Singer Neil Young boycotts Starbucks over Vermont’s GMO Labeling Law
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Protect wild, tomorrow's child Protect land from greed of man Take out dams, stand up to oil Protect plants and renew soil gonna stand up and save Earth? gonna say that she's had enough? gonna take on big machine? gonna stand up and save Earth? This all starts with you and me Lyrics from Neil Young's Who's Gonna Stand Up? Introduction Kyle Roberson joked that if you cut him he'd bleed Starbucks. In fact, Roberson's loyalty to Seattle-based company earned him Gold Level membership in Starbucks' Customer Rewards Program. I would describe myself as a loyal customer and a regular visitor to Starbucks both locally and when traveling, he said. They brew a consistently good cup of coffee no matter where you go and that can't always be said for other coffee shops which can be hit or miss with their roasts. To keep up with news about Starbucks, Roberson followed company on social media. I follow both Starbucks US and Canada on social media via Facebook, Twitter, Swarm, and Instagram, he said. That's how he learned about singer-songwriter Neil Young's call for a boycott of Starbucks in November 2014. He later read more about Young's boycott online and in newspapers. Those news articles led Roberson to understand that Neil Young opposed genetically engineered foods. In calling for boycott, Young, a longtime environmentalist, accused Starbucks of suing Vermont over landmark legislation state enacted mandating labeling of food products made with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Roberson, a former Vermonter who lived in Seattle, supported Vermont's GMO labeling law and was concerned about Young's claims. Could he continue to patronize Starbucks if what Neil Young said was true? Roberson, a librarian, decided to learn more about issue and began researching Vermont's GMO labeling law, GMO producer Monsanto, and Starbucks' relationship with Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a trade group for food and beverage companies. Vermont's GMO Labeling Law The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) described genetic engineering as the name for certain methods that scientists use to introduce new traits or characteristics to an organism. For example, plants may be genetically engineered to produce characteristics to enhance growth or nutritional profile of food crops (U.S. Food, 2014). Genetically engineered foods were sometimes referred to as GMOs, or genetically modified organisms. Genetically modified and genetically engineered foods first came to light in 1999 when U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submitted a statement to U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on Basic Research on importance of regulating genetically engineered foods (U.S. Food, 1999). Though FDA did not support nor oppose genetically modified foods as of 2015, federal agency did play a role in overseeing and regulating them (U.S. Food, 2013). The topic of genetically engineered foods was not present in politics again until January 2013, when bill H.112 was proposed in Vermont Legislature, requiring products made with genetically modified foods to include a label (Ford & Ferrigno, 2014). According to bill, intent of legislation was to provide that food is misbranded if it is entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering and it is not labeled as genetically engineered. This bill was signed into law by Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin in May 2013 and required foods made with GMOs to be labeled by July 2016 (Ford & Ferrigno, 2014). Monsanto, a U.S.-based agriculture company, was leading producer of genetically modified seeds at center of GMO controversy. The company had more than 21,000 employees in 66 countries and was committed to helping to bring a broad range of solutions to help nourish our growing world (Monsanto, 2015). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».