in food general health and safety issues. It is this international body that focuses on the scientific evaluation of a veterinary drug without consideration of government policies and politics (Orr, Rena 2001). Codex Alementarius with FAO/WHO concluded that the presence of drug residues does not present health concern and does not pose any health risk to humans (JECFA Fifty-second Meeting: Summary and Conclusions, 1999 cited in Orr, Rena 2001). In addition, JECFA concluded that there is no need to establish maximum residue levels for the hormones Estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone because the presence of residues would not present a health concern (ibid). The Lamming Committee convention (1982) and the Scientific Conference on Meat Production (1995) confirmed growth promoters are safe (Galvin, Timothy US Dept of Agriculture, 2000). Timothy Galvin is the Administrator of Foreign Agricultural Service of US Department of Agriculture. In his statement before the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization, Galvin stressed that â€Å"the EU’s ban ignores a body of scientific evidence showing that the growth promotants in question are safe when used in accordance with good animal husbandry practices† (Galvin, 2000). Studies in the last four decades have confirmed that the proper use of these compounds, according to approved registered labels, poses no risk to human or animal health. You read "The Usa Beef Exported To Eu Is Safe And Should Not Be Banned" in category "Papers" EU’s own Scientific Conference on Growth Promotants held in 1995 reached the same conclusion (BBC News Online, May 13, 1999). In its statement released and published in BBC News Online on May 13, 1999, the United States speakers insist those experts from JECFA, FAO and WHO have already released its reconfirmation on the safety of growth hormones under accepted veterinary practice. With this, there should have been no reason to continue with the ban. In addition, they pointed out that â€Å"EU already presented these arguments to an impartial WTO dispute-settlement panel in 1997 and lost and even in its appeal a year after† (ibid). Galvin (2000) also stressed in his statement: â€Å"In each of its decisions, the WTO found that the EU beef hormone ban is not supported by an adequate risk analysis nor is there credible evidence to indicate that there are health risks associated with hormone-treated beef. † The US Food Administration, USDA and WTO and other researchers have concluded that growth hormones are safe if used properly (Lusk, et. al. 2003). Although EU consumers have negative perceptions as to the health hazards of genetically modified foods, of which hormone-treated beef belongs, it should not be a basis for the ban. Perceptions are clearly different from scientifically proven evidences of health risks. According to Bureau of Consumer Unions based in Brussels, EU consumers are demanding â€Å"risk-free† foods because of the phobia they got from past experiences of pesticide contaminated meats (Lusk, et. al. 2003). However, if we are to base on available facts from scientific studies, hormones are unlike pesticides that can pose health hazards when in food. In fact, there are studies that show that hormones are naturally present in infinitesimal amounts in all meat whether implanted or not (QA Growth Promoting Hormones, cited in Orr 2001). Aside from this, the National Cattlemen Beef Association (2001) stressed that â€Å"the amount of estrogen in plant-source foods is larger than in meat. A standard serving of potatoes contains 225 nanograms of estrogen while a three-ounce serving of beef from an implanted steer contains 1. 9 nanograms of estrogen. † Published in the Los Angeles Times in April 19, 1999, Paul Jacobs presented the argument of the US government that three of the six hormones used in beef production are legal as per federal laws and that these are hormones that are naturally in the human system, thus confirming the statement of the National Cattlemen Beef Association as stated above. Ironic to the EU ban, scientific panel organized by the EU agreed with the WTO stand that these hormones are perfectly safe (Jacobs, Paul 1999). Even if 17-beta estradiol has tumor initiating and promoting effects, the substance is freely available over the counter in the United States along with other hormone additives (James, Barry 1999). The human body naturally produces hormones in amounts greater than what is being consumed by eating meat or any food (National Cattlemen Beef Association cited in Orr, Rena 2001). â€Å"What often is not recognized is that the [natural] levels that are found in other animal foods, such as eggs or milk or butter, are substantially higher than those that occur in animal tissue as a result of use of these hormones† (Ellis, Richard cited in Jacobs, Paul 1999). Ellis is the director of scientific research oversight for the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Dan Glickman, the U. S. secretary of agriculture, also insists that â€Å"U. S. beef, whether grown with hormones or not, is absolutely safe, and that EU scientists have consistently failed to come up with proof to the contrary† (Barry, James 1999). EU is also fearful of the effect of rBST hormone, as one of the six hormones being used in cattle production in the US. The said hormone was said to have an effect of increasing the rate of infection in cattle. Although this is true, the infection is not applicable in humans (Bald, Renee and Bill Bigelow 2002). Another fear of the EU consumers and its government is the mutation effects of hormones. Although EU scientists identified at least one commonly used hormone (17 beta estradiol) as complete carcinogen, it was a common mistake to assume that the substance like other hormones causes cell mutation (James, Barry 1999). Such hormones are feared as endocrine disrupters which was explained by an American scientist as having an effect in the process of cell development but does not have solid explanation as to how it really works as of this moment (Sonnenschein, Carlos cited in Barry, James 1999). The scientist explained that â€Å"in assessing the risk of endocrine disrupters, therefore, it is necessary to consider their effect not only on individual cells but on the relations among cells. † In this ground, EU does not have the reasonable and supported evidence as to fearing the mutation effects of hormone-treated beef especially with humans. â€Å"Lacking proof, the EU can only fall back on observed effects, such as the specific distribution and observed increase of hormone-associated diseases, such as breast cancer and prostate cancer, in many countries of the world that may be caused by hormones and hormone-like substances in the human diet† (ibid). Growth promoting hormones has been used in the beef industry for decades by countries other than the U. S. The Health Protection Branch of Health Canada approved the use of natural hormones: 17 estradiol, progesterone, testosterone and synthetic hormones as zeranol, trenbolone acetate and melengestrol acetate (Taylor, 1983). The Center for Global Food Issues also has approved the safety of the growth hormones in beef production in relation to human health. There are three factors enumerated and explained by the scientific body. The first factor is the process by which the hormones are administered to the cattle. According to the authors, the doses of hormone implant are specific as to legal and authorized doses per FDA regulations (Avery, Alex and Dennis Avery 2008). The authors also stressed that â€Å"the implant ensures that the hormone is released into the animals’ bloodstream very slowly so that the concentration of the hormone in the animal remains relatively constant and low† (ibid). Here is an interesting fact stated by the authors: â€Å"Because the ear is discarded at harvest, the implant does not enter the food chain. † There is no way that cattle raisers or producers of hormone-treated beef will administer the hormone in excess of what is required since it will just bring them additional cost for such unnecessary step. This second factor stressed by Avery et. al. (2008) is very significant in proving the cattle raisers were stuck to the limits of hormone dosage and that is economically wise. IN fact, there is very little impact on weight gain when such hormone will be administered beyond required dosage. Avery (et. al. 2008) also stressed that USDA is conducting annual monitoring of hormone administration in cattle to ensure everything is done with proper precautions and safety measures. The third factor is relative to the dosage of hormones administered in cattle and its impact on hormone levels in beef. Even with reference to the natural hormones produced by the human body, such dosage is comparatively low level. â€Å"A pound of beef raised using estradiol contains approximately 15,000 times less of this hormone than the amount produced daily by the average man and about 9 million times less than the amount produced by a pregnant woman† (Avery, Alex et. al. 2008). According to JECFA’s calculation, even if a person is consuming one pound of beef and that the amount of hormone in such beef is at the highest level of ingestion amount (50 nanograms of estradiol, it is still less than one-thirtieth of the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of estradiol for a 75 pound child. This is based on the regulatory requirement set by WHO/FAO Expert Committee (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. 1999 cited in Avery, et. al. 2008). In a separate study, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), stated that â€Å"a person would need to eat over 13 pounds of beef from an implanted steer to equal the amount of estradiol naturally found in a single egg and that a glass of milk contains about nine times as much estradiol as a half-pound of beef from an implanted steer† (Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA 1999 cited in Avery et. al. 2008). Avery et. al. (2008) stressed that governing bodies that can prove the safety of hormone treated beef exported by the United States which include The European Agriculture Commission Scientific Conference on Growth Promotion in Meat Production (1995) and Sub-Group of the Veterinary Products Committee of the British Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food (1999). Having been proven of its safety, let us now look into the consumer preferences and awareness as to buying hormone-treated beef produced in the United States. Consumers are actually aware of Genetically Modified Foods (GM Foods) but are still willing to buy them. A survey on US consumers found that concern on the hazards of hormone residues in food ranked average on the list, even below the concerns for contaminants (bacteria and pesticides) (Kramer and Penner, cited in Lusk, et. al. 2003). In a separate study, by the Food Marketing Institute found that only 1% of consumers volunteered to be concerned with hormone residue (Lusk, et. al 2003). Apart from this, 65% of US consumers are aware of biotechnology, 73% of who were willing to buy GM foods while 21% biotechnology as health risk (Hoban, 1996). A survey of EU consumers found that consumer awareness of biotechnology ranged from 55 to 57% in France and the United Kingdom to 91% in Germany. Only 30% of German consumers were willing to buy GM foods whereas 57% viewed biotechnology as a health risk. In France and the United Kingdom, 60 and 63% were willing to buy GM foods with 38 and 39% viewed them as a health risk (Hoban 1996). An experimental auction found that consumers placed more value on the leanness of pork than the use of hormone itself (Lusk, et. al. 2003). A survey of US student consumers found that 70% were unwilling to pay a premium to exchange a bag of GM corn chips for a bag of non-GM corn chips but 20% were willing to pay at least $. 20/oz in exchange (Lusk, et. al. 2003). EU’s ban of US beef for safety reasons is baseless and a clear violation. WTO rules 3 times that the ban on the use of certain hormones to promote growth of cattle violated the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement (Galvin, Timothy, Foreign Agricultural Service, US Department of Agriculture, 2000). Europeans who traditionally get their beef from aging bulls and dairy cows–are sometimes subjected to far higher amounts of natural sex hormones than they would get from U. S. cattle. Americans point out that a slaughtered bull, for example, can have 10 times more natural testosterone in its flesh than a treated steer (Jacobs, Paul, The Los Angeles Times, 1999). Estrogen levels from treated cattle are, on average, 3% higher than the meat from an untreated animal. For testosterone and progesterone, the differences are less than one-tenth of 1% (Ellis, Richard, US Dept. of Agriculture cited in Jacobs, 1999). These evidences of the health safety of hormone-treated beef produced by the United States did not move the EU authorities and did not at all lift the ban. As of this time, there has been no solid scientific evidence yet presented by the EU authorities to justify the decade-long ban. Despite the continuing ban on US beef, the federal government, in cooperation with the USDA and the American livestock producers has been taking all the efforts they could possibly exert in keeping the market alive and growing without the EU market. What the government did was to support the cattle raisers and beef producers in seeking and developing new markets to make it up with the lost EU beef market which is undoubtedly significant to the US beef export. â€Å"As a result, U. S. beef exports represent one of the true success stories in our agricultural trade† (Galvin, 2000). Galvin stated that the United States is now able to export more than 80 percent of what is being imported based on volume, and the trade surplus in beef exceeds $1 billion annually. † The bottom line therefore is that the United States should not be wasting its time and resources in appealing to the EU to lift the ban on hormone-treated beef. This is primarily because it has already proven its case on the safety of the products. Secondly, the United States have proven itself able to establish and develop new markets and strategies to cover what is being lost in the ban. Lastly, the United States have all the resources to support the cattle and beef industry as it can with other industries so what it needs to focus now is to help the industry continue to rise. WORKS CITED Avery, Alex and Dennis Avery (2008). The Environmental Safety and Benefits of Growth Enhancing Pharmaceutical Technologies in Beef Production. Retrieved on March 22, 2008 from http://www. thecattlesite. com/articles/1240/the-environmental-safety-and-benefits-of-growth-enhancing-pharmaceutical-technologies-in-beef-production Bald, Renee and Bill Bigelow (2002). The Beef Hormone Controversy: Whose Free Trade? Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www. rethinkingschools. org/publication/rg/RGBeef. shtml Battle over beef hormones. BBC News Online, May 13, 1999. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://news. bbc. co. uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/342310. stm Galvin, Timothy (2000). Statement of Timothy J. Galvin Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service U. S. Department of Agriculture Before the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Washington, D. C. September 25, 2000. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www. fas. usda. gov/info/speeches/ct092500. html Health Canada (2005). Questions and Answers – Hormonal Growth Promoters. Retrieved on March 22, 2008 from http://www. hc-sc. gc. ca/dhp-mps/vet/faq/growth_hormones_promoters_croissance_hormonaux_stimulateurs_e. html Hormones in Cattle. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www. foodsafetynetwork. ca/en/article-details. php? a=4c=19sc=162id=308 Jacobs, Paul (1999). U. S. , Europe Lock Horns in Beef Hormone Debate. The Los Angeles Times, April 09, 1999. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www. organicconsumers. org/Toxic/beefhormone. cfm James, Barry (1999). Behind Contested EU Ban, a Scientific Puzzle: Battle to Prove Beef Hormone Risk. The Herald Tribune, October 18, 1999. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www. iht. com/articles/1999/10/18/snhorm. t. php Lusk, Jayson L. ; Roosen, Jutta ; Fox, John A. (2003). Demand for beef from cattle administered growth hormones of fed genetically modified corn: a comparison of consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://goliath. ecnext. com/coms2/summary_0199-2500157_ITM National Cattlemen Beef Association: Myths Facts about Beef Production: Hormones and Antibiotics. http://www. beef. org/librfacts/mythfact/mythfact_11. html in Orr, Rena (2001). Growth-promoting Hormones in Cattle. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www. foodsafetynetwork. ca/en/article-details. php? a=4c=19sc=162id=308 Orr, Rena (2001). Growth-promoting Hormones in Cattle. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www. foodsafetynetwork. ca/en/article-details. php? a=4c=19sc=162id=308 Paulson, Michael (1999). WTO Case File: The Beef Hormone Case. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 22, 1999. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://seattlepi. nwsource. com/national/case22. shtml QA Growth Promoting Hormones: Contact: Julie Bousman 202-347-0228 http://hill. beef. org/ft/qagph. htm in Orr, Rena (2001). Growth-promoting Hormones in Cattle. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www. foodsafetynetwork. ca/en/article-details. php? a=4c=19sc=162id=308 Taylor, W. (1983): Risks Associated with the Exposure of Human Subjects to Endogenous and Exogenous Anabolic Steroids Anabolics in Animal Production. OIE p 273-287 in Orr, Rena (2001). Growth-promoting Hormones in Cattle. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www. foodsafetynetwork. ca/en/article-details. php? a=4c=19sc=162id=308 Thompson, Sharon R (1999): International Harmonization Issues. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice. Vol 15 No 1, 181-195 in Orr, Rena (2001). Growth-promoting How to cite The Usa Beef Exported To Eu Is Safe And Should Not Be Banned, Papers

Case Study-Shippit Company-Free-Samples for Students-Myassignment

Question: Discuss about the Case Study-Shippit Company. Answer: Introduction This is a report, which throws light on an emerging company, which looks promising and can become a multinational company in the near future. The company that has been chosen for the report is named Shippit. Shippit is a start up company that has been established in the year of 2014 and has its headquarters in Pyrmont (Shippit., 2017). The report includes the background of the company, the product and the target market, macro environment and micro environment analysis of the company. Background Shippit is a start up company, which has used innovative ways to establish their business in the market. The company acts as an intermediary between the companies and the consumer and provides extraordinary services on both the sides. The company offers various packages where the customers are allowed to choose among the various delivery systems. The tracking system developed by the company is very unique and customers can use multiple trackers to track the whereabouts of their respective packages (Swan Swan, 2017). The company provides very fast delivery services and they do all the bargaining for the consumers to make sure that the consumers save the desired amount of money for the project. The company joins the retailers with the traditional courier services, which helps to speed up the delivery processes for the retailer. The retailer saves a lot of money on transportation and the quality of service offered by Shippit is of utmost quality. This innovative idea of becoming a seco nd line of distributor among the retailer and the traditional parcel services is helped the company grow so fast and become one of the most promising upcoming companies in Australia (Swan Swan, 2017). Pest analysis Political The political stability of Australia is good and the economy of the country is growing at a rapid rate. There are less numbers of barriers and the laws related to shipping quite liberal for the country (Brindley, 2017). The legal laws of the country will not cause any hindrance for the company and the political environment is working in the favour of Shippit. Economic The market economy of the country is very good and ecommerce has flourished which has increased the demand of shipping. The market economy is growing at an unimaginable rate and the demand of the e commerce in the country is expected to increase even more (Yao Minner, 2017). This will act as a benefit for the company and at the same time attracts the attention of multinational companies in the market who has the ability to diversify their business portfolio. Social The social market trends show that more and more consumers are buying products from the online medium, which has increased the demand for the logistics companies (Attaran, 2017). This market will eventually become more popular and the company has established a good reputation in the market, which will act as an advantage for the company. Technological Globalization has lead to the advancement of technology and Australia has been making improvements in this filed. However, the main objective of the company is to make the operations simpler for their customers and the company has made efforts to use path-breaking technology to provide them with live tracking platforms (Turkulainen Swink, 2017). SWOT analysis Strength Weakness Opportunities Threat Good reputation Workforce is skilled Innovation Company has been supplied with surplus of funds Less competition in the market Relatively new brand Market penetration is less Expansion in other regions International expansion Up gradation of the existing technology Presence of other big companies New entrants in the same market Existing substitutes in the market The swot analysis of the company shows that the company is in a promising condition right now and they have developed a good reputation in the market. The employees for the company are very skilled and the company has been able to maintain the operational output. The innovative ways the company executes has grabbed the attention of many investors and the company currently has surplus of funds (Jali, Abas Ariffin, 2017). The availability of capital for Shippit will help them to achieve their goals and objectives within a short period. Moreover, there are less number of companies in this genre so the competition in the market of the company is less. However, the company is relatively new and they have a long way to go, they will have to increase the penetration by expanding their businesses to other parts of Australia (Turkulainen Swink, 2017). The company also has the opportunity to expand their business at an international level because of the surplus funds available to them. Howev er, there are large companies who can act as a substitute for the business so the company will have to make sure that they maintain goodwill and image of the brand. Business Model There are lot of conventional business models but the company needs a unique business model to improve their growth in the market. Freemium Model is a model, which is apt for companies who offer business and personal services though the online medium. This model allows the company to provide bare minimum service at minimum cost where as the addition services will be provided taking adequate cost. The company maintains a simple cloud platform, which provides efficient service to the company, and at the same time they have the option of providing variety of services according to the needs of the consumers. Recommendations The company has been able to capture the market because of the fact they have kept the procedure for the consumers as simple as possible. The company will have to keep on doing the same thing as it the unique selling proposition for Shippit. The cloud based shipping system used by the company is very simple for the consumers to understand for the consumers. Thus, the company should maintain this factor even if they have to change the structure of the organization. Thus, it can be concluded from the report that innovation is providing start up companies with competitive advantage in the market. Moreover, the consumers are ready for something new and simple, the companies who will be able to identify the need of the consumers and capitalize on with the help of innovation will gain competitive advantage in the long run. Thus, it can be determined that Shippit is in a good position in the market and they should keep on integrating their overall process of supply chain so that they can create a stronger and better business model. References Attaran, M. (2017). Additive Manufacturing: The Most Promising Technology to Alter the Supply Chain and Logistics.Journal of Service Science and Management,10(03), 189. Brindley, C. (Ed.). (2017).Supply chain risk. Taylor Francis. Jali, M. N., Abas, Z., Ariffin, A. S. (2017). Social Innovation in the context of Strategic Knowledge Management Processes for Supply Chain Performance Enhancement.International Journal of Supply Chain Management,6(1), 233-237 Shippit. (2017).Shippit.Shippit.com. Retrieved 1 August 2017, from https://www.shippit.com/ Swan, D., Swan, D. (2017).Shippit hopes $3m delivers goods.Theaustralian.com.au. Retrieved 1 August 2017, from https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/technology/shippit-is-parcelled-up-ready-for-series-a-capital-delivery/news-story/9a4a8e4a6dac190e7616261f13565738 Swan, D., Swan, D. (2017).Shippit says no to extra cash.Theaustralian.com.au. Retrieved 1 August 2017, from https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/technology/shippit-says-no-to-extra-funding-in-latest-raise/news-story/9049019e1c191fde4603a5bed17ebb14 Turkulainen, V., Swink, M. L. (2017). Supply chain personnel as knowledge resources for innovationa contingency view.Journal of Supply Chain Management,53(3), 41-59. Yao, M., Minner, S. (2017). Review of multi-supplier inventory models in supply chain management: An update.