Austin Hogan April 21, 2013 UL100C

Annotated Bibliography

Conko, Gregory, and Henry I. Miller. "The rush to condemn genetically modified crops." Policy Review 165 (2011): 69+. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Apr. 2013 This source after reading it will be very good for a defensive view point. The primary audience for this article is someone who is either for GMOs or someone is against GMOs looking for a good argument. This article would fit my particular needs for a good argument supporting GMOs. This article is talking about how the environmental activists have manipulated the legal system to do what they want; instead of basically fighting a fair fight they are using the legal system and other tricks for gain instead of playing fair. This article is defiantly bias in the way that the author is just really complaining about the dirty tricks that the environmentalist groups play and really sets the story straight on the allegations that the environmentalist groups throw out while in court. This story was printed in March of 2011 so the story is relatively recent which plays to statements in the article about the different allegations that the environmentalist groups are stating and how the article compares todays views towards GMOs and the public view in the 90s about GMOs. This article was co-wrote by two authors one was a part of the competitive Enterprise Institute and the other one is a physician and a part of the Stanford Universitys Hoover Institution, and he was also the founding director of the

FDAs Office of Biotechnology. On a scale of 1 to 5 I believe that this article is rated at a 7 because they dont put any references or citations in their work. Smith, Jeffrey M. "GMO toxins in women and fetuses." AMASS 16.1 (2011): 12+. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Apr. 2013. The primary audience for this article is someone who working to create an essay or looking for research to try and stop GMOs. This information in this article is very helpful because it talks about specific bacteria called Bt which stands for (Bacillus thuringiensis) which is used as a natural pesticide in nature because it is supposed to break open the stomach of certain insects and it kills them. This source definitely fits my needs. The content of this source like I was just stating, was talking about this bacteria that naturally kills insects, which Monsanto wants to genetically put into their products. There are studies to suggest that these bacteria will not only kill insects but kill animals and cause many problems with humans. Yes I detect biases in this article. They dont really have an argument in this article its pretty much just laying it out there. This article was printed in 2011 so it is relatively up to date which is apparent in this article because they do talk about some events that are currently happening like the issue with the Indian farm laborers suffering from allergic and flu-like symptoms. This author has a reasonable amount of credibility because he is the executive director of the institute for Responsible Technology and he is the author of Seeds of Deception, and Genetic Roulette. I would rate this article a 7 out of 10 because it does not give any citations or have a works cited. Duvauchelle, Joshua. Pros & Cons of GMO Foods. 31 March 2011. Web site. 21 April 2013. This web site the primary bias is pretty neutral because it lists pros and cons so it has good and bad. I feel the website as a whole is not that great because it is very ad

driven. I mean it is an article from the Live Strong foundation but there are ads in the text as well as on the sides of the paper. But it is a very neutral web site and I personally would not use this web site at all. It only shows three pros and three cons. It works well for someone who is just doing some reading. The content in the source works for my project there just is not enough to really work with. All of the pros and cons they have listed are good objectives such as Allergic reactions as a con and Insect Resistance as a pro. I dont detect any biases at all in this article its very unbiased but they dont give enough information to really create a biased opinion anyway. And I feel like most people that are looking into this information usually come in with a biased opinion anyway. The web site is up to date sort of. The article was last updated on March 31, 2011 which is pretty out dated for a web site due to the ease of updating a web site and with it being the Live Strong foundation I would expect more out of them. Another thing is there are no credentials about the author given for all we know this is a staffer creating an article for promotional use. It does however give a list of references at the end of the article which is nice to see. On a scale of 1 to 5 I would give this article a 4, mainly because there just is not enough information given in the article and the author has no credibility with anything. Plus I was not satisfied with the amount of time that has passed since the web site had last been updated. The only thing that I liked was that it gave a list of references at the end of the article in the web site. LeMouse, Mack. Genetically Altered Food: The Pros and Cons. n.d. 21 April 2013. This web site was going for neutrality but I felt like it was more for GMOs then against them. The portion of the article that was the Pros for GMOs was a lot easier to read then the Cons against them. I felt like they just ended up spitting out some

information and shoved it into a large paragraph. I dont feel this article fits my research because I am looking for articles that are against GMOs. The content fits my needs fairly well. There is a lot more information given in this web page then the last one. But I dont feel like it is given in a very good manner. It looks like someone just threw up all over a piece of paper. I feel like the author was going for a nonbiased feel but I feel like he is biased for GMOs. Like I said the part that was very well put together was when he was promoting GMOs and when he listing the cons he just kind of threw it out there in one paragraph. Im not really sure if this source is up to date because he doesnt give a date when the article was published all it has is a copy right year of 2013 and I think that is for the web site in general. I do feel though the information in general is up to date just from what I know. This article does not give any information about the author at all. On a scale of 1 to 10 I give this article a 5 and the main reasons is because it does not have an actual date for the article just the web site copyright date, there is no credentials for the authors and there are no references or citations. Another thing that caught me was the disclaimer at the bottom of the web site basically saying that if someone uses their information they are not liable for the person using the information meaning they wont back anyone up using their information if there credibility is called into question. The Thomson Corporation. Food Safety. New York: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Book. This book seems to be pretty neutral it is hard to tell because it is a compilation of many essays written by various professionals and put into a book. But it does seem to be pretty even. I think this is a good place to start research because it does give the researcher a good base to start off with such a diverse amount of information about the topics given. The content in this book would directly affect how I would write my paper

and would give me a lot of good information to help build or craft my essay. I dont detect a lot biased information in this book because it seems to balance it out very nicely. Like essay three in the book is titled Genetically Engineered Crops are Safe and Beneficial but then essay number four is titled Genetically Modified Food has Great Potential for Harm. So the publishers really did a good job of counteracting an essay for GMOs with an essay against them. The source is older than five years old and with that being said there has substantial cuts to various programs since this book has been published and they do make a lot of references to the Bush administration which obviously George Bush is not the president anymore. Thats not to say though this is not a good place to start your research. On each essay directly below the title it gives a background of the individual that is writing the essay so like what they do or have done to give them the right to be able to write this essay. On a 1 to 10 scale I would give this book an 8 because it does give references which I like to see. The one drawback is the time issue it is getting if not already out of date. McLure, Jason. "Genetically Modified Food." CQ Researcher 31 Aug. 2012: 717-40. Web. 26 Mar. 2013. This source was a nice article it covered the discussion about weather Genetically Modified Foods should be labeled as such. The primary audience for this source would be someone who is against not labeling the food. This article is nice because it gives a lot of graphs to help readers picture and understand what they are talking about. I dont think this will work for me because it is going in an angle that I did not want to discuss in my paper. This article is definitely bias towards the companies that make Genetically Modified Food and who are obviously against the labeling demand. This source is up to

date it was released in August of 2012 on the brink of the elections and voting in November. The author is a highly decorated journalist that has written articles for the New York Times and many others, so I feel he is very capable of covering this article. I would give this article a 7 out of 10. After reading this article the author is arguing that companies should not have to label food according to the fact that it is genetically modified or not. This is all significant because when this article was published was a few months before proposition 37 was going to be brought up for a vote. Proposition 37 was going to require labeling of food sold to consumers to have labels saying whether it was genetically modified and it would have prohibited processed food from being able to label the products as natural food. Philpott, Tom. "Genetically Engineered Foods Should Be More Highly Regulated." Genetically Engineered Foods. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Wait, Did the USDA Just Deregulate All New Genetically Modified Crops?" Mother Jones (8 July 2011). Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Mar. 2013. After reading this article I feel that it has multiple points of interest. I have decided that the main audience for this article would have to be someone that is writing a paper arguing against genetically modified organisms. I think this article would utilized by me in creating an essay arguing a topic related to genetically modified organisms/foods. The main article is talking about how USDA has been deregulating companies that make and introduce new plants. They picked one company in particular which was Scotts Lawn seed company and their decision to create a roundup resistant Kentucky Bluegrass grass seed. I did feel that the article was definitely bias towards Genetically Modified Organisms; it is also definitely not a huge advocate for the USDA

either. After reading through this article I felt like the writer knew what he was talking about. At the end of the article it gave about a page and a half of resources that the writer had used for the article so that made me feel better about the article as well. After doing some digging I found that the original article had been written in 2011. The two year time lapse could have affected the tone the article was written in. The tone the article was written in seemed very negative towards Scotts Seed Company and their new Kentucky Bluegrass seed. It depends if the USDA decided to change their ruling on whether or not the grass seed was considered a noxious weed or not and then enforced those rulings. I feel that the author has the credentials necessary to write a story like this Tom Philpott is the Cofounder of Maverick Farms, which is a center for sustainable food education. I think over all this is a pretty decent source, I would give it an 8 maybe an 8.5. The biggest reason why I wont give the article a full ten is that doesnt have any arguing points for the other side of the argument. Gale Cengage Learning. Genetically Modified Food. New York: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Essay's. This book has a very general feel to it. I would use this as a great place to start my research. The audience pointed to this book is very neutral there is information for either side of the argument in this book. This source would fit quite nicely into what I would be writing about. The content of this book is a compilation of many essays wrote by various people, so it has many different views about Genetically Modified Food which can be helpful when creating an argument paper. I felt like the book publisher did a really good job balancing out the essays now each essay usually is bias either for or against but as a whole it is pretty even. Each chapter starts a new essay which was nice and it gives a citation for that particular essay at the bottom of the page. A few other helpful things in

the book are. It has an index, a bibliography, and an organization to contact list. The book was printed in 2009 so that makes the book four years old however most of the articles in the book are over the five year mark. The book was released by Gale Cengage Learning so I feel that it would be considered to have authority on the subject the real question is to make sure the articles that are used in the book have been written by people with the right credentials. On a scale of one to ten I would give this book a seven mainly because of the content being out dated.

U.S. Department of Energy. Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms. 17 May 2012. Website. 28 March 2013. The audience is pretty neutral for this website. It has information supporting both sides of the argument. I think it would fit me for my research as maybe a place to start. The content is very good; it is nice because it is direct and to the point. I feel that this web site is not bias towards anyone. The thing I liked best about this website is it clearly listed both benefits and controversies for Genetically Modified products. It also has many statistics and it has a disclaimer with an accreditation listing as well. I feel that the U.S. Department of energy is probably a very good source to use. On a scale of one to ten I would give this website a 5 because it has very good basic information but does not go into detail at all. Center for Food Safety. Center for Food Safety. 2013. Web site. 28 March 2013. This website is very much against anything to do with Genetically Modified Foods. This source however has some good information if you are willing to dig for it. Under the issues section on their website you can select what kind of topic under genetically engineered to learn more about. Topics range from Genetically Engineered

food to insects. The website is very corporate institutionalized look to it which makes it harder to navigate. The web site just gives very general and basic dates for when it was updated however it was updated in 2013. The website does not list authors of their reports. It just states that it is from the Center for Food Safety. On a scale of one to ten I would give this web site maybe a five. I dont like the fact it is so institutionalized and that they only want to give information that makes them look good.