Summary 1: Pizza Hut at the Sphynx: It seems counterintuitive that a beautiful relic of history, could be easily diminished by the addition of modern technologies. When going to look at the history and the works done by ancient civilizations, it is an eyesore to have a modern chain be placed right in front of a historical site. Does it take away from the experience of visiting the site/monument? Does it make the place appear as a ‘tourist trap’ rather than a piece of history? Will it make people lose respect for the site/ monument because it is becoming commercialized? People go to historical monuments all the time with the intent to learn and admire the monument, and the addition of a modern chain restaurant makes it appear as a ‘money maker’ rather than a work of history. As a piece of history it should be valued at a much higher status and commercial places shouldn’t be placed on its grounds. However, it is a smart business venture since many people visit the pyramids. Many visitors that will be very hungry. It will probably get a lot of business and rake in a lot of money for the chain restaurants, but at what cost?

Summary 2: Are multivitamins dangerous?: It seems counterintuitive that vitamins be advertised as “healthy” when there is no scientific benefit. There are many sources out there online claiming that taking certain types of vitamins can help cure or aid certain illnesses. These sources even include some medical and health sites. However, there are some studies that have found negative effects of vitamins. Some even cancer causing. Why are they still allowed to be sold on the shelves if they are dangerous or have no known effect? Why not put a label? If some medical sources claim that they have an added benefit, is there something that the rest of the world is ignoring? Or have there not been enough studies?

Summary 3: Humane Food Labels: It seems counterintuitive that foods can be labeled as healthy when it really isn’t true. Guidelines by the FDA allow for there to be many loopholes when labeling a food as “Organic,” and there are no guidelines for food items labeled “Cage-free, all-natural, sustainable, whole grain or heart healthy”. They stray away from these terms legally to avoid the fact that these “labels” may have different meanings to different producers. It seems wrong and misleading for there to be a known falsification of labels without legal action being taken. It even seems odd that things could be labeled as “humane” when the definition of “humane” seems to be different for every animal and every food producer. How could it possibly be left without legal intervention when the public is being fed misinformation that could directly impact their well being?