Log in
HomeClass Notes1,200,000CA670,000

SMC103Y1 Lecture : SMC 103 Feb 6.docx

32 views1 pages
pucecod518
27 Feb 2012
School
UTSG
Department
St. Michael's College Courses
Course
SMC103Y1
Professor
G O W A N

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Smc 103 feb 6/12 y the significance of eating in catholic tradition. Jesus did a lot of miracles based on foods. the last supper: controversy:plucking grain on the sabbath, table fellowship with tax collectors pharsies and sinners, controvery in early church: inclusion of gentiles and the jersusalem council. Jews were really picky with their own foods; had to be kosher food: marking catholic identity:distinctive fasts and foods practices. because of his death and love for us: doctrine of transubstantaion y eucharist as communion and calling, remembering jesus s ministry, esp his inclusive practices of table fellowship. his willingness to eat with sinners/tax collectors: looking forward to the unity of all persons in christ, the kingdom of god.

Get access

Grade+
$40 USD/m
Billed monthly
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
10 Verified Answers
Class+
$30 USD/m
Billed monthly
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
7 Verified Answers

Related Documents

SMC103Y1
Final Exam
Study Guide
SMC103Y1 Final: SMC 103 EXAM REVIEW NOTES.docx
pucecod518

Related Questions

SUMMARY: Sales of non-GMO foods are outpacing organic foods at U.S. grocery stores. This has important implications for the organic food industry which is responding with marketing to educate consumers. Organic foods are also non-GMO. Organic foods are certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture which sets standards for the use of chemicals, antibiotics and animal welfare. The federal government regulates foods that are labeled organic, but not those labeled non-GMO. The distinction matters to companies because it can take years to be certified organic. It costs thousands of dollars initially and annual renewal is required. Non-GMO sales increased about 70% a year since 2013. This is significant to organic food companies because sales in one category can come at the expense of the other. Non-GMO and organic foods compete for shelf space. There is the perception consumers place a higher value on the non-GMO label than they do on certified organic foods. Non-GMO costs less and customers may feel it is just as good as organic. California Certified Organic Farmers developed a label to communicate that "Organic is non-GMO and more." Other cooperatives are considering marketing efforts to clarify that organic standards encompass non-GMO.

CLASSROOM APPLICATION: As consumer behavior changes, companies need to adapt. Organic foods are both non-GMO and they meet additional federal standards for certification which include the use of pesticides, antibiotics and animal welfare. Consumers seem confused about the differences between non-GMO and organic. This is important for organic food companies because the price of their foods is typically higher than those which are only non-GMO. Educating consumers is the goal of marketing efforts to clarify "Organic is non-GMO and more." The distinction is more important because of changes in consumer behavior which are driving shopping decisions. About 49% of consumers who responded to a poll thought non-GMO was important when shopping for food and beverages while 47% indicated the importance for organic. Consumers are interested in the safety and characteristics of the foods they buy and organic foods face new competition from efforts to market non-GMO foods.

QUESTIONS:
1. (Introductory) Define the term "non-GMO." Why would shoppers demand either non-GMO or organic foods?
2. Compare and contrast the standards and certification process for the non-GMO as compared to the certified organic label.
3. Discuss the efforts of organic food producers to market their products and educate shoppers about what organic certification entails.
4. Some producers think sales of non-GMO foods will boost sales of organic foods. Do you agree? Explain why…

Organic vs. Non-GMO Labels. Who’s Winning?Organic and non-GMO companies push for prominence—and meaning for their labels

Natural-foods makers have spent years going after the industry establishment. Now, they are taking on each other.Surging sales of foods marketed as made without genetically modified crops are outpacing sales of food labeled organic in U.S. grocery stores. That is frustrating some organic companies and farmers, who invest significant sums to meet government organic standards and to get their foods certified.

The organic industry is responding with marketing campaigns touting that its foods—in addition to being made without genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, as such crops are known—also abide by other requirements.

For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has certified organic foods since 2002, requires that producers also keep out most synthetic pesticides and certain fertilizers, and that animals used to produce organic food can go outdoors year-round and aren’t given hormones or antibiotics.

“Organic is non-GMO,” said Cathy Calfo, executive director of California Certified Organic Farmers, a trade group that recently started promoting a new label to highlight the difference. “Non-GMO is not organic.

The federal government doesn’t regulate non-GMO labeling. Instead, certification is done by private groups, mainly the Non-GMO Project. The Bellingham, Wash., nonprofit doesn’t prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides on crops used as ingredients, or ensure animal-welfare standards. But it says it tests more stringently to ensure GMOs aren’t inadvertently mixed into ingredients during transportation or production.

The distinctions might seem like hairsplitting, but they matter for companies. Earning the Non-GMO Project’s imprimatur or the USDA’s organic certification can take months or years, depending on the item and the applicant backlog. Each can cost thousands of dollars initially, and must be renewed annually—a significant expense for smaller producers. Prices for organic and non-GMO ingredients also are significantly higher than regular ones.

GMOs have become a focus of skeptical consumers. U.S. government agencies and international bodies including the World Health Organization long have said that GMOs—whose DNA is altered to withstand pests or weedkilling sprays—are safe. But the technology’s critics say it facilitates harmful use of pesticides and that GMOs’ safety for human consumption isn’t proven.

That doubt has driven rapid growth for non-GMO foods, which this year are on pace to surpass those of food bearing the USDA’s certified organic seal, according to data compiled by research company Spins LLC.

ENLARGE Non-GMO sales soared by an average of about 70% annually from 2013 through this year, and are expected to top $13 billion this year. That is five times the rate for food tracked by Spins that bears the organic seal, sales of which total nearly $11 billion for the 52 weeks ended Nov 1. The Spins data don’t include sales from Whole Foods Market Inc., a major seller of both categories.

The USDA’s organic certification applies to foods that are 95% or more organic. The Organic Trade Association, whose numbers include estimates of Whole Foods sales and some other retailers not measured by Spins, touts the much larger figure of $35.9 billion in 2014 for foods containing 70% or more organic ingredients.

One category’s growth can come at the expense of another’s, since specialty foods often compete for the same limited shelf space in supermarkets. Last year, foods labeled non-GMO claimed 3.7% of total food sales in U.S. grocery stores, more than the 3.5% for organic items, according to market-research firm Nielsen NV. About 49% of consumers polled by Nielsen called non-GMO an important factor in food-and-beverage shopping, versus 47% for organic.

Organic-food companies say many consumers are confused about the labels’ different attributes. Vernon Peterson, owner of Abundant Harvest Organics in Kingsburg, Calif., says he often receives inquiries about the peaches, persimmons and other crops that his company distributes to customers including Kroger Co. and Whole Foods.

“Even though we [are] a 100% organic company, I get a question or two a week, ‘is any of your produce genetically modified?’” he said. “We see the consumer putting a higher value on the non-GMO than the organic label.”

Megan Westgate, executive director of the Non-GMO Project, said the “relationship between non-GMO and organic is probably the most politically sensitive thing we deal with, and we’re careful not to undermine consumer trust in the organic label.” She said consumer confusion around the definition of organic predates the Non-GMO Project, but she acknowledged that some organic-food producers have expressed concerns about her group infringing on their turf.

‘We see the consumer putting a higher value on the non-GMO than the organic label.’

—Vernon Peterson, owner of Abundant Harvest Organics

Rising non-GMO food sales are “a two-edged sword,” said Oren Holle, a longtime organic farmer in Bremen, Kan. While some consumers may migrate from those to organic foods, Mr. Holle said he worries about “a perception out there that if I buy the non-GMO it’s a little less costly when you run up to the checkout counter, and it’s just about as good.”

Mr. Holle last year participated in an online-video campaign trumpeting organic food’s purported superiority over items that are only non-GMO. The Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing Inc., a cooperative that funded the campaign, is now discussing marketing materials that brand organic as “the real non-GMO.”

California Certified Organic Farmers, based in Santa Cruz, Calif., debuted its new label in March that boasts “Organic is non-GMO & more.” The labels are designed to attract shoppers looking for non-GMO foods while highlighting organic’s curbs on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, said Ms. Calfo.

Mr. Peterson hopes the new label, which he has added to Abundant Harvest products, will clarify things. “When you have a confused public, it’s never good,” he said.

Some bigger organic brands are more sanguine. George Siemon, chief executive of Organic Valley, the largest U.S. cooperative of organic farms, said that while some consumers may find non-GMO easier to understand, it ultimately will boost organic-food sales by drawing more attention to how food is produced.Still, Mr. Siemon said that Organic Valley is considering adding a non-GMO label to some of its products.

I need a diferent point of view and someones opinion on this article.

Reforming the U.S. system of collective bargaining Collective bargaining procedures and relationships between labor and management must reflect less conflict, more cooperation as the Nation's economy struggles to meet international competition and domestic needs D. QUINN MILLS Rules as a productivity drain Rules alone cannot ensure that an organization will perform well. They may keep it from dissolving into self-defeating open warfare, but often do not permit it to achieve its potential. An organization which depends upon adherence to a myriad of rules will always be vulnerable to competition from other organizations which operate in a more consensual and cooperative fashion, even when the latter have fewer resources. And, although an organization of rules may sometimes pull it-self together to respond to an emergency, this need not necessarily occur. It follows, then, that primary dependence on establishing and enforcing rules is a very poor way to run an economic enterprise. The existence of a multitude of rules, many of which attempt to "stretch the work" to maintain jobs in ways reminiscent of depression-era tactics, constrains productivity and raises costs. For example, maintenance classifications may prohibit an employee from doing incidental work outside the strict limits of his or her trade; multiple job classifications may exist even where a person in a single combined classification could do the work effectively, without undue effort and stress; and, job classifications may be perpetuated although technological change has rendered the incumbents' work trivial. Other restrictions may limit the amount of work a person may be assigned, such as permitting a mechanic to open only two flanges. The location of materials and inventory may be restricted by contract or past practice to retain jobs in now-inefficient areas of the plant. In some cases, rules may prohibit employees being assigned work during breaks, and simultaneously prohibit supervisors from doing the employees' work, so that emergencies occurring at coffee breaks or lunchtime cannot be legally handled under the agreement. Over time, rules tend to become increasingly costly and constraining as technology, materials, products, and other aspects of production change. Even rules which made great sense at first become out-of-date under changing conditions. But the rules are difficult to change, and particular employees may be further benefited the more outdated the rules become. Sometimes a company can pay a high price and "buy the rules out," or a union can persuade some workers to give up favored positions for the good of the membership as a group. But often, change cannot be accomplished without a bitter struggle between management and labor. Furthermore, the rule making process promotes a set of attitudes which are inimical to successful enterprise. The existence of the rulebook encourages both management and labor to assert their rights under the contract, rather than to attempt to work out problems. It gives rise to "shop-floor lawyers," rather than problem solvers. It fosters conflict and controversy. It undermines trust. To a large degree, it seems that unions have become captives of their origins. Born in adversity and conflict, they continued to act as opponents of management even when their strength had become much greater. In some instances, unions have created thickets of rules in which to immobilize management, just as spiders build webs to ensnare prey. But when the thickets of rules have crippled productivity, the unions have discovered themselves to be caught alongside management in the trap. Plants have declined in competitiveness, and jobs have been lost. The unions have discovered too late that a snare is no less a snare because they have set it themselves. A prescription for change In a recent survey conducted by the Harris organization, a majority of the general public professed the belief that unions contribute less than they once did to the growth and efficiency of business. Not surprisingly, only 15 percent of union leaders agreed with this judgment.' The need for unions to assist companies in the light of increased foreign competition is apparent to the public. To the inhabitants of the Snow Belt, it is similarly evident that unions should cooperate with local business to stem the outflow of industry and jobs to the South and West. Public perceptions of a productivity problem are supported by Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates, which show particularly sluggish growth in output per labor hour after 1973.3 Collective bargaining practiced primarily as rule making has become self-defeating for both unions and management. It interferes with management's efficient operation of the enterprise, and ensnares employees with legitimate grievances in a web of red tape. It also contributes to the vehemence of employer attempts to resist union organization drives. Study after study of U.S. managers has shown that managers fear the imposition of restrictive work practices far more than the higher wages and benefits which unionization may bring. Companies' efforts to make competitive operations out of older plants often fail because changes in current work rules take the form of additional complex rules which do not provide the flexibility needed to turn a facility around. What management really needs is fewer rules altogether, and willing cooperation from the work force. The union, for its side, needs a management sensitive to the needs of people. Both are very difficult to obtain in the U.S. labor relations environment.

Facts Carl Adle and Louise Bart formed a law firm as partners, and Anne Lily, Marvin Thomas, and Tim Jones joined the newly formed firm of Adle & Bart as associates (nonpartner employees). After about five years, Lily, Thomas, and Jones became disenchanted with the law firm and decided to form their own, to be called Lily, Thomas & Jones. Lily and Thomas suggested to Jones that they contact approximately five hundred of Adle & Bart’s current clients. Lily and Thomas had prepared a model letter to inform clients about the new law firm (Lily, Thomas & Jones) and to encourage them to leave Adle & Bart and to become clients of the new firm. The letter also indicated that Lily, Thomas & Jones would offer legal services far better than those of Adle & Bart: billing rates would be more reasonable, service more prompt, and legal representation more effective and successful. The reference to success was aimed, in part, at three large clients who recently lost lawsuits under Adle & Bart representation. Although the losses had not resulted from malpractice or mishandling by Adle & Bart, Lily and Thomas knew that significant amounts of money had been at issue and that the clients were sensitive about the results of the lengthy litigation. The letter included two postage-paid form letters for the prospective client to sign and mail. One form letter was addressed to Adle & Bart, informing them of the client’s desire to discontinue the client-attorney relationship and requesting the firm to forward all files to Lily, Thomas & Jones. The other form letter, addressed to Lily, Thomas & Jones, requested representation. Jones is reluctant about the proposed mailing. Lily and Thomas, in turn, argue that their new firm is not doing as well as they expected. They essentially give Jones an ultimatum: join in the letter or leave the firm. Jones, who has thoroughly alienated Adle & Bart, does not believe he has any immediate alternative job opportunities. Social, Policy, and Ethical Considerations 1. Should Jones agree to the proposed mailing? Is it ethical for those forming the new firm to use a client list of their former employer when seeking clients? 2. What practical steps could Jones take to assist him in his decision? 3. What are the competing social interests at stake in this controversy? 4. How would your answers differ,if at all, if the firms were accounting firms rather than law firms? 5. In what manner,if at all, should the law protect existing businesses from competition? Under what circumstances might competition become unfair, and how should laws be tailored to deter unfair practices? 6. Should Jones be concerned about the comparisons the letter makes between the new firm and Adle & Bart?