Annotated Bibliography Jacob Marcus

I found this research to be particularly interesting: I liked how i could easily find information on both sides of the debate. I found it very interesting how GMOs were used in medical research and how we were one of the only countries that are producing these products. I found that the US was leading the world in production of them which only has Canada, India, and other South America countries. The fact that European countries are refusing to grow these crops also intrigued me and that is something that I want to research more and understand why that is.

This part of my annotated bibliography was surprisingly difficult: The hardest part was trying to find if source actually passed the CRAAP test. It took me nearly an hour to find a final source that I thought would be reliable enough to actually use. I also did find that wikidot was not difficult to edit my bibliography which was very nice because that was one thing I was worried about.

Next time I would do this differently: Next time I would do more research on different topics, this isn't a great topic that interests me but the fact that I can defend the side of American farmers is nice because that's where I come from.

Jacob Marcus- Annotated Bibliography

1. "No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety." No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety. European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, 21 Oct. 2013. Web. 9 Feb. 2014.

a. The main arguments of this essay are that is no consensus on GM food safety, no epidemiological studies investigating the possible effects of GM food consumption of health, that the government has inaccurate endorsements, the EU research team doesn’t provide substantial evidence of food safety, no consensus on the environmental risks of the products and a widespread disapproval of the foods and crops.
b. I believe this is a very useful source it gives many ideas and show many links that show some fact based research. The information I have found from my other sources is much the same but some of the other sources are on the other side of the debate. They also have a list of signatures by scientists in this field that believe that these products are hurting us.
c. I can use this topic to argue on the point that the GMOs are bad for the food processing industry and also for the growers that are producing these crops.

2. Feature, WebMD. "Genetically Modified Foods (Biotech Foods) Pros and Cons." WebMD. WebMD, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.

a. The main arguments from this document are that there are many people who still today do not realize that there is GMOs in the food industry or that they don’t know they are eating them at all. They also say that the European countries are trying to stay organic while the U.S. is the leading producers of GMOs. They also talk about the “Frankenfood” fears which refer to the many fears of the scientists who are researching these foods and effects.
b. I believe this is a very reliable source coming from Web MD, they have many inserted links that bring you to research about they have been doing with these certain products. Compared to the other sources this also shows the advantages and the disadvantages of the GMOs but it has many positions and facts for both sides.
c. I can use the topic page to either argue for or against the GMOs. I can use this very credible source to show that the information I am getting isn’t out of nowhere.

3. "Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?" Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? Deborah B. Whitman, n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2014.

a. The main arguments that are brought to light here are pest resistance, herbicide tolerance, disease resistance, cold tolerance, drought or salinity tolerance, nutrition, pharmaceutical adaptations, and phytoremediation which is where poplar trees are genetically engineered to clean up heavy metal pollution from contaminated soil.
b. This is an objective view on this topic in my eyes; it gives the physical and mental advantages and disadvantages of the products. This is also the first site that I have seen where they talk about allergies and the unintended harm on the other parts of nature.
c. I can use this entry for both sides of the debate even though it has some more information on the down sides of the GMOs. I can talk about how these genetically improved plants are actually affecting the other organisms that are surrounding them like the contents of the soil and wild animals.

4. "A Collaborative Initiative Working to Ensure the Sustained Availability of Non-GMO Options." The NonGMO Project RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.

a. This entry’s main arguments are all based off on how to avoid using and consuming the GMOs. It talks about the labeling, safety, how common they are and if Americans actually want to eat these foods.
b. This is a very biased article. IT is all on how to avoid and why we shouldn’t have these products in our country and how they are harming us as a whole nation not just environmentally but also with the human bodies.
c. This is not one of my strongest articles that I have found, I may use this in very little detail but I will also need to find more less biased articles so I can actually get the truth not just a certain few people’s ideas and thoughts.

5. Weise, Elizabeth. "Genetically Engineered Crops in Nearly 12% of Fields." USA Today. Gannett, 13 Feb. 2014. Web. 13 Feb. 2014

a. The article’s main arguments on this topic are that American farmers have already started using these products. They say that when farmers find something to protect their crops from weeds and pests for relatively cheap they normally adopt it for themselves. It also states that many other countries are following the U.S with using these products like Brazil, Argentina, India, and Canada.
b. This source is from USA Today which is reliable with an author that has a good background with lots of research and with many facts that have been found from the ISAAA and the Department of Agriculture. This also just was put up today on the 13th at 12:30 a.m.
c. Compared to my last source this is a very strong source to use. It comes from a well-known news site with a reliable author who did her research. This source has been helpful to me because it finally pushed me over the edge on thinking that GMOs are not all bad but are still very useful. Coming from a farming family and using these products really changes your mind quick. Before they were introduced into the market we had to hand pick all the weeds and we had no way of protecting our fields from certain diseases so it does make a huge difference.

6. Diaz, Julia M., and Judith L. Fridovich-Keil. "GMOs in Medicine and Research." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 25 Dec. 2013. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.

a. In this article they talk about the actually meaning of the GMO products and what they actually do and are. They talk about the effects on livestock that eat these products such and corn and soybean meal. They also talk about the role they play during medical research that dates back to the early 1980s.
b. Yes this is very useful because it describes the meaning of GMOs in actual detail then it talks about how the production of corn, soybeans, alfalfa and other products hurt the livestock that are fed that feed. They also talk about how there have been researches on this topic since the early 1980s and currently there is becoming more and more useful information to help protect the people who consume these goods and also protect the animals.
c. This source goes against my positions on this topic in some ways because it talks about mostly the down side of these products but it does also say that not all of them are bad because some come into to play when helping with certain diseases.

7. Tallmadge, Katherine. "GMOs Are a Grand Experiment on Health, Environment (Op-Ed)." LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 10 July 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.

a. In the article she talks about the facts that CNN brings up in some of their arguments in their articles. She talks about how the U.S. government is involved and their stance compared to some of the other countries that are using these products or thinking about starting to use these products. Also talks about a rogue strain of wheat in a field in Oregon which made Asian countries stop importing those grains.
b. This is can be a useful source because it talks about many of the main arguments and what we should do to be safe about them. It talks about the government’s stance which I can use to defend my side by saying that the government is allowing farmers to use these products.
c. I will use this in detail i think to defend both sides. I'm not sure if we are supposed to actually pick sides but I feel like I will be a little biased no matter what the topics are. I can use this to bring up the argument that the GMO's are safe otherwise the U.S. government wouldn't allow the U.S farmers to grow it in our country.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License