Judges will no longer be permitted to autonomously determine a fact in a criminal case if that fact increases a mandatory minimum punishment for the defendant, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, saying any such fact must be decided by a jury.
The decision marks an important affirmation of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, while establishing a new rule for judges seeking to balance sentencing guidelines with their own judicial discretion.
In the 5-to-4 decision, the high court overturned two existing legal precedents from 1986 and 2002 that permitted judges to make such determinations themselves by a preponderance of the evidence.
RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.
In overturning those precedents, the majority justices said any fact that increases a defendant?s sentence ? including a mandatory minimum sentence ? must be submitted to a jury under the higher standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt.
?The essential Sixth Amendment inquiry is whether a fact is an element of the crime,? Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the 17-page majority opinion.
?When a finding of fact alters a legally prescribed punishment so as to aggravate it, the fact necessarily forms a constituent part of a new offense and must be submitted to the jury,? Justice Thomas said.
Want your top political issues explained? Get customized DC Decoder updates.
?It is no answer to say that the defendant could have received the same sentence with or without that fact,? Thomas added.
?The decision in Alleyne deserves credit for clearing up a strange feature of the Court?s modern Sixth Amendment cases,? said Ryan Scott, a law professor at Indiana University.
?Before today, the right to trial by jury played an important role in limiting the maximum sentence to which a criminal defendant is exposed, but no role in limiting the minimum,? he said.
?Recognizing that there was no persuasive reason to draw a constitutional distinction between the sentencing ?ceiling? and ?floor,? the Court has announced that the Sixth Amendment applies equally to both,? Professor Scott said.
The decision won immediate praise from Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project.
?By limiting a judge?s ability to use elements of a crime specifically rejected by a jury in determining whether or not to impose a mandatory minimum, the Court fittingly strengthen due process protections during the sentencing process, and we applaud them for it,? Ms. Sloan said in a statement.
?In cases such as this one that have gone to a jury, we believe it is generally preferable to let the jury be the fact-finder in mandatory minimum sentencing determinations, rather than relying solely on the judge?s discretion,? she said.
Joining Thomas in the majority were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
The case is important because it recognizes an expanded role for juries under the Sixth Amendment to decide key facts of a criminal case, rather than permitting judges to decide such issues.
In a dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts said minimum mandatory sentences imposed by judges do not violate the jury trial guarantee of the Sixth Amendment.
?The question here is about the power of judges, not juries,? he wrote in a 10-page dissent joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. (Justice Samuel Alito filed a separate dissent.)
?Under the rule in place until today, a legislature could tell judges that certain facts carried certain weight, and require the judge to devise a sentence based on that weight ? so long as the sentence remained within the range authorized by the jury,? he wrote.
The issue arose in the case of Allen Ryan Alleyne. Mr. Alleyne was an accomplice in a plot to rob a store manager of his day?s deposits while on his way to a local bank. The two plotters duped the manager into pulling over at the side of the road where they pretended to be having car trouble.
Alleyne?s partner, armed with a gun, asked the manager to surrender his money. He did so.
Alleyne was later arrested and charged with robbery and using or carrying a firearm in a crime of violence. At his trial, the jury was asked to decide whether the defendant 1) ?used? a firearm, or 2) ?brandished? a firearm during the alleged crime.
The first option carried a five-year minimum sentence, the second ?brandishing option? carried a seven-year minimum sentence.
The jury convicted Alleyne of using a firearm, and did not indicate a finding that the firearm was ?brandished.?
Nonetheless, the trial judge as part of the sentencing process determined on his own by a preponderance of the evidence that the gun had, in fact, been brandished. Alleyne was sentenced to seven years in prison rather than five years.
An appeals court affirmed the sentencing decision.
Chief Justice Roberts and the other dissenting justices said the seven-year sentence had been fully authorized by the jury verdict and did not usurp any role of the jury. Under the statute the jury?s finding of guilt empowered the judge to sentence Alleyne anywhere from five years to life in prison.
?No additional finding of fact was ?essential? to any punishment within the range,? Roberts said. ?After rendering the verdict, the jury?s role was completed.?
Thomas and the majority justices disagreed. They found that the element of ?brandishing? was a factor that increased the allowable sentence, and, thus, constituted a separate aggravated offense that must be found by the jury, regards of the sentence the defendant might have received under a different sentencing range.
?If a judge were to find a fact that increased the statutory maximum sentence, such a finding would violate the Sixth Amendment, even if the defendant ultimately received a sentence falling within the original sentencing range,? Thomas wrote.
The case was remanded so Alleyne could be resentenced to the lower prison term.
The case was Alleyne v. US (11-9335).
RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.
June 10, 2013 ? Using positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of the brain, researchers have identified a sweet spot that operates in a disorderly way when simple sugars are introduced to people with insulin resistance, a precursor to type 2 diabetes. For those who have the metabolic syndrome, a sugar drink resulted in a lower-than-normal release of the chemical dopamine in a major pleasure center of the brain. This chemical response may be indicative of a deficient reward system, which could potentially be setting the stage for insulin resistance. This research could revolutionize the medical community's understanding of how food-reward signaling contributes to obesity, according to a study presented at the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging's 2013 Annual Meeting.
"Insulin resistance is a significant contributor to obesity and diabetes," said Gene-Jack Wang, MD, lead author of the study and Professor of Radiology at Stony Brook University and researcher at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y. "A better understanding of the cerebral mechanisms underlying abnormal eating behaviors with insulin resistance would help in the development of interventions to counteract the deterioration caused by overeating and subsequent obesity. We suggest that insulin resistance and its association with less dopamine release in a central brain reward region might promote overeating to compensate for this deficit."
An estimated one-third of Americans are obese, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The American Diabetes Association estimates that about 26 million Americans are living with diabetes and another 79 million are thought to be prediabetic, including those with insulin resistance.
The tendency to overeat may be caused by a complex biochemical relationship, as evidenced by preliminary research with rodents. Dr. Wang's research marks the first clinical study of its kind with human subjects.
"Animal studies indicated that increased insulin resistance precedes the lack of control associated with pathological overeating," said Wang. "They also showed that sugar ingestion releases dopamine in brain regions associated with reward. However, the central mechanism that contributes to insulin resistance, pathological eating and weight gain is unknown."
He continued, "In this study we were able to confirm an abnormal dopamine response to glucose ingestion in the nucleus accumbens, where much of the brain's reward circuitry is located. This may be the link we have been looking for between insulin resistance and obesity. To test this, we gave a glucose drink to an insulin-sensitive control group and an insulin-resistant group of individuals and we compared the release of dopamine in the brain reward center using PET."
In this study, a total of 19 participants-including 11 healthy controls and eight insulin-resistant subjects-consumed a glucose drink and, on a separate day, an artificially sweetened drink containing sucralose. After each drink, PET imaging with C-11 raclopride-which binds to dopamine receptors-was performed. Researchers mapped lit-up areas of the brain and then gauged striatal dopamine receptor availability (which is inversely related to the amount of natural dopamine present in the brain). These results were matched with an evaluation in which patients were asked to document their eating behavior to assess any abnormal patterns in their day-to-day lives. Results showed agreement in receptor availability between insulin-resistant and healthy controls after ingestion of sucralose. However, after patients drank the sugary glucose, those who were insulin-resistant and had signs of disorderly eating were found to have remarkably lower natural dopamine release in response to glucose ingestion when compared with the insulin-sensitive control subjects.
"This study could help develop interventions, i.e., medication and lifestyle modification, for early-stage insulin-resistant subjects to counteract the deterioration that leads to obesity and/or diabetes," said Wang. "The findings set a path for future clinical studies using molecular imaging methods to assess the link of peripheral hormones with brain neurotransmitter systems and their association with eating behaviors."
Scientific Paper 29: Gene-Jack Wang, Radiology, Stony Brook University; Jean Logan, Elena Shumay, Joanna Fowler, Bioscience, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY; Antonio Convit, Psychiatry, New York University, New York, NY; Tomasi Dardo, Neuroimaging, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Upton, NY; Nora Volkow, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Bethesda, MD, "Peripheral insulin resistance affects brain dopaminergic signaling after glucose ingestion," SNMMI's 60th Annual Meeting, June 8-12, 2013, Vancouver, British Columbia.
The study was conducted at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory and supported by the National Institutes of Health and Brookhaven Lab. The PET Radiotracer Imaging technology used in the study was developed with the support of the DOE Office of Science. The imaging program is part of a Stony Brook University clinical research center, which also supports the research.
Sidestepping the fanfare and press events typically associated with Samsung product launches, Samsung's revealed another addition to its Galaxy family. As we saw teased just hours ago, it's the Galaxy Ace 3, Samsung's latest (humbly specced) smartphone, arriving in 3G (1GHz dual-core processor) and LTE (1.2 GHz dual-core processor) options. Both devices house a 4-inch (480 x 800) LCD display, placing the new device just beneath the Galaxy S4 Mini in Samsung's 2013 smartphone pecking order. Despite those pretty underwhelming technical points, the company's has managed to cram in some of its latest software additions like S Translator, S Voice, and Smart Stay into its diminutive new phone.
There's Android 4.2 underneath, while a 5-megapixel camera with LED flash resides on the back. 8GB of built-in storage rounds out the LTE device, with user-accessible storage of 5GB. There's 4GB in the 3G model with just 1.77GB of space -- but don't worry, there's also storage expansion up to 64GB through microSD. We've added it to our to-do list for Samsung's incoming London event -- it's going to be a busy evening.
Update: The UK can expect to see the faster LTE model when it launches, although Samsung UK isn't saying when that will be.
As Millennials, America?s largest generation, enter their thirties in ever greater numbers, their beliefs about how and where to raise a family will have as much impact on the nation?s housing market. This follows as their media and political preferences have helped shape how we entertain ourselves and who is the president of the United States.? ?A 2012 survey indicated that seventy percent of Millennials would prefer to own a home in the suburbs if they can ?afford it and maintain their lifestyle.? Now a new survey of 1000 18-35 year olds conducted for Better Homes and Garden Real Estate (BHGRE) by Wakefield Research provides a much more detailed picture of the type of home Millennials believe best fits their needs and desires. ?
Reflecting their overall attitudes about spending their hard-to-come-by money, Millennials look more for value than ?pizzazz? in a new home. Seventy-seven percent told BHGRE they preferred an ?essential? home over a ?luxury? model. And more than half (56%) believe the technological capabilities of a house are more important than its ?curb appeal.? ????????? ?
Millennials are known for their fascination with technology. ?The BHGRE survey demonstrates that tendency in reference to their home buying decisions. Almost two-thirds (64%) would not want to live in a home that wasn?t ?tech-friendly.? Not surprisingly, almost half (44%) focus on the technological sophistication of the family room rather than other rooms in the house in making that determination. In fact, almost as many (43%) would rather turn their living room into a home theater with a big screen TV than use it in more traditional ways. Even in the kitchen, a solid majority (59%) would rather have a television screen than a second oven (41%).
Another constant concern of Millennials, security, is also reflected in their technology preferences. Almost half (48%) named a security system as one of the technological essentials in a home and about a quarter (28%) would like to be able to control such a system from their smart phone.
In addition, befitting the generation that first popularized social media sites such as MySpace and Facebook, most Millennials want a house that can be customized to their individual preferences. Forty-three percent want their home to be less a ?cookie cutter? offering and more capable of allowing them to put their own finishing touches on it. Almost one-third (30%) would prefer a ?fixer upper? to a ?move-in-ready? home, and seventy-two percent of those surveyed thought they were at least as capable of making those repairs as their parents. Almost all (82%) of this supposedly ?entitled? generation say they would find a way to handle the cost of these repairs themselves rather than borrowing the money from Mom or Dad.
Millennials also take their concern for the environment into account when choosing a home. Almost half (45%) don?t want a home that wastes energy. Reflecting this, an energy efficient washer and dryer topped their essential technology wish list (57%). A smart thermostat was important to 44% of those surveyed, placing it third on the list of Millennial housing essentials.
These preferences aren?t the only reason that Millennial homes will reduce the nation?s carbon footprint in coming years. Millennials see their home as a place to ?do work,? not just a place to return to ?after work.? Already one in five Millennials say that ?home office? is the best way to describe how they use their dining room. The generation?s blurring of gender roles as well as its facility in using digital technologies means that Millennials will likely work as much from home as ?at work,? as they share child rearing responsibilities based upon whose work responsibilities require which partner to be away from the house during the day.
The cumulative impact on America?s energy consumption from this shift could be dramatic. A study by?Global Workplace Analytics suggested that, if half of American worked from home, it would reduce carbon emissions by over 51 million metric tons a year?the equivalent of taking all of greater New York?s commuters off the road. Eliminating traffic jams would save almost 3 billion gallons of gas a year and cut greenhouse gas emissions by another 26 million tons. Additional carbon footprint savings would come from reduced office energy consumption, roadway repairs, urban heating, office construction, and business travel.
By the end of this decade the Millennial generation will comprise more than one out of every three adult Americans (36%). Just as the Baby Boomers influenced the housing market when they started buying homes and raising families, the Millennial generation?s overwhelming size will place an indelible stamp on the nation?s housing market. Its numbers will produce a boom in demand for housing that will help heal this critical sector of the nation?s economy.?
This may effect boomers and other old generations. Every seller of houses will have to adjust their offerings to accommodate Millennial preferences for the type of home in which they want to raise a family. The end result will be more family friendly neighborhoods where homes serve as the hub for their owner?s economic activity, simultaneously lowering the nation?s ?carbon footprint and improving? the civic health of its communities.
Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais areco-authors of the newly published Millennial Momentum: How a New Generation is Remaking America and Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics and fellows of NDN and the New Policy Institute.
Zeal to ensure clean leafy greens takes bite out of riverside habitat in CaliforniaPublic release date: 6-May-2013 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Liza Lester llester@esa.org 202-833-8773 x211 Ecological Society of America
Perceived food safety risk from wildlife drives expensive and unnecessary habitat destruction around farm fields
Meticulous attention to food safety is a good thing. As consumers, we like to hear that produce growers and distributers go above and beyond food safety mandates to ensure that healthy fresh fruits and vegetables do not carry bacteria or viruses that can make us sick.
But in California's Salinas Valley, some more vigorous interventions are cutting into the last corners of wildlife habitat and potentially threatening water quality, without evidence of food safety benefits. These policies create tensions between wildlife preservation and food safety where none need exist, say scientists for The Nature Conservancy, writing in the Ecological Society of America's journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. The study will be published online ahead of print on Monday, May 6th, 2013.
"Farming practices for food safety that target wildlife are damaging valuable ecological systems despite low risk from these animals," said lead author Sasha Gennet.
Check the back of your bag of spinach or prepackaged salad greens, and you'll probably find that they came from the Salinas Valley. Salad is big business in California.
In the aftermath of a deadly 2006 Escherichia coli serotype O157:H7 outbreak traced to California spinach, growers and distributers of leafy greens came together to create the California Leafy Green Handler Marketing Agreement (LGMA) on best practices for the industry, enforced by third-party auditors and inspectors. The LGMA established standards for farm work hygiene, produce processing and transport, and proximity to livestock. About 99 percent of California leafy greens now come from participating farms.
But produce farmers in the Salinas Valley report pressure from some powerful buyers to take additional precautions not mandated by government or industry standards. These buyers insist that swathes of bare ground wider than a football field is long separate the leafy greens from rivers, wetlands and other wildlife habitat.
Other precautions include treating irrigation water with chemicals toxic to fish and amphibians, and setting poisoned bait for rodents.
"The California Leafy Green Hander agreement is transparent, flexible and science based," said Gennet. "Going above and beyond it just creates costs for farmers and doesn't improve safety."
It also creates costs for wildlife. Although scant evidence exists of risk of food-borne disease spread by wildlife, the risk of rejection of produce by major buyers is too much for most growers to bear, say Gennet and her co-authors. They measured changes in wetlands and riverside habitat in the Salinas Valley between 2005 and 2009, finding 13.3 percent converted to bare ground, crops or otherwise diminished. Widespread introduction of fencing blocked wildlife corridors. Low barriers even kept out the frogs.
Unlike the LGMA standards, individual corporate requirements for farm produce are generally not transparent to the public. But in surveys, farmers report pressure from auditors to implement fences and bare ground buffers around spinach, lettuce, and other leafy greens.
Such pressures have set back years of collaboration between growers and environmental advocates to make farm edges slim sanctuaries for wildlife, as well as buffers between agricultural fields and waterways. Fallow strips along streams and rivers provide corridors for migrating animals and birds.
"This is an area that is already 95 percent altered the habitat that remains is critical," said Gennet. "Removing 13 percent of what is already heavily-impacted habitat and cutting off wildlife corridors is a significant loss."
The Salinas River and its tributaries are an important rest stop on the Pacific Flyway, a major migration route for neotropical songbirds, and home to raptors and shorebirds. The waterways are also corridors for deer and other big animals moving between the high country of the Diablo Range and coastal Big Sur mountains that flank the valley.
Wetlands and buffers of trees, grasses, and shrubs help to keep runoff from fields out of the waterways, slowing erosion of soil and blooms of algae downstream. An overabundance of fertilizer has created problems for domestic drinking water as well as the ecosystems of the Salinas River watershed and its outlet, Monterey Bay.
"California has a big problem with concentrated nutrients in waterways, and there is a lot of pressure on growers to reduce those inputs so to the extent that riverside wildlife habitat could be a benefit all around, a coordinated approach to agricultural management and policy makes the most sense," said Gennet.
"The policies that these distributors are forming are very narrow," said Lisa Schulte Moore, an agricultural ecologist at Iowa State University who is not affiliated with the Nature Conservancy study. Nervous distributers are looking at specific risks in isolation, she said, and not asking "does the food system create a healthy human environment?"
Schulte Moore works with Iowa farmers to incorporate native grassland habitat alongside corn and soy fields. Her experiments look for native grass mixtures that don't tend to invade the crops and are highly attractive to beneficial native insects, including the natural enemies of agricultural pests. "If we design the systems right there could be substantial benefits to the agricultural system as a whole," she said.
The key word, Gennet says, is "co-management." As a community, we need to approach food health, wildlife health, and water health in the Salinas Valley as parts of an integrated system. She would like to see California growers, buyers, and consumers rely on standards like the LGMA. "We think it's been a good process, using the newest science and trying to take a constructive approach. If everybody stuck to those standards, that would be a good outcome," said Gennet.
###
Farm practices for food safety: an emerging threat to floodplain and riparian ecosystems. (2013) Sasha Gennet, Jeanette Howard, Jeff Langholz, Kathryn Andrews, Mark D Reynolds, and Scott A Morrison. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (e-View 05/06/2013; print publication June 2013) doi:10.1890/1202443
The Ecological Society of America is the world's largest community of professional ecologists and a trusted source of ecological knowledge. ESA is committed to advancing the understanding of life on Earth. The 10,000 member Society publishes five journals, convenes an annual scientific conference, and broadly shares ecological information through policy and media outreach and education initiatives. Visit the ESA website at http://www.esa.org.
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Zeal to ensure clean leafy greens takes bite out of riverside habitat in CaliforniaPublic release date: 6-May-2013 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Liza Lester llester@esa.org 202-833-8773 x211 Ecological Society of America
Perceived food safety risk from wildlife drives expensive and unnecessary habitat destruction around farm fields
Meticulous attention to food safety is a good thing. As consumers, we like to hear that produce growers and distributers go above and beyond food safety mandates to ensure that healthy fresh fruits and vegetables do not carry bacteria or viruses that can make us sick.
But in California's Salinas Valley, some more vigorous interventions are cutting into the last corners of wildlife habitat and potentially threatening water quality, without evidence of food safety benefits. These policies create tensions between wildlife preservation and food safety where none need exist, say scientists for The Nature Conservancy, writing in the Ecological Society of America's journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. The study will be published online ahead of print on Monday, May 6th, 2013.
"Farming practices for food safety that target wildlife are damaging valuable ecological systems despite low risk from these animals," said lead author Sasha Gennet.
Check the back of your bag of spinach or prepackaged salad greens, and you'll probably find that they came from the Salinas Valley. Salad is big business in California.
In the aftermath of a deadly 2006 Escherichia coli serotype O157:H7 outbreak traced to California spinach, growers and distributers of leafy greens came together to create the California Leafy Green Handler Marketing Agreement (LGMA) on best practices for the industry, enforced by third-party auditors and inspectors. The LGMA established standards for farm work hygiene, produce processing and transport, and proximity to livestock. About 99 percent of California leafy greens now come from participating farms.
But produce farmers in the Salinas Valley report pressure from some powerful buyers to take additional precautions not mandated by government or industry standards. These buyers insist that swathes of bare ground wider than a football field is long separate the leafy greens from rivers, wetlands and other wildlife habitat.
Other precautions include treating irrigation water with chemicals toxic to fish and amphibians, and setting poisoned bait for rodents.
"The California Leafy Green Hander agreement is transparent, flexible and science based," said Gennet. "Going above and beyond it just creates costs for farmers and doesn't improve safety."
It also creates costs for wildlife. Although scant evidence exists of risk of food-borne disease spread by wildlife, the risk of rejection of produce by major buyers is too much for most growers to bear, say Gennet and her co-authors. They measured changes in wetlands and riverside habitat in the Salinas Valley between 2005 and 2009, finding 13.3 percent converted to bare ground, crops or otherwise diminished. Widespread introduction of fencing blocked wildlife corridors. Low barriers even kept out the frogs.
Unlike the LGMA standards, individual corporate requirements for farm produce are generally not transparent to the public. But in surveys, farmers report pressure from auditors to implement fences and bare ground buffers around spinach, lettuce, and other leafy greens.
Such pressures have set back years of collaboration between growers and environmental advocates to make farm edges slim sanctuaries for wildlife, as well as buffers between agricultural fields and waterways. Fallow strips along streams and rivers provide corridors for migrating animals and birds.
"This is an area that is already 95 percent altered the habitat that remains is critical," said Gennet. "Removing 13 percent of what is already heavily-impacted habitat and cutting off wildlife corridors is a significant loss."
The Salinas River and its tributaries are an important rest stop on the Pacific Flyway, a major migration route for neotropical songbirds, and home to raptors and shorebirds. The waterways are also corridors for deer and other big animals moving between the high country of the Diablo Range and coastal Big Sur mountains that flank the valley.
Wetlands and buffers of trees, grasses, and shrubs help to keep runoff from fields out of the waterways, slowing erosion of soil and blooms of algae downstream. An overabundance of fertilizer has created problems for domestic drinking water as well as the ecosystems of the Salinas River watershed and its outlet, Monterey Bay.
"California has a big problem with concentrated nutrients in waterways, and there is a lot of pressure on growers to reduce those inputs so to the extent that riverside wildlife habitat could be a benefit all around, a coordinated approach to agricultural management and policy makes the most sense," said Gennet.
"The policies that these distributors are forming are very narrow," said Lisa Schulte Moore, an agricultural ecologist at Iowa State University who is not affiliated with the Nature Conservancy study. Nervous distributers are looking at specific risks in isolation, she said, and not asking "does the food system create a healthy human environment?"
Schulte Moore works with Iowa farmers to incorporate native grassland habitat alongside corn and soy fields. Her experiments look for native grass mixtures that don't tend to invade the crops and are highly attractive to beneficial native insects, including the natural enemies of agricultural pests. "If we design the systems right there could be substantial benefits to the agricultural system as a whole," she said.
The key word, Gennet says, is "co-management." As a community, we need to approach food health, wildlife health, and water health in the Salinas Valley as parts of an integrated system. She would like to see California growers, buyers, and consumers rely on standards like the LGMA. "We think it's been a good process, using the newest science and trying to take a constructive approach. If everybody stuck to those standards, that would be a good outcome," said Gennet.
###
Farm practices for food safety: an emerging threat to floodplain and riparian ecosystems. (2013) Sasha Gennet, Jeanette Howard, Jeff Langholz, Kathryn Andrews, Mark D Reynolds, and Scott A Morrison. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (e-View 05/06/2013; print publication June 2013) doi:10.1890/1202443
The Ecological Society of America is the world's largest community of professional ecologists and a trusted source of ecological knowledge. ESA is committed to advancing the understanding of life on Earth. The 10,000 member Society publishes five journals, convenes an annual scientific conference, and broadly shares ecological information through policy and media outreach and education initiatives. Visit the ESA website at http://www.esa.org.
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sHnxWJQbaPxRofPQ82iwXRB4z7tbhko5bQ_6KLBTcL_8GnnjZtHgZr6xbWNLV_GXa-6jVr1CaeLACowvuJ8hYg4sHrSRpXof43H9Ol2eU=s0-d){kind=small}
Public release date: 6-May-2013
Share ]