Section 1
1. Why is important for farmers to separate GM crops from non-GM crops?
Because consumers around the world demand so to know what they consume.
2. What uncertainties are facing farmers surrounding GM foods?
It can be mixed up in the long chain between the farmer and the consumer (retailers, distributers, processors).
3. Why are the biotech companies worried?
They are worried about the long termbusiness prospects for their technology. The investors backing them are not sure to put so much money in a product that the cunsumers might dislike.
Section 2
4. List 5 benefits of GM foods.
The crops can repel any kind of bloghts or insects.
The crops can stand the herbicides that kills the weeds around.
There will be a better nutritional value.
These plants will grow faster.
This food will taste better.
5. List 5 disadvantages of GM foods
It is not properly tested.
There might be allergic reactions to genetic changes that are not completely understood.
Foreign genes in these plants can pass into the wild to create unkillable "superweeds".
These plant could harm some beneficial insects.
These plants could stimulate pesticide resistance in some insects.
Section 3
6. Briefly describe the denounced and discredited studies that have been presented to show that GM foods are unsafe for human consumption.
There was the researcher Arpad Pusztai who showed that this food had potential health hazards by domaging the immune system of rats. Also studies from Cornell University, Iowa state University and Switzerland pointed unexpected effects of genecally modified food on insects that benefit the ecosystem.
7. What are biotech companies doing to combat studies like these?
They invest tens of millionis of dollars to fight what they view as a nasty and hysterical campaign that misrepresented their products. They are founding scientific research, educational forums, lobbying legislators and regulators for farm groups.
8. What is the future of GM companies like Monsanto, DuPont and Novartis?
They will try to be acknowledged by the population. Influencing public opinion is critical. Perceptions create reality in the marketplace. Their revenues will go down and the stock prices will fluctuate. It is going to be hard for them to get investments for developing the next generation of GM products.
Section 4
9. Describe three problems that may prevent further development of GM foods.
The European Union rejected some types of GM food.
Some countries ask for specific labels on GM products and the producers refuse.
The issue could reach the highest level of international trade (WTO).
Section 5
10. What do consumer groups and those who speak for biotech companies want the Canadian government to do?
The government should give the public a better idea of how their food is vetted and approved. That way consumers would be more confident.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Final Writing Test
Should Cat on a Hot Tin Roof win the play of the year award?
Art has always been a part of everybody. For someone it can be something really accessible, meaning that the more money you make out of your art, the more it is art. For some others it is something that only the specialists of this art, meaning the people who studied it and know a lot about it, can appreciate. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is now part of the debate. Should this play win the play of the year? No, because it first depends on the difference between the socio-cultural contexts the play was made in at first and now. It also depends on why the play was made at first and why it was played now.
In 1955, things were not like today. Tennessee Williams had a hard time being who he was. He used to talk about subjects people never talked about before like alcoholism, gambling, homosexuality and violence. His plays shook everybody since he went over the line of what was accepted in life and what was put apart. He talked intelligently about the part of reality that tried to be hidden. Reality is reality and you cannot hide the fact that it exists. This is the main reason why this play is so great. It makes it the play of the year 1955. Now in 2008, now that all these things are known and that humans changed, it is the turn of a new artist to get the price for a new piece of art that will bring something new to society and that will make it evolve.
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof was written to change things. Tennessee Williams wanted to go forward because he had different ideas. In our society, the objective to show this play is first to remember a good piece of work that had his moment of success back in his context. Second, it is to show it the people that don’t know it because we can always learn from the past experiences in art to understand the present. The third reason is to obviously make money since the play was so popular. It could have been interpreted differently to show some originality in a classic. They could have shown something different, but it wasn’t. Nothing new came out of it. Even if everything was beautiful, everything was normal, usual, shined. Anybody that understands English could have seen the play and appreciate it. The play of the year deserves someone who brings something new, something different and original that is not going to necessarily please everyone just like when Tennessee wrote the play, in the name of art.
To conclude, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof shouldn’t get the award of ‘’play of the year’’ since it doesn’t bring anything new to art or society and also because the reasons why it was played were not for the art itself. Even though art is part of the industry, it is not a commercial, massively reproducible product.
497 words
Art has always been a part of everybody. For someone it can be something really accessible, meaning that the more money you make out of your art, the more it is art. For some others it is something that only the specialists of this art, meaning the people who studied it and know a lot about it, can appreciate. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is now part of the debate. Should this play win the play of the year? No, because it first depends on the difference between the socio-cultural contexts the play was made in at first and now. It also depends on why the play was made at first and why it was played now.
In 1955, things were not like today. Tennessee Williams had a hard time being who he was. He used to talk about subjects people never talked about before like alcoholism, gambling, homosexuality and violence. His plays shook everybody since he went over the line of what was accepted in life and what was put apart. He talked intelligently about the part of reality that tried to be hidden. Reality is reality and you cannot hide the fact that it exists. This is the main reason why this play is so great. It makes it the play of the year 1955. Now in 2008, now that all these things are known and that humans changed, it is the turn of a new artist to get the price for a new piece of art that will bring something new to society and that will make it evolve.
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof was written to change things. Tennessee Williams wanted to go forward because he had different ideas. In our society, the objective to show this play is first to remember a good piece of work that had his moment of success back in his context. Second, it is to show it the people that don’t know it because we can always learn from the past experiences in art to understand the present. The third reason is to obviously make money since the play was so popular. It could have been interpreted differently to show some originality in a classic. They could have shown something different, but it wasn’t. Nothing new came out of it. Even if everything was beautiful, everything was normal, usual, shined. Anybody that understands English could have seen the play and appreciate it. The play of the year deserves someone who brings something new, something different and original that is not going to necessarily please everyone just like when Tennessee wrote the play, in the name of art.
To conclude, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof shouldn’t get the award of ‘’play of the year’’ since it doesn’t bring anything new to art or society and also because the reasons why it was played were not for the art itself. Even though art is part of the industry, it is not a commercial, massively reproducible product.
497 words
Final Listening Exam
What is Percy Schmeiser’s problem? /4
Monsanto is prosecuting him in court because he has monsanto's seeds DNA on his field without buying any of their special seeds.
What is Roundup used for? /4
It kills everything in the field exept Monsanto's special seeds.
How did the chemical company invent Roundup? /4
They modified the DNA of a normal seed. it took a bunch of years of research to get it.
What has Monsanto accused Schmeiser of doing? /4
Stealing their special seeds and planting them without paying for it. So in the end he made money with seeds he didn't pay for.
Why are the farmers pissed off? /4
Monsanto is claiming that they should pay a fine to them since they are using their special seeds with the copyrighted DNA. Actually they never asked for it, the wind just brought the seeds on their field and they are held responsible for not removing them.
How did Monsanto initially learn about Schmeiser? /4
They asked farmers around the neighborhood if they knew someone who uses the seeds without paying. A guy came to them claiming Schmeiser was. So Monsanto took a sample and realised that there was their DNA in his plants.
Did the company respect its policy on dealing with the farmer? Yes or no. Give a reason. /4
What tactics did the company use with another farmer? /4
The company just spread some of their 'roundup' to see if the farmers had the special seeds. Everything died indeed, exept the plants that had the modified DNA.
How did another farmer, Zilinski, get Monsanto’s DNA in his crops? /4
He traded some seeds with another farmer, which is an old farmer tradition. There were monsanto's special seeds in what he got back.
How did the company treat Zilinski? /4
They asked them to pay a fine of 28 thousand dollars since they were using their special seeds. Even though they trespassed Zilinski's property, the company claimed that the farmers were illegal.
What is Schmeiser’s next step? /4
He will make a lawsuit againts Monsanto and go as far as possible in this way to protect his rights and protect those of the other farmers in the same situation. He's pursuing them for having the Monsanto's seeds in his field without asking for it.
The narrator ends the segment with this question: “But the real question is this, can Monsanto or anybody put a patent on a piece of nature?” What do you think? /6
It is impossible to control nature, but it is possible to manipulate it. though it is easy to destroy, it is impossible to copy the nature's complexity.
Monsanto is prosecuting him in court because he has monsanto's seeds DNA on his field without buying any of their special seeds.
What is Roundup used for? /4
It kills everything in the field exept Monsanto's special seeds.
How did the chemical company invent Roundup? /4
They modified the DNA of a normal seed. it took a bunch of years of research to get it.
What has Monsanto accused Schmeiser of doing? /4
Stealing their special seeds and planting them without paying for it. So in the end he made money with seeds he didn't pay for.
Why are the farmers pissed off? /4
Monsanto is claiming that they should pay a fine to them since they are using their special seeds with the copyrighted DNA. Actually they never asked for it, the wind just brought the seeds on their field and they are held responsible for not removing them.
How did Monsanto initially learn about Schmeiser? /4
They asked farmers around the neighborhood if they knew someone who uses the seeds without paying. A guy came to them claiming Schmeiser was. So Monsanto took a sample and realised that there was their DNA in his plants.
Did the company respect its policy on dealing with the farmer? Yes or no. Give a reason. /4
No they don't respect their policy. They are not as friendly as they claim since they took a sample of Schmeiser's field and analysed it without his permission, trespassing his land.
What tactics did the company use with another farmer? /4
The company just spread some of their 'roundup' to see if the farmers had the special seeds. Everything died indeed, exept the plants that had the modified DNA.
How did another farmer, Zilinski, get Monsanto’s DNA in his crops? /4
He traded some seeds with another farmer, which is an old farmer tradition. There were monsanto's special seeds in what he got back.
How did the company treat Zilinski? /4
They asked them to pay a fine of 28 thousand dollars since they were using their special seeds. Even though they trespassed Zilinski's property, the company claimed that the farmers were illegal.
What is Schmeiser’s next step? /4
He will make a lawsuit againts Monsanto and go as far as possible in this way to protect his rights and protect those of the other farmers in the same situation. He's pursuing them for having the Monsanto's seeds in his field without asking for it.
The narrator ends the segment with this question: “But the real question is this, can Monsanto or anybody put a patent on a piece of nature?” What do you think? /6
It is impossible to control nature, but it is possible to manipulate it. though it is easy to destroy, it is impossible to copy the nature's complexity.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)