The deleterious effects, and the risks of GM food Essay Example for Free

The deleterious effects, and the risks of GM food Essay It’s been said that humans are what they eat. The relationship humans have with food is unappreciated. Food is the fuel that keeps humans going, gives them the energy needed to be creative and productive; it is the building block of society, after all, it wasn’t until the Neolithic Era, when humans figured out a way to domesticate plants and animals, that any form of organized society formed. Even during the previous hunter-gatherer foraging era, humans were very connected to the food they ate; understanding where it came and having an idea of how it came to be was crucial to knowing what was vital to survive. In this time, food sources like grains, fruits, and vegetables were naturally abundant, whole. Humans could choose between many different types of nutritious food because there were thousands of varieties of species. Unfortunately, as populations grew and more civilized societies formed, various farming techniques were created, and a vast majority of these species became extinct to make way for the harvesting of a select few (Pringle). In the industrial era, societies around the world, especially western ones, emphasized the importance of technological advancements. With this pursuit of technology, nature became something to control rather than live with; an attempt at making life simpler, better. Breaching the gap between nature and technology is optimization. It is this obsession with optimization that most accurately characterizes contemporary America. Undoubtedly, it comes with great costs. As it turns out, optimization is a business, and a profitable one. Thus, the costs and ef fects of optimization are often hidden from the public by industrial leaders in an effort to maintain profits. They control the businesses they run and protect themselves by dumping millions of dollars into politics. Today, it seems that the gap between nature and technology has been breached with the propagation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The aliens that now fill supermarkets nationwide represent the ultimate disconnect from natural, whole foods necessary for a healthy lifestyle. People are relatively uninformed about GM foods, issues include: their benefits, the testing and safety, the harmful effects they can have on the body and environment, the government’s role as overseer, the labeling controversy, and the â€Å"substantially equivalent† principle; all of these issues are conveniently hidden vitalities in understanding the danger, the deleterious effects, and the risks of GM foods. In tackling these issues, an additional understanding of the historic background of how GMOs came to be is equally important. Advocates for the rapid advance of technology will cite the numerous positive breakthroughs, the internet, healthcare, the numerous inventions; it’s hard to argue with, which is why when addressing GM foods, the emphasis should be placed on the relationship between technology and nature, specifically within the food industry, and how this relationship has become too intimate, to the point where it’s difficult to differentiate between technology and nature. The courtship leading to the marriage between technology and nature is exemplified in Peter Pringle’s book, Food, Inc., in which he discusses the 1960’s Green Revolution, a turning point in agriculture during which producers moved from traditional to monoculture methods of farming. This vastly increased crop yields. But how? Farmers had high yields because they started to use fertilizers and pesticides containing chemicals like nitrogen, left over from World War II explosives. New irrigation systems were introduced and animals replaced some human labor in order to handle the large crop fields and monoculture agriculture provided food relief to starving nations post-war (Pringle). Farmers experienced a rude awakening when yields started to decline due to a number of unforeseen or unaddressed consequences. Although the Green Revolution saved or improved millions of lives during the 1960’s, little consideration was given to the future effects it could have on environmental sustainability. The lack of food plant diversity eventually led to multiple problems, like the mass destruction of crops that had contracted disease or succumbed to pesticide-resistant insects, chemically saturated and overly watered soils, and an inevitable decline in production yields (Pringle). Obviously, the United States needed to find a solution to this problem. By the late 1900s, many scientists and biotechnologists approved and advocated genetic engineering as the most viable solution. This process is best described by Lauren and Robin Ticciati in their book, Genetically Modified Foods: Are They Safe? You Decide. According to the Ticciati’s, scientists planned to take a gene from one completely different organism and insert it into the plant in order to make it yield a desired outcome (Ticciati). The goal was to create food plants that could grow and withstand harsh conditions like pesticides, infertile soil, unfavorable climates, and geographical locations. Despite wariness from skeptical environmentalists about the unknown future effects of genetic food engineering, the companies who profit from this new food technology proclaimed it to be the wave of the future. As the Ticciati’s evidenced, in 1996, when the FDA approved the use of genetically engineered foods with no special label requirements, the GM foods were introduced on grocery market shelves with relatively no consumer awareness. This is just another example of how society is not clueless by choice. If this seems a harsh diagnosis, take into context what Kathleen Hart exemplified in her book, Eating in the Dark; a survey which took place just a couple years after GM foods were released revealed about two-thirds of the American adult population had no idea that supermarkets were carrying such items (Hart). Since then, GMOs have become part of the staple food products in the diets of the everyday consumer. Part of the problem is that nobody is exactly sure how harmful GM foods are, but there is substantial evidence to show that they can have a devastating effect on the economy, the human body, and the environment. In Food, Inc., Pringle discusses the farming method of artificial hybrid breeding which became a huge success in the mid-1900s and attracted a lot of commercial attention, spawning the term â€Å"agribusiness.† Scientists found that by crossing-breeding two varieties [of a species of plant] that had been inbred, [and] fertilized by their own pollen for three or four generations showed a tremendous leap in hybrid vigor, with grain yields up to 50 percent higher [than the natural bred variety] (Pringle). Unfortunately, when naturally crossed in the farmers’ fields, the hybrids strength did not withstand, so farmers had to rely on industry-produced super seeds. An economic boom occurred within the seed and fertilizer industries, with businesses rapidly sprouting up like the crops they helped produce. A few decades later the early warnings of genetic uniformity suddenly became a reality, (Pringle). One alarming discovery was the fact that since only one type of species was being harvested in a given area, if a crop contracted a disease, the entire field was wiped out, which meant no income that season for many farmers (Pringle). The companies who were invested in this new agricultural era and had seen the enormous profit potential in having a hand in controlling the food chain were not going to just quit. They pushed further into science, seeking ways to alter a species genetic make-up in order for it to conform to optimization, instead of considering natural solutions to these problems (Pringle). Today, there are GM super foods that are so genetically modified that they differ starkly from their ancestors. It is a teeter-totter industry; either profits are extremely high (like they have been for so long) or the industry fails and profits cease to exist. The latter doesn’t look like it’s going to occur any time soon because the government is firmly grasped by the biotech food companies that control the GM food industry. The most prominent of these companies, Monsanto, falsely advocates the necessity for GM foods, with the real motive the preservation of profits. Monsanto executive Hugh Grant claims â€Å"they [GM foods] can help feed the world and preserve the environment by reducing the need for pesticides,† (Harvest of Fear). Others advocate the hope that GM technology can save lives, like scientist Charles Arntzen, who is working on GM techniques to make edible vaccines to combat viruses in developing countries, (Harvest of Fear). More recently, companies like AquaBounty Technologies are working to develop genetically engineered animals. AquaBounty’s AquAdvantage salmon has been touted as â€Å"as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon,† by the FDA, but is still being met with numerous opposition (Pollack). The salmon â€Å"contain a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon and a genetic switch from the ocean pout that turns on an antifreeze gene,† which allows the salmon to make growth hormone in cold weather, whereas they usually produce it only in warm weather,† (Pollack). Genetic manipulation is causing drastic changes in the natural behavior of the organisms it’s implemented on, and it is believed that this could have multiple adverse effects on the environment and society. Those who have similar concerns, these cautious enemies to GM foods, can find strength in recent studies that are beginning to expose the numerous harmful effects of GM foods. In a study done by Gilles-Eric Sà ©ralini at the University of Caen in France, 200 rats were fed either genetically engineered corn or the herbicide Roundup and observed for two years, their entire life cycle and not just the normal ninety day period. It was found that they had an increased risk of developing tumors, suffering organ damage, and dying prematurely (Pollack, GMO Global Alert). Additional animal studies have shown other serious health risks associated with GM food consumption: infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen, and gastrointestinal system (Genetic Roulette). To exemplify how this is portrayed in humans, statistical evidence shows that after 1996, when GMOs increased in the American diet, disorders like inflammatory bowel disease, ulcerative colitis, chronic constipation, gastrointestinal infections, Crohn’s disease, and gastroephageal reflux have all risen dramatically and consistently (Genetic Roulette). Further evidence indicates that GMOs cause food allergies, have increased toxicity, decreased nutritional value, and promote antibiotic resistance (UMN). Not only do GM foods have a great potential for negatively effecting humans, they are harmful to the environment. Companies like Monsanto claim that genetically modifying foods is environmentally friendly, but this has been proven wrong on a multitude of levels. There is lack of nutrients found in soil in which GM crops are planted (Ticciati). These crops hurt the soil and the food chain. The chemicals found in pesticides were not only killing pests but also small animals, especially birds, were also facing extinction (Robbins). Tampering with natural selection creates a domino effect and damages the entire ecosystem. Imposing an unnatural element in the form of GM foods changes the equation and disrupts natural balance, even if things balance out, they will be forever different, even this is dangerous. Although GM foods are responsible for massive crop yields and the increased food supply, the industry is precariously perched given the increasing amount of deleterious effects that are being exposed more and more each day. For this reason, the government needs to take action. This is another dilemma; it is easy to wonder how the government can do anything when it has such close relationships with the companies that all the fingers are being pointed at. The primary antagonist in this story is the company Monsanto, the inventor of saccharin, an artificial sweetener, and many additional products. Monsanto accounts for over two-thirds of genetically engineered soy, corn, and canola crops worldwide (Robbins). Hendrik Verfaillie, Monsantos Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, described the company’s aggressive strategy with, The biggest mistake that anyone can make is moving slowly, because the game is going to be over before you start, (Robbins). It is understandable that a company this big has a profoundly large impact on government rulings regarding its industry. With Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide bringing in billions of dollars, the industry convinced the Supreme Court to allow the patenting of genetically engineered seeds so that the offspring would become the property of the seed manufacturer. In Genetic Engineering, Food and Our Environment, Luke Anderson exemplifies the impact of this ruling by stressing the profound repercussions it will have on the future of living organisms; This extraordinary decision by the U.S. Supreme Court heralded a new era. Once a shared heritage, the gene pool of plants, animals, and humans was now a commodity waiting to be bought and sold (Anderson). What appears to be mainly a business venture is an extremely important political issue, with companies pouring millions into politics to stay afloat. This is exemplified by the following quote, from the documentary The Future o f Food. Here, director D.K. Garcia focuses on the 2000 Presidential Election and the biotechnology issue: Agricultural biotechnology will find a support occupying the White House next year, regardless of which candidate wins the election in November (Garcia). The Future of Food reveals top ranking officials from the Supreme Court, such as Justice Clarence Thomas who previously represented Monsanto as their Lawyer for Regulatory Affairs, to Donald Rumsfeld, The Secretary of Defense, who was previously the President of Searle, a Monsanto subsidiary. Given their backgrounds, it is difficult to ignore the likelihood that their political stances would not be swayed. Even worse is Linda Fisher, who has switched roles between the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and Monsanto a number of times; she was Monsantos Executive Vice President for nearly a decade and Deputy Administrator for the EPA as well as Commissioner for George Bushs administration (Garcia). It’s frightening that the EPA, which acknowledges and regulates pesticides emitted into the environment, is likely to be biased in regards to the approval of genetically modified organisms into the environment. Needless to say, it’s shocking to see the connections that pose how much of an apparent influence Monsanto and the other leading biotech companies have on government regulations of GMOs. Evidence of this influence is presented in Seeds of Deception, in which Micah Sifry states, the four leaders of the biotech industry Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, and Novartis gave more than $3.5 million in PAC, soft-money, and large individual contributions between 1995 and 2000, three-quarters of it to Republicans (Smith). Stricter guidelines and extensive testing are not required because the companies have such strong political ties that they can influence the policy that is implemented upon them. In 1992, former U.S. Vice President, Dan Quayle, exemplifies this in his speech on behalf of the Council of Competitiveness, We will ensure that biotech products will receive the same oversight as other products, instead of being hampered by unnecessary regulation (Garcia). The FDA approved genetically modified foods with a high sense of hesitant reluctance. Consumers are supposed to rely on the FDA to determine if food is safe for consumption; the agency is supposed to be a protective one. This was a landmark decision for the FDA, a decision which required strong political influence for the agency to decide against its own principles. This is evidenced in The Future of Food; Dan Quayle and the Bush administrat ion appointed Michael Taylor as Deputy Commissioner for Policy, which Andrew Kimbrell divulges in an interview, noting that Taylor was formerly Monsantos Senior Counsel at the King and Spaulding law firm. Taylor instituted a no-regulation policy and left it to the biotech companies to determine whether or not genetically modified food was deemed safe for human consumption (Garcia). As the examples presented indicate, the successful clearance of GM foods has been engineered by companies like Monsanto and politicians, almost as much as the foods themselves. With the FDA swept out of the way, the companies that dominated the biotech industry were free to roam as they pleased, testing at their fingertips. How can the consumers trust Monsanto to act in their best interest, especially when the company’s Director of Corporate Communication, Phil Angell, says things like â€Å"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job,† (Robbins). Without extensive testing, which would almost certainly yield new truths about the harmful effects of GM foods, Monsanto can achieve its goal of selling as much as possible while disregarding the consequences this has on society and the environment. Testing is probably the biggest grey area of them all. The FDA has a persona of an overseer and protector, meaning that people generally believe that all food undergoes tests by the FDA to ensure their safety. Unfortunately, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Testing genetically modified foods is dependent on the words of the companies that develop them. According to Consumer Unions Jean Halloran, When a company comes in with data, the FDA looks at it and writes a letter saying, Dear Monsanto, you supplied information regarding the safety of corn variety X and we are confident about what youve shown, It is your responsibility, (CBS). The FDA is in a difficult position. It is presented with its initial objective of protecting the American people but now, with biotechnology and GM foods, it is faced with a decision of whether or not to promote the biotech industry. The FDA regulates GM foods as part of the â€Å"coordinated framework† of federal agencies that also includes the EPA and the United States Department of Agriculture (Bashshur). The problem is that this framework has been the subject of critical analysis and calls for redesign; it is outdated, with the FDA policy unchanged since 1992. It is available online and contains a searchable database that covers â€Å"genetically engineered crop plants intended for food or feed that have completed all recommended or required reviews,† (Bashshur). The policy places responsibility on the producer or manufacturer to assure the safety of the food, explicitly relying on the producer or manufacturer to do so: â€Å"Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met,† (Bashshur). It is also this policy that establishes that the â€Å"substantially equivalent† concept, with which the FDA judges most GM crops as â€Å"substantially equivalent† to non-GM crops. In these cases, GM crops are â€Å"designated as â€Å"Gener ally Recognized as Safe† under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and do not require pre-market approval,† (Federation of American Scientists). Although these products are described as substantially equivalent, their manufacturers stress that they are different so that they can patent them and continue to profit. In this situation, the consumer must take the producer’s angle. Their products are dramatically different; their genetic composition is very different in comparison with that of their ancestral forms. In deciding whether or not to ingest these products, the consumer must realize that if the companies that produce them stress they are dramatically different, and there is minimal testing done on them, these GM food products could be extremely dangerous. Currently, there is no regulatory scheme requiring GM foods to be tested to see if it is safe for humans to eat or not. FDA guidance to the industry issued in 1997 covered voluntary â€Å"cons ultation procedures,† but â€Å"still relied on the developer of the product to provide safety data,† (Bashshur). There are numerous pieces of evidence that indicate that GM food testing is completely unregulated. The FDA’s policy is outdated and weak, â€Å"substantially equivalent† cannot be justified when such a small level of testing has been done. The fact that this policy has remained unchanged for two decades is staggering; there’s probably a lot of money keeping it that way. In tackling what Ramona Bashshur describes as the FDA’s â€Å"dual mission,† rational thought is vital. Although the FDA cannot ignore the opportunity to make scientific advances with the potential to better society, it must reflect on its original role, as a protector. While scientific advances with GMOs are rapidly continuing, there hasn’t been enough testing on them to determine how dangerous they are. If testing was done and the foods proved safe , which they probably wouldn’t, there would be nothing wrong with promoting it. In the meantime, as more and more harmful aspects of GM foods come to the surface, it would be smart for the FDA to revise its policy, improve the extent of testing done on these foods, so that America can move forward in science with the assurance that it won’t hurt its citizens. This is a difficult task; there is so much political influence on the industry that it may never occur. If the policy for testing cannot be amended, there is action that can be taken that could have a similar outcome. Specialized labeling for GM foods would set them apart from normal foods and make it easier for consumers to make healthy choices. In the United States, they aren’t labeled, while in Europe, Russia, China, and other countries, they are. This is an extremely popular movement in the United States. An example is California’s Proposition 37, which would’ve required â€Å"labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.† And it would prohibit marketing â€Å"such food, or other processed food, as ‘natural,’† (Bittman). The numbers don’t lie; people supported Proposition 37; roughly 65% for to 20% against, with 15% undecided. From a national perspective on the labeling issue, 91% of voters believe that the FDA should require that â€Å"foods which have been genetically engineered or containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled to indicate that,† (Bittman). With these numbers as a reference for the support that Proposition 37 had, it’s hard to believe that it was struck down. Again, this is an instance of money having the loudest voice in the room. Money flew in from both sides, but the food companies that stood to lose in the situation, like Monsanto and The Hershey Co., contributed to what was â€Å"eventually a $44 million windfall for No on Prop 37, while proponents were only able to raise $7.3 million,† (Almendrala). According to MapLight, an organization that tracks campaign contributions, biotech companies amassed $46 million to defeat the measure, with Monsanto contributing $8.1 million and Kraft Foods, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola each contributing at least $1.7 million (Pollack). In contrast, those who backed Proposition 37 were only able to contribute $9.2 million; money made the difference. Proposition 37 was close, garnering 47% of the vote, with campaigns like the online based â€Å"Just Label It† collecting signatures and comments on a petition to the FDA, requesting rules â€Å"similar to those in the European Union, Japan, China, India and Australia, stating what transgenic food is in the package,† (Moskin). The biggest thing about Proposition 37 is that it had national implications; it wasn’t just California that the food conglomerates were worried about. If it passed, it could’ve been the beginning of a national labeling revolution, potentially the beginning of an even greater revolution. Throughout history, organisms have developed through a recurrence of genetic mutations that have naturally selected the organisms that are most fit for survival. The rise of GMOs can be viewed through the same lens. GMOs arose from the conditions following the monoculture agricultural shift in the 1960’s Green Revolution. The key here is that they are not natural. The â€Å"mutations† that have aided the rise of GMOs are manmade, manufactured, and abnormal. GMOs are a result of the American obsession with optimization, which manifests itself in technology. After World War II and throughout the Green Revolution, America sought numerous technological advancements as it relished its role as a world power. With GMOs, America breached the gap between technology and nature in an effort to optimize food. Companies like Monsanto, with their growing number of political connections, began using their funds to pave the way for GMOs to become and remain a staple contingent of the American diet. Today, GM foods are still privately and minimally tested and they remain unlabeled in the United States. While the FDA stands by its outdated 1992 policy, claiming that GM foods are â€Å"substantially equivalent,† the producers stress that they are different in an effort to obtain patents. America cannot trust the sources it looks to for accurate information because there has been little testing but there is hope on the horizon after California nearly passed a law forcing GM foods to be labeled. As concerned parties seek an answer, they must first look towards labeling these foods, sparking a chain reaction that causes uninformed consumers to ask questions like, â€Å"Why are these foods specially labeled?† and â€Å"What makes these foods different?† Labeling could prove to be the beginning of a further revolution to enhance regulation of GM foods. This revolution, though currently nonexistent, must occur before this problem mutates even further, before not just the American people, but the entire world, reaps the consequences for playing the role of Creator. Anderson, L. (1999). Genetic engineering, food, and our environment. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing. Clark, E. A. Lehman, H. (2001). Assessment of GM crops in commercial agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14 (1), 3-28. Retrieved October 26, 2006, from ProQuest Research Library. Guidance for industry: Voluntary labeling indicating whether foods have or have not Been developed using bioengineering. (2001) Retrieved November 8, 2006, from http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/biolabgu.html. Garcia, D. K. (Director, Producer, Writer). (2004). The future of food. [DVD]. Mill Valley: Lily Films. Hart, K. (2002). Eating in the dark. New York: Pantheon Books. Pascalev, A. (2003). You are what you eat: genetically modified foods, integrity, and society. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16 (1), 583-594. Retrieved October 29, 2006, from ProQuest Research Library. Pringle, P. (2003). Food inc. New York: Simon Schuster. Robbins, J. (2001). The food revolution: How your diet can help save your life and the world. Berkeley: Conari Press. Smith. J. (2003). Seeds of deception. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing. Ticciati, L. Ticciati, R. (1998). Genetically engineered foods. Are they safe? You decide. New Canaan: Keats Publishing. http://documentarylovers.com/genetic-roulette-gamble-our-lives/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njd0RugGjAgfeature=related http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/business/gene-altered-fish-moves-closer-to-federal-approval.html?pagewanted=all_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/dining/a-suit-airs-debate-on-organic-vs-modified-crops.html http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/g-m-o-s-lets-label-em/?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/business/energy-environment/21salmon.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/health/policy/04salmon.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/business/california-bid-to-label-genetically-modified-crops.html http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/business/energy-environment/disputed-study-links-modified-corn-to-greater-health-risks.html?_r=0 http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-204_162-10004920-2.html http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/prop-37-defeated-californ_n_2088402.html http://www.fas.org/biosecurity/education/dualuse-agriculture/2.-agricultural-biotechnology/us-regulation-of-genetically-engineered-crops.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njd0RugGjAgfeature=related

Synthesis, Characterization and Thermal Studies of NDPAH

Synthesis, Characterization and Thermal Studies of NDPAH Synthesis, characterization and Thermal Studies of a Bis {N- (2, 4- dinitro- phenyl) N- (3- phenyl- allylidene)- hydrazine} Uranyl (VI) nitrate  [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+ Shahriar Ghammamy, Sajjad Sedaghat Abstract Bis {N- (2, 4- dinitro- phenyl) N- (3- phenyl- allylidene)- hydrazine} abbreviated as NDPAH was synthesized and characterized. Bis {N- (2, 4- dinitro- phenyl) N- (3- phenyl- allylidene)- hydrazine} Uranyl (VI) nitrate prepared r Keywords: Bis {N- (2, 4- dinitro- phenyl) N- (3- phenyl- allylidene)- hydrazine} Uranyl (VI) nitrate, synthesis, thermal analysis, FT-IR and UV–Visible spectroscopy, Schiff bases. Introduction A Schiff base, named after Hugo Schiff, is a compound with a functional group that contains a carbonnitrogen double bond with the nitrogen atom connected to an aryl or alkyl group, not hydrogen. Complexes of uranyl with nitrogen ligand are of considerable interest due to broad spectrum of biological activities. Formation of transition metal complexes with ligands of uranyl family are important because this ligands connected with various modes to the electron-rich and electron-poor metals. uranyl containing ligands are known to form stable complexes with class b metal ions, such as gold (I). Nitrogen-containing ligands is an important factor in the development of coordination chemistry such as Schiff bases and their metal complexes. and biochemically relevant studies of metal complexes [1]. A group of nitrogen-containing ligands represent a wide range of biological activities and this class of ligands known as pyrimidine system. These groups are valuable ligands in chemistry and on th e other hand have a huge impact on biological properties. For example, a furopyrimidine ring according to the isoelectric contact with purine, is highly regarded. Other uses are as a pesticide and medicine such as antifolates, antimalarials, and antivirus and other hand, protects against radiation. Recently, it has been found that the fluoropyrimidines to prevent some of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2) and high epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is used However, many synthetic protocols that have been reported as long-term reactions or quick reactions suffer from defects and flaws. Requires a multi-step reaction, requires without water conditions, low efficiency, the use of metal constructions containing materials and special tools or starting substances are examples of these flaws. Therefore achieve new techniques and efficient for the preparation of furo (2, 3, d) derivatives of pyrimidine is still highly desirable [7] Pyrimidine represents a very i nteresting group of compounds, because these compounds are used extensively in phytosanitary, pharmaceutical, and analytical . On the other hand, industrial aspects of this class of compounds is considered. For example, these compounds are used as anti-bacterial and anti-fungal. [8]. This class of compounds also have biological activities [9–13]. The role of metal ions in biological processes of life has long been known and is highly regarded. Studying the properties of transition metal complexes with this class of biologically active ligands is very interesting. In this paper, the synthesis and characterization of a number of the ligands and uranyl complexes have been studied. In this work, we report the synthesis and structural studies of the ligand and complex isolated from the reactions of: Bis {N- (2, 4- dinitro- phenyl) N- (3- phenyl- allylidene)- hydrazine} Uranyl (VI) nitrate. Experimental Solvents were purified by standard methods. All reagents were supplied by Merck and were used without further purification. Melting point was measured in an Electro thermal 9200. The FT-IR spectra were recorded in the range 400–4000 cm-1 by KBr disk using a Bruker Tensor 27 M 420 FT-IR spectrophotometer. The UV–Vis spectra in CH3CN were recorded with a WPA bio Wave S2 100 spectrophotometer. Thermo gravimetric analyses were done on a Perkin Elmer TGA/DTA lab system l (Technology by SII) in nitrogen atmosphere with a heating rate of 20 ºC/min from 35- 700  ºC.  ¹ H and  ¹Ã‚ ³ C-NMR spectra were measured on a BRUKER DRX-500 AVANCE spectrometer at 500 MHz. Synthesis of the [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+: For synthesis of the [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+ to a magnetically stirred of ligand (0.88g, 2.8mmol) in acetonitrile(10ml) was added to uranyl (VI) nitrate (0.71g, 1.4 mmol) And the reaction is performed at room temperature. To ensure complex formation and precipitation of the complex. The solid complex obtained was filtered. And to remove material that did not participate in the reaction complex was washed with diethyl ether. Yield, 75%. Anal. Calcd of [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+; C; 20.14, H; 1.34, N; 6.26; found: C; 20.24, H. 1.41, N; 6.32. Mp: 290  °C.  ¹HNMR (DMSO): 7.4-7.9 (CH phenol), 8.5-8.8 (CH dinitrobenzen), 8.4 (CH azomethyne), 7.1 (CH), FT-IR (KBr, cm-1): 1133 s (ÃŽ ½ N-N), 1614 s (ÃŽ ½ C=N), 420 w (ÃŽ ½ U-N), 935 s (ÃŽ ½ O=U=O), UV-vis (DMSO): à ¯Ã‚ Ã‚ ¬max 260nm(ÃŽ µ 26000), 320nm(ÃŽ µ 15000), 413nm(ÃŽ µ 32000) (Figure 1-8). [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+ is soluble in chloroform, acetone, dichloro methane, DMSO and DMF and insoluble in water, hexane and diethyl ether and little soluble in methanol, Acetonitrile and ethanol. Figure 9, 10 shows Chemical structures of NDPAH and [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+. Analysis of NDPAH Ligand Anal: %68. Calcd of C15H12N4O4; C; 57.72, H; 3.84, N; 17.94; found: C; 57.81, H. 3.89, N; 17.99. Mp 254-256  °C,  ¹HNMR (DMSO): 7.3-7.7 (CH phenol), 7.8-8.5 (CH dinitrobenzen), 8.1 (CH azomethyne), 7.1 (CH), 9.1 (NH), FT-IR (KBr, cm-1): 1133 s (ÃŽ ½ N-N), 1613 s (ÃŽ ½ C=N), 3111 w (ÃŽ ½ NH). NDPAH is soluble in acetonitrile, acetone, chloroform, DMF, DMSO and diethyl ether insoluble in water, hexane, methanol and ethanol little soluble in dichloro methane. Results and discussion Preparation of Ligand and complex Compounds are quite stable and could be stored without any appreciable changes for long time. Compounds with multiple methods using FT-IR, UV-Visible and  ¹ H and  ¹Ã‚ ³ C-NMR spectra were identified. These compounds were evaluated for thermal analysis. In this paper, a new method for the synthesis of the Bis {N- (2, 4- dinitro- phenyl) N- (3- phenyl- allylidene)- hydrazine} Uranyl (VI) nitrate is presented . Following the single-step reaction between the UO2(NO3)2.6H2O and the NDPAH desired compound is obtained.This method has some advantages for the manufacture of complex. These include: there is no side products and does not require special conditions such as high pressure or high temperature, and that this reaction is a very fast reaction. The [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+ has 290 °C melting points respectively. It is soluble in chloroform, acetone, dichloro methane, DMSO and DMF and insoluble in water, hexane and diethyl ether and slightly soluble in methanol, acetonitrile, and ethanol . The spectral data of the complexes have good relationship with the literature data. The IR spectra of the Schiff base show characteristic bands due to ÃŽ ½(NH), ÃŽ ½(C=N) and ÃŽ ½(N-N), in the region 3111cm-1, (1613, 1133) cm-1 respectively. The strong band in the region 1613, 1133cm-1 in the IR spectra of the Schiff base are assigned to ÃŽ ½( C=N), ÃŽ ½( N-N) respectively. In the case of U(VI) complex we observed the following changes. The bands appeared around 1133, 1614, 420 and 935cm-1 due to ÃŽ ½ N-N, ÃŽ ½ C=N, ÃŽ ½ U-N and ÃŽ ½ O=U=O. Thermo gravimetric analyses The thermal properties of these compounds were investigated by thermo grams (TG, DTG and DTA). Figure 11 shows TGA and DTA curves for [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+. In the temperature range 200-305ËÅ ¡C, 57.9% weight losing was observed which was related to the loss of most parts of compound. In the temperature range from 360-500ËÅ ¡C, 20.6% weight reduction was found, which was related to the loss of a part of compound. Conclusion It is clear from the above discussion that [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+complex and NDPAH ligand offer a new outlook for chemotherapy. The results of antitumor activity show that the metal complexes exhibit antitumor properties and it is important to note that they show enhanced inhibitory activity compared to the parent ligand. The mechanism by which these complexes act as antitumor agents is apoptosis. It has also been proposed that concentration plays a vital role in increasing the degree of inhabitation. References [1] R.J. Vidmar, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 21 (1992) 876-880. [2] A.S.N. Murthy, A.R. Reddy, Journal of Chemical Sciences. 90 (1981) 519-526. [3] V.N.K. Razakantoanina, P. Phung, Parasitology Research 86 (2000) 665-668. [4] R.E. Royer, D.L. Meck, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 38 (1995) 2427-2432. [5] M.R. Flack, P.R. G.yle, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology Metabolism.  76 (1995) 1019-1024. [6] R. Baumgrass, M. Weiwad, Journal of Biological Chemistry. 276 (2001) 47914-47921. [7] M.B. Teimouri, R. Bazhrang, Bioorganic Medicinal Chemistry Letters.  16 (2006) 3697-3701. [8] M.B. Teimouri, Tetrahedron. 62 (2006)10849-10853. [9] J.M. Grevy, F. Tellez, Inorganica Chimica Acta. 339 (2002) 532-542. [10] A. Bernalte-Garc ´Ãƒâ€žÃ‚ ±a, F.J. Garc ´Ãƒâ€žÃ‚ ±a-Barros, Polyhedron. 18 (1999) 2907-2912. [11] K. Lemma, J. Berglund, Journal of Biological Inorganic Chemistry. 5 (2000) 300-306. [12] M.J.M. Campbell, Coordination Chemistry Reviews. 15 (1975) 279-319. [13] S. Padhy ´e, G.B. Kauffman, Coordination Chemistry Reviews. 63 (1985) 127-160. [14] B. Erwin, C. Omoshile, Journal of the Chemical Society Perkin Transactions. 2 (1995)1333-1338. [15] G.Zhao, H. Lin, Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 70 (1998) 219-226. Figure 1: FTIR spectrum of NDPAH (KBr Disk) Figure 2: FTIR spectrum of [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+ (KBr Disk) Figure 3: 1H- NMR spectrum of NDPAH Figure 4: 1H- NMR spectrum of [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+ Figure. 5. 13C- NMR spectrum of NDPAH Figure. 6. 13C- NMR spectrum of [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+ Figure 7: UV/ Vis spectrum of NDPAH (DMSO, 5Ãâ€"10-4 M) Figure 8: UV/ Vis spectrum of [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+ (DMSO, 5Ãâ€"10-4 M) Figure 9: Chemical structure of NDPAH Figure 10: Chemical structure of [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+ Figure 11: Thermal analysis data of [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+ Figure 1: FTIR spectrum of NDPAH (KBr Disk) Figure 2: FTIR spectrum of [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+ (KBr Disk) Figure 3: 1H- NMR spectrum of NDPAH Figure 4: 1H- NMR spectrum of [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+ Figure. 5. 13C- NMR spectrum of NDPAH Figure. 6. 13C- NMR spectrum of [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+ Figure 7: UV/ Vis spectrum of NDPAH (DMSO, 5Ãâ€"10-4 M) Figure 8: UV/ Vis spectrum of [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+ (DMSO, 5Ãâ€"10-4 M) Figure 9: Chemical structure of NDPAH Figure 10: Chemical structure of [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+ Figure 11: Thermal analysis data of [UO2(NDPAH)2]2+

An American :: essays research papers

What is an American? What does it mean to be "American?" What makes it "American?" And how does it make us "American?" American stands for the beliefs, the music, as well as the people that come from this great nation. The beliefs of this great nation speak every language. These beliefs stretch from the furthest reaches of Africa to the city life of New York. These beliefs are pride, freedom, and equality. American means to be proud. It means to stand up for what you believe in and to fight for it wholeheartedly. American also means to have freedom, freedoms to do what you wish, to practice your own religious ceremonies, customs, and beliefs. With these freedoms comes a responsibility, a responsibility to be accountable for your actions. Equality is the basis of American society. Before equality for all, there was slavery. With this slavery came accounts of cruelty and disillusioned violence. Without help from first hand accounts of slaves such as Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman, we would have never emerged from this dark era in American history. American music is the envy of nations around the world. From Frank Sinatra to the Beatles, American music continues to diversify and grow. American bands develop large masses of followers in nations of all different ethnic backgrounds. From Asia to Germany, American music continues to influence the music styles of the rest of the world. Proud American men and women joined the armed forces to serve the country that they love and protect. These people show what it means to be American. Just as the colonists fought the British for Independence, they risk their lives, for something they believe in and cherish. These same people also stand for exploration and discovery.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart :: essays research papers

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s name is familiar even to people who know little or none of his music. However, Mozart’s fame is based on two different frames of reference: firstly, being the most famous child prodigy in music history (as both a performer and a composer) and secondly, his unquestioned brilliance as an adult composer of Classical symphonies, operas, chamber music, sonatas, church music, and concerti for various instruments. Perhaps what he is best remembered for are his operas.	 His astonishing rate of production continues to stupefy scholars today. In his short life, he composed over 600 works, including 21 stage and opera works. The most obvious distinction between Mozart and other opera composers is that he was the master of all other branches of composition. Mozart’s operas are from a mind that thought symphonically, so even if you don’t know what’s going on, you can tell you are listening to an extended piece of music in which the dramatic incidents form a part of a perfectly coherent whole. Mozart wrote from some excellent libretti, yet the music is always the dominant element, giving the action inflections of meaning the words alone couldn’t reflect. Furthermore, until Mozart’s emergence, operatic characters where generalized and typical. Mozart was the first to put real people up on the stage, people who had real emotions that were inconsistent and whose personalities were evolutionary. In 1767, the Mozarts went to Vienna where Wolfgang was commissioned to compose his first opera, La finta semplice, K. 51. Intrigues created by envious composers, prevented this first opera from being performed. However, another charming early theatrical work of Mozart, Bastien und Bastienne, an opera buffa, was performed in Vienna where it was greeted with much acclaim. His first major serious opera, Mitridate, was performed in Milan in 1770 when he was only fourteen, and it was received with unqualified raves that critics compared him to Handel. The 1780’s began the struggling times for Mozart, although the Emperor, who thought highly of Mozart, attended several of his "academies" but did little else for him. Eventually, there was an appointment as Court composer, but there were next to no orders for compositions. When a salary was added to the title, it was a meager one, and Mozart's last years, in spite of some notable successes (Figaro, 1786), were beset by financial worries, aggravated by Konstanze's (Mozart’s wife) many sicknesses and confinements. Although Mozart had initially thrived in Vienna, since he was in great demand as a performer and composition teacher, and his opera, The Abduction from the Seraglio, was a hit, life was seldom easy for him.

Freedom :: Essays Papers

Freedom College. It screams freedom. You plan and prepare for months and make decisions that will affect the rest of your life. You pack your room up and move it hundreds of miles from your controlling parents. This is it; freedom at last. No more curfews, no more rules, no more high school â€Å"mystery meat† day, and no more boring hometown. No need to worry about money, there’s plenty of it. Your parents are going to help pay for your living expenses and your scholarship and loan will get you through the tuition and fees. Everything will be perfect. The first week or so after moving into your new territory, be it a dorm or apartment, you realize how uneasy it feels to be away from the familiarities of your life before the move. You start to miss the little things. You wish that the ceiling fan made the same rattling noise that your fan at home made. You wish you were able to here the crickets outside at night instead of noisy neighbors or roommates. It doesn’t as seem perfect being in college as it did in your imagination. College can be a fun and exciting part of your life. But fun and excitement usually cost money. You have to pay for movie tickets, the late runs to Taco Bell, snacks, soda, and all the extras you want to decorate your new place with. Money is hard to come by in college. You spend most of your day in classes and if your parents have decided to not give you lots of money, you spend most nights working part-time. Working while attending school is not fun at all. It leaves you with little time to study or get homework done. And the little time you have is usually in the early hours of the morning, depending on how late you stay up. But you have to work in order to buy the things you want and to be able to eat out instead of eating the dorm food (which is surprising just as bad as high school lunch). Another thing college can do to a person is separate them from a boyfriend or girlfriend. Imagine spending every night with a person while you were in high school and then up and leaving one day.

Europe’s Interaction with Africa, Asia Essay

In the mid-15th century, European nations started sending merchants, explorers, colonizers and missionaries to various parts of the world. Historians often referred to this phenomenon as the Age of Discovery, an era in which unknown seas were traversed, new lands and peoples were discovered and an astounding new phase in global encounters was initiated (Sanders, Morillo and Nelson 3). The Age of Discovery played an important role in the political and economic development of Western Europe. Some of its key legacies included colonization, the development of large-scale horticultural industries and the spread of Christianity. The Age of Discovery, however, is usually portrayed as exclusively European and historically unique. It must be made clear that such a description is misleading and incomplete. Exploration and expansion are not historical novelties, and neither are they uniquely European. Furthermore, they have other motivations, attitudes and cross-cultural perceptions apart from the desire to discover other lands (Sanders, Morillo and Nelson 3). Muslim and Chinese explorers and traders have been traveling across Asia, Arabia and Africa centuries before Christopher Columbus set out from Spain in 1492. The journeys of Ibn Battuta in the mid-14th century, for instance, took him through the vast extent of the Islamic world. Zheng He, a fleet admiral who lived during the Ming Dynasty, sailed as far as the coast of east Africa in the mid-15th century (Sanders, Morillo and Nelson 3). Tunisian philosopher and historian Ibn Khaldun traveled as far as Spain in the 14th century (Ahmed 102). But European and non-European explorers differed in terms of the motives behind their respective journeys. Non-European explorers traveled primarily to create extensive religious and trade networks. Muslims were partially bound by religion and commerce as a form of compensation for the near-absence of political unity in the Islamic world. Despite ethnic and regional differences, their adherence to Islamic laws and values provided them with a sense of unity and shared identity. The establishment of long-distance trading networks, meanwhile, allowed Muslim producers and consumers from different regions to communicate with one another, as well as with peoples of different religions (Sanders, Morillo and Nelson 4). Muslim traders therefore organized camel caravans to the frontiers of India and across the Sahara in Africa. They likewise established equally profitable trade routes by sea across the Indian Ocean. By the late 15th century, the commercial activity in most of the regions surrounding the Indian Ocean was almost under their control. Furthermore, certain localities in the Islamic world were gaining recognition for their excellence in specific industries. Persia, for example, was renowned in the 14th century for its exquisite glassware, jewelry and pottery (Sanders, Morillo and Nelson 4). Extensive trade and industry, in turn, provided the Islamic world with urbanized and cosmopolitan societies. Sophisticated commercial centers such as Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad, Timbuktu and Zanzibar attracted residents from distant regions that eventually converted to Islam. These new converts subsequently spread Islam and elements of Islamic culture to their respective homelands. The Delhi Sultanate of India and the West African kingdom of Mali are some examples of regions that were not originally Islamic but were later Islamized (Sanders, Morillo and Nelson 4). In sharp contrast, the motive behind most European explorations was the pseudo-revival of the Reconquista (the struggle of the Spanish and Portuguese Christians to expel the Moors from their respective countries). In the 14th and 15th centuries, anti-Moor sentiment was still strong in Spain and Portugal – it was during these periods that Spanish and Portuguese Christians successfully expelled the Moors from Iberia. But this victory soon left many knights idle and looking for new adventures. Many knights thus joined overseas expeditions, viewing these as new opportunities to vanquish the hated Moors (Sanders, Morillo and Nelson 5). Certain economic conditions in Europe during the 14th and 15th centuries were also responsible for the xenophobic attitude that many European explorers had during the Age of Discovery. In these eras, most European economies were still small, largely agrarian and geared towards meeting local needs. Muslim merchants and middlemen were the sole sources of spices and other luxury goods. In addition, Europe was politically fragmented – the continent’s monarchs wasted scarce resources and manpower in the numerous wars and conflicts that they waged against each other. Lastly, the Black Death (bubonic plague) killed millions and further weakened economies, adding to the pervasive atmosphere of dread and xenophobia (Sanders, Morillo and Nelson 5). Given the insular, backward and unsophisticated nature of Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries, it was no longer surprising that the expeditions from the continent had mostly detrimental effects. Many explorers viewed the natives that they encountered in foreign lands as â€Å"barbarians† that must be â€Å"civilized† by being subjugated to them. By the 16th and 17th centuries, therefore, many countries in Asia, Africa and the Americas ended up being the colonies of Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Britain and France (Sanders, Morillo and Nelson 5). In addition, the transatlantic slave trade occurred from the 16th to the 19th centuries. Mainstream historians had indeed painted a misleading and incomplete picture of the Age of Discovery. By claiming that the Age of Discovery was an exclusively European and historically unique phenomenon, they are implying that it was an event that was born out of Europe’s benevolent desire to discover other lands. But the truth is that the Age of Discovery should not be glorified. Exploration and expansion have already been taking place long before it happened – proof that the inhabitants of the regions outside of Europe are not savages. The Age of Discovery occurred at a time when Europe was still insular, backward and unsophisticated. Thus, many of the continent’s explorers exhibited a fearful and xenophobic attitude when it came to dealing with people not of their own race. This paranoia, in turn, led to the colonization of several nations in Africa, Asia and the Americas. In addition, slavery became a centuries-old practice. Works Cited Ahmed, Akbar S. Discovering Islam: Making Sense of Muslim History and Society. New York: Routledge, 1989. Sanders, Thomas, Stephen Morillo, and Samuel H. Nelson. Encounters in World History: Sources and Themes from the Global Past, Volume II: From 1500. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.

Food Systems and the Environment Essay

The status of food security in any community across the globe can be considered as the major principal outcome of food systems when these systems are defined generically and broadly. Increase in the productivity and efficiency of food systems have shown much success across the globe in improving nutrition and reducing the prevalence of hunger. However the efficiency and productivity of food systems have raised concerns as they pose serious threats to economic, environmental and social goals and hence they have undermined food security. On the other hand environmental changes around the world in the context of political, economic and social changes may result to unprecedented stresses to bear on food security and food systems. Food systems are conceived as set of activities that range from production through to consumption. In production process of raw materials for food the major trends have been intensification of agriculture which is accompanied by concentration in the agricultural inputs and the trend to larger agricultural lands sizes with hired labor. This trend is accompanied by increased fragmentation of land among the marginalized small holders. As a consequence there is increased demand of water for irrigation, increased pollution, soil loss and increased energy demands in the production sectors. (i. ) Environmental pollution resulting from food processing industries In the current economic systems farming is no longer the dominant economic activity in the overall food systems. This is because people are more concerned in adding value in the overall food product in the area of processing and packing of raw materials into food products. Due to increase of these activities many factories and industries have concentrated up and down the food production and supply chain. The expansion of industries has resulted to more toxic effluents being emitted from factories into water and air. The number of processing industries in both urban and rural areas has grown tremendously which have resulted to pollution of water bodies, air and soil (Richardson, pp 7). In some cases ground water quality has also been affected due to increasing production and use of pesticides and fertilizers aimed at promoting more intensive cropping and self sufficiency in food. Expansion of factories and food processing plants has also created major problems of waste disposal. Low lying fields are generally used for waste disposals without the benefits of using sanitary methods have resulted to major pollution problems. (ii) Over killing of animals species leading endangered species. Endangered animal species face the dander of becoming extinct since they are low in number and therefore need protection in order to survive. Human activities such as killing animals for food and commercial trade are rendering many animals to continue suffering high rates of exploitation. A species that is being overexploited become endangered or may become extinct due to the rate at which is being consumed. An example of over exploitation that has been experienced was the unrestricted whaling. The whaling industry during this time over exploited whales and resulted to low population sizes of whales. Due to the decreased number of whales and nearly some of them were nearly extinct several governments agreed to abide by international moratorium on whaling. Over exploitation of animals species harms livelihood since high proportion of world’s population depends on wildlife for their meat protein and their components provided traditional medicines. Over exploitation of plant and animal species does not only affects the following community and threatens the particular species but also it causes imbalance in the whole ecosystem (Guynup, para 4). (iii) Genetically modified foods ecological balance Genetically modified foods are produced from animals and plants which their genes are changed by scientists in the laboratory. Genes are written on the DNA and are the chemical instruction for building and maintaining life. Scientists modify these genes and alter the characteristics of an organism. In so doing yields and resistance to diseases can be improved in both plants and animals. However there are fears some of the genes which have been introduced into some crops can escape and be transferred to other plant species where they can have adverse effects. Some critiques believes that leakage of these genes will result to emergence of super weeds and extinctions of ordinary species of birds and insects and the food chain will became damaged (Eiswasser, Gan & Alia, pp 9). (b) Influence of environment to food systems (i) Effects of global warming and environmental pollution. The overall climate changes including global warming and the increased climate variability will result to variety of impacts on agriculture. Some of he effects of climate change are ecological, biophysical and some are economic. These factors include the following; first there will be shift in agricultural zone and climate towards the poles. Second, the production patterns would be changed due to higher temperatures. Third, agricultural productivity in some regions would be increased due to increased levels of carbon dioxide, fourth the precipitation patterns will be changed and finally most people will be vulnerable of becoming landless. In addition changes of weather patterns may lead to increased crop infestation by pests and chocking weed. In most of the low lying climate change will result to decreased crop yields and therefore in most regions net import of crops will increase. Higher prices of food will render most people to become at risk of hunger (Natural Resources Defense Council, para 8). (ii) Greenhouse production Greenhouse method of food production makes use of controlled environment in modern terms it is also referred to as controlled environmental agricultures. Those methods enables farmers to cultivate food or fruit producing plants in areas and at times when weather conditions would prevent them from growing or adversely affects them green house also prevents the crops from adverse weather conditions which due to the ever increasing population and more agricultural land being lost to urban development. Intensive food production in greenhouse will play a significant role in food production (Peet, para 11). (iii) Location and food prices Provision of food system impacts on what people choose to eat and evidently people can only choose foods that are accessible, affordable and available to them. Food availability is related to the prices and this is determined on the process that the food gets to the consumers and what is on offer. Development and changes of food distribution and supply may be parallel but there may remain strong cultural differences between regions in the way food is produced, distributed and made available to consumers. The cost of distribution of food also affects the food prices due to higher transport costs over long distances (Iton, pp 14). 2. Relationship between food and society. (a) Influence of food systems to the society. Alongside global environmental changes globalization of consumers’ preferences is another change that is taking place. In food systems the spread of fast food is considered synonymous with globalization. There has also been expansion of Asian Latin American and African and other international cuisines into national food cultures (Food and Fuel America. com, para 8). (ii) Food cultures bring people together. There are several areas which can help to bring cultures together. These include talent shows, style shows, and food court. These areas are more effective especially when they are organized for international cultural festivals. When people are eating from the same table they can speak and ask each other questions about their culture directly. Food cultures and style show displays expressions from different countries and therefore people can learn the cultures through hearing, feeling and experiencing the show. In addition people learn about each other when they start taking about food (Weickgenant, para 5). (iii)Treads in food production in the global economy In the year 1999 economic recovery had manifested itself globally after the global slow down which was cause by financial crisis in 1997 and 1998 in Asia. In the year 2000 there was further strengthening and the world GDP was expected to rise by not less than 3 percent which would reflect stronger economic activities. GDP in the developing countries is expected to rise by 4 to 5 percent. At this rate the growth of agricultural GDP in developing countries would not grow strongly than overall GDP in developed countries which is expected to grow at the rate of 5 to 6 percent (Rosegrant, Paisner & Witcover, pp 4). Emerging food safety technologies Due to the needs of the societies to keep food for longer, government agencies and departments of homeland security set targets on bulky food contamination as the focus of attention for food security. Tampering of food or contamination of bulky food poses a serious threat to society. New technologies on the other hand provide mean of monitoring food systems and modifies people behavior. The surveillance technology that has been developed influences individual behaviors and altitudes by introducing additional procedural arrangement (Hendrickx, para 10). Government enacts laws and policies in order to offer remedies of harms which might have been created in the past for example enacting new seed law. Government also aims at protecting safety, quality and health of its citizens (Niskanen, pp 13). Changing in demand and supply When the demand and of a particular product of food increases production and supply of that product increases. As a result there will be much of that product in the market leading to fall in demand and price of the product leading to reduced production and supply (Lee, pp 6). Work Cited Eiswasser E, Gan K & Alia K. Genetically modified foods raise new legal issues, 2001.Retrieved on 1st October 2008 from; http://www. cov. com/files/Publication/e435e641-b00a-4e20-92f3-0a8639b8f9bb/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/7cd905a2-fe8e-4a25-8709-1096d7ce6aef/oid6070. pdf. Food and Fuel America. com. Food and Fuel America, 2007. Retrieved on 1st October 2008 from; http://www. foodandfuelamerica. com/2007/06/find-alternative-fuel-location. html. Guynup S. Killing the Endangered Species Act, 2008. Retrieved on 1st October 2008 from; http://www. blueridgepress. com/Forms/brp_columns/*ws4d-db-query-Show. ws4d? *ws4d-db-query-Show***EBK-EB-089090098094094090-1377***-Database***-***brp_columns(directory)***. ws4d? brp_columns/detail. html. Hendrickx D. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 2008. Retrieved on 1st October 2008 from; http://www. elsevier. com/locate/ifset. Iton A. Tackling the Root Causes of Health Disparities through Community Capacity Building. Retrieved on 1st October 2008 from; http://www. chc. ucsf. edu/pdf/Iton-Tackling%20The%20Root%20Causes%20of%20Health%20Disparities. pdf. Lee D. Demand and Supply the Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, 1998. Retrieved on 1st October 2008 from; http://www. commonsenseeconomics. com/Readings/Demand%20and%20Supply. CSE. pdf Natural Resources Defense Council. Issues: Global Warming, 2008. R