Get help from the best in academic writing.

Comparison of Organic and Conventional Food

Organic Foods are better than Conventional Foods.
Organic foods are generally considered as better in comparison to the convention foods. This is since they are naturally produced and processed which implies that they are free from chemicals. This means that such food is good for one’s health as well as environmental friendly. Such foods contain natural nutrients and minerals that our bodies need for growth, disease resistance and energy production whereas conventional foods contain artificial chemical nutrients which can prove to be detrimental to one’s health especially if consumed over long periods of time.
However, organic foods are more expensive compared to the conventional foods. This is since they are of more importance to our bodies than the conventional foods. A cursory look at any local grocery section in a supermarket proves that many customers buy conventional vegetables and cereals. This is primarily attributed to cost and quantity constraints. Is it that consumers are not worried about the state of their health? No. Conventional food industries have been known to campaign heavily in favor of their products therefore persuading potential customers to purchase their products. Foods that are otherwise toxic to one’s health are cleverly marketed to appeal and coerce unknowing clients of the dangers of purchasing such products. The only way to combat such trends is for companies producing organic foods to step up their advertising campaign. This will ensure that the consumers are well-informed so that they can make the right choice – that of buying organic foods.
Also, organic foods are vital in protecting our bodies against illnesses and body mechanism abnormalities as opposed to the conventional foods which rather cause eating disorders, weight problems, obesity and associated illnesses. This is because natural nutrients found in organic foods are vital for various body mechanisms as compared to the conventional foods which have artificial chemical nutrients which when consumed are not fully broken down leading to side-effects in the long-term.
Such artificial nutrients are mainly composed of metallic chemicals which also pose health risks such as obesity. This is because in conventional farming artificial chemically modified hormones are administered to the plants or animals to enhance quick growth and maturity. Therefore, excessive calories are added which ultimately result to weight management problems which potentially leads to obesity. Thus organic foods are highly recommended as safer and healthier since they rarely can cause obesity among other eating disorders.
In beef production, cattle are administered with artificial hormones such as trenbolone, melengesrol and zeranol which are synthetic. When beef is consumed it poses a potential health risk to the body of a consumer. These artificial hormones lead to hormonal imbalance in the body. This eventually will lead to body development problems such as interfering with reproductive system worst leading to the development of colon, breast or prostrate cancer. Thus people are advised to go for organic produced beef which is safer.
Also, organic foods have a better taste compared with the conventional foods. This is mainly because organic foods are naturally free from chemicals such as pesticides, fertilizers, fungicide and preservatives which affect taste of food. These are grown on healthy soil which has complex molecules which give a good flavor to the food. Moreover, they are grown locally this will ensure that they are fresh at the time of consumption. In conventional animal food production artificial hormones that are administered into animals interfere with the flavor of the product thus making organic food more attractive because of its natural taste.
However, organic foods are more environmental friendly as compared to the conventional food. This is because there is no use of chemicals in the organic food production. For instance in cattle farming farmers do not administer artificial hormones to the cattle which when used find their way to the environment causing pollution. In organic farming as well, no chemical is applied to the plants. Thus, organic farming has minimal environmental pollution. (Rubin,34)
Also, organic foods does not cause harm to human such as loss of fertility where as conventional foods are responsible for causing. This is because chemicals from conventional foods cause disruption to the endocrine system. This disruption of endocrine system eventually results to altered development of reproductive tract. This then leads to decline in the sperms concentration and abnormal sperm development in males. Thus organic foods are highly recommended as good for human health.
Animals that are produced through organic means are produced in healthier environments than they are done in conventional farming. This is mainly because in conventional animal there is administration of antibiotics, growth hormones and disease preventive medications to the animals. These chemicals are harmful to the human health and environment in the long-run since these chemicals will be consumed by humans. In organic farming, animals feed on organic and are allowed access to the outdoors where they feed on natural food such as grass. Moreover, organic farming uses preventive measures which include rotational grazing, balanced diet and clean housing as a way to minimize diseases. (Guthman, 21)
Conventional food causes heart diseases as opposed to organic foods. Heart diseases are mainly caused by high level blood sugars. Conventional have excess blood sugars which when consumed they cause heart diseases. These conventional foods also have heavy metals ions which are inform of chemical residues. The consumption of these metal ions causes reaction with metal ions in the blood and eventually causing heart diseases. Then it is healthier to take organic foods as compared to conventional foods.
Also, conventional foods cause mental disorders. Some conventional foods contain toxic heavy metal residues such as lead and mercury. Consumption these ions cause neurological damage human. Some conventional foods also have food additives which interfere with the functions of the brain while food colorings in them have carcinogenic chemical which can cause damage to the brain cells. Thus organic foods are healthier and safer as compared to conventional foods. (John,45)
In conclusion, organic food diet saves people cost as compared to the convention food. This is simply because organic foods rarely do they cause eating disorders. If Americans were to shift to consuming organic foods, economy could grow faster that it is currently growing as well as prolong life of Americans. This is mainly because we could free ourselves the burden of high health costs incurred in curing eating disorder diseases such as obesity, cancer, and diabetes among others and have healthy people in the country. Thus organic food is better for us but not a marketing strategy.

Effects of Sleep on Synaptic Connections and Energy

Sleep is a vital component to the life of all complex living organisms. Research in sleep studies have focused on the synaptic connections in the brain and its strength relating to the sleep-wake cycle. One hypothesis is that sleep weakens synaptic connections as a method of winding down after being active all day. Alternatively, sleep has been proposed to strengthen synaptic connections as a method of memory preservation. My focus is on research correlating to weak synaptic connections and its energy renewal process associated with sleep. Drosophila Melanogastor is the focal point as researchers use these fruit flies to corroborate the downscaling hypothesis. The first study demonstrates an increase in significant proteins associated with the synapse when flies were sleep deprived. Continually, these results showed a decrease in the number of activated synapses when proper sleep was achieved. Moreover, further independent research observed gene manipulation within the circadian clock affects the flies synapse, leading to an overall decrease during sleeping. Lastly, NMDAR a molecule associated with memory formation is counteracted in the sleep cycle by slow wave formation and discredits research supporting the strong synaptic connection hypothesis.
As humans, we spend one-third of our lives sleeping to ensure a healthy, normal functioning body. As an important quality to our lifestyle, sleep affects how we feel and perform daily activities and rejuvenates our mind for the next day. Sleep, an unconscious state, allows our brain to be active to complete phases like muscle repair, memory consolidation, and the release of hormones that regulate growth and appetite. As a dynamic process, sleep follows a structure of alternating REM (rapid eye movement) and NREM (non-rapid eye movement) cycles throughout a typical nights rest. During a regular sleep-wake cycle activity generated in the brain controls whether a person is awake or asleep. Neurotransmitters, chemicals involved in nerve signaling, are released from a chemical stimulus and act on nerve cells in different parts of the brain. In turn, sleep is induced when these nerve cells inhibit parts of the brain that function only in the awake stage of the cycle (emedicinehealth, 2010). However, there is an air of mystery surrounding the strength of these synaptic connections during periods of wakefulness and sleep. Nevertheless, sleep research has led me to believe that weaker synaptic connections decrease during sleep to revitalize the brain for the next day’s neural activity.
Weak Synaptic Connections
Although research has advanced our knowledge of the processes that are involved in sleeping, scientists are still debating the question of why we sleep. One hypothesis (Miller, 2009) suggests that sleep weakens synaptic connections as a method of winding down after being active all day. The theory operates off the idea that the body sleeps to conserve energy and consolidate space needed for the brain to encode memory the next day. Another sleep hypothesis contradicts the first one suggesting that sleep actually strengthens synaptic connections as a way of preserving our memories. However, two studies with fruit flies have shown the most convincing results of weaker synaptic connections since the beginning of sleep studies. Jeffery Shaw, a graduate student at Washington University, used fruit flies to monitor activities during the day and how this affects their sleep. Shaw’s lab manipulated genes in the circadian clock and discovered they could prevent the flies from sleeping properly after a socially active day. The most intriguing evidence came as the fly was only restored in 16 ventral (front) – lateral (side) neurons out of 200,000 neurons in the fly brain and resumed normal sleep patterns. In addition, while monitoring the social activities that induce sleep, Shaw found an increase in the number of synapses between the neurons and the brainstem. While sleeping, the same fruit flies showed a decrease in the synapses giving evidence toward the downscaling hypothesis of weaker synaptic connections (Miller, 2009). The study concluded that the activities during the day controlled the amount of sleep the fruit fly was compelled to take, regulated by the circadian clock. Lastly, the genes in the regulatory process of the circadian clock are also involved in alerting the fly for its need to sleep. Chirelli and colleagues (2009), studied the need for sleep and neuronal plasticity, the ability of neuronal networks to adapt or change, using sleep deprivation. Using Drosophila melanogastor, Chirelli and her team achieved sleep deprivation by shaking vials or forcing males to cohabitate. To effectively test the synapses, Bruchpilot (BRP), an essential component of all excitatory synapses, was measured because of its association with strong synapses in the brain. As sleep was deprived for 6,12, and 24 hours higher BRP levels were discovered compared to Drosophila with normal sleep patterns. In addition, Discs-large (DLG) a post-synaptic protein found at the neuromuscular junction in the CNS was monitored. The results illustrated an increase in number and size of the presynaptic active zones among the sleep deprived test subjects. This pattern continued as they again retested flies that slept at random hours, confirming that proteins increase during sleep deprivation and was not regulated by the circadian clock. In addition, the volumes of major structures in the fly brain were measured during the studies to monitor any change. Since memory and learning is associated with various components of the brain, scientists hypothesize that activity may lead to an increase in volume throughout the structure. The results mirrored the hypothesis in showing an increase in the number of volume of synaptic connections (Chirelli, Gilestro,