Annotated Bibliography Michael Hanson


  • I found this research to be particularly interesting:

I really found the different viewpoints on genetically modified organisms throughout the world extremely interesting. In Europe people are complaining about the strict laws on GMOs and saying that the arguments against GMOs are invalid. In the United States, however, people are complaining that there aren't more laws on GMOs and saying that the studies done that are in favor of GMOs are invalid. It seems that both places have outspoken people against what is established trying to get their points across.

  • This part of my annotated bibliography was surprisingly difficult:

I had a really hard time finding sources that would fit into my subject well. I also am having a tough time knowing if I am writing my sources in proper MLA format.

Michael, I fixed the first one for you. You can check the rest of them against that one for MLA formatting. If there was an author, that would have been first. Check the Purdue OWL when in doubt. -Hamann

The only other major difficulty I had was understanding some of the material that my sources wrote about. I'm definitely going to have to get sources outside of these seven in order to have a strong and meaningful paper.

  • Next time I would do this differently:

If I were to do this again I would probably do the annotations one source at a time rather than get all of the sources at the beginning and then write the annotations. It's not that I think that the way I did the assignment was bad, but I feel that if I would have done the annotations one source at a time I could have spent more time really evaluating the individual sources.

Subject: Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) labeling

"GMO Facts: Frequently Asked Questions." The Non-GMO Project. 2014. Web. 7 February 2014.

This site uses the argument that many other countries either ban genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or that they force companies to label GMO in there foods. The website goes on to state that the only reason why the U.S. doesn't label its GMO's is because research done by the companies that don't want the GMO labeling to be required showed that GMOs don't pose any health risks. It also mentions the environmental tole that GMOs take on the world. It states that herbicides can count as GMOs and although the herbicides most likely won't affect the quality or the health of the food, it affects a lot more animals and wildlife around it.

This site appears to have been last updated in 2014 so it is very current. It also has a lot of information that pertains to the subject of my paper on GMOs, however, as stated in their subtitle, they are biased in the fact that they want more non-GMO foods. This information seems to exist to dissuade people from buying GMO foods and to rise up against the rising popularity of the GMO foods.

I don't think that I will be using this source in my paper. One reason is that I couldn't find an individual author to check into to see if they actually had any merit with this subject. Another reason is that it feels like this site has a personal agenda to talk against GMO's instead of actually wanting to inform the public of what they are.

Smith, Jeffrey. "Health Risks." Institute for Responsible Technology 7 Feb 2014. 2010

This website talks about the different studies that have been done with GMOs and reports the findings and dangers of ingesting GMO foods. It shows many facts that supports its claim that GMOs should be labeled on foods. The article talks about why and how GMOs are used. It states that some reasons for GMOs is so that plants can create their own pesticides to protect from invasive insects. The GMO's can also help protect the plants from more herbicides so farmers can spray more for weeds and prevent foreign plants from ruining their crops. The article goes on to say, however, that these increased herbicides and self-made pesticides could have a negative effect on the people consuming the food.

This site refers to work done in 2010, but the issues that were faced back then are very similar to the issues that we are facing today. The information that they had in 2010 is still used today as well. It is full of information about GMOs and speaks to the people against the use of GMOs. The publisher of this material advertises itself as "The most comprehensive source of GMO health risk information on the web." This hints that they may be biased towards being against GMOs, however, they do use a lot of facts and research to support their claims.

I may use this information simply because it provides a certain standpoint on the issue of GMOs and also provides good information on the topic. It would be easy to dismiss this source because it clearly has a personal opinion on the issue, but it does have a lot of facts that I may be able to use in my paper.

Deakin University Australia. "Genetically Modified (GM) Foods." Better Health Channel. July 2011. 7 February 2014.

This site lightly explains the different reasoning and benefits of GMO labeling. An example that it states is that some strawberries have the gene from fish that allows them to live in cold climates to help the strawberries become frost-tolerant. It also mentions that genetically modified organisms have technically been around for centuries since people have been selectively breeding livestock for generations. It states that people are now upset because genes are now being exchanged through non-traditional laboratory techniques. This website actually takes a stance that GMOs could actually be better for the environment. It argues since the plants can protect themselves from different threats, it could lessen or even prevent the need to use herbicides on crops.

The article was written in 2011 and is current enough for me to be comfortable using it. It has quite a bit of examples and other facts that I would be able to use in a paper, however, I find it concerning that I can't find an individual author and had to settle for "Deakin University Australia". With that being said, they said many things that I already know to be true about GMOs and I can only assume that the other material must therefore have some merit as well. The purpose of this article seems to be to truly inform the public about GMOs, but it does seem like the author(s) spent more time on talking about the positives of GMOs than the negatives.

I will definitely be using this source in my paper. It has plenty of good examples of what GMOs are and it provides arguments for both sides of the topic. I also like how they used the "selective breeding" example. I know that the concerns go deeper than that, but it was still a nice perspective to think about.

Kok, Esther and Pederson, Jan; Onori, Roberta; Soma, Slawomir; Schauzy, Marianna; Schrijver, Adinda; Teeri, Teemu. "Plants with stacked genetically modified events: to assess or not to assess?" Trends in Biotechnology Feb. 2014. 10 Feb. 2014 -Credible Source

This article talks more about the European regulations on GMO's than the American viewpoint and talks about the difference between stacked GMOs and single GMOs. The concern seems to be that there are different regulations on stacked GMOs and single GMOs, however, this article isn't friendly to readers that don't already know the difference between stacked GMOs and single GMOs. This is a crowd that I am sadly a part of.

This source is incredibly recent, being printed in the same month that I looked up the information. The relevance is a question to me simply because I don't know enough about the different GMOs that they are trying to talk about. I would like to research deeper into the different types of genetically modified organisms and then come back to the article when I can make an informed decision about the relevance and accuracy of the information provided. One thing that the article has going for it is that it has many writers and they all have very impressive backgrounds when it comes to talking about genetically modified organisms. The information seems to exist to talk about the different issues facing the regulations of GMOs in Europe and to discuss the possible health risks of different types of GMOs.

I wish I knew at this point if I knew if I was going to use this source, but right now I haven't done enough research on the subject they provide in this article to make an informed decision. I definitely need to look into the different types of GMOs because it seems to be a real issue and this source seems to have all of the credible writers to help me learn more for my paper.

Fresco, Louise. "The GMO Stalemate in Europe." Science Feb. 2013. 10 Feb. 2014 -Credible Source

The author of this article talks about a rat study done in 2012 where the rats suffered tumors after eating foods with genetically modified (GM) features in them for two years. The author states that these findings are flawed and that GM foods are given a false prejudice due to the misinformation spread by this study. The public opinion seems to be exactly the opposite in Europe than it is in America. The author states that the laws in Europe being strict on GMOs were made because of false studies that say that GMOs are bad for people. The author wants people to rethink their opinions on GMOs and try to convince people that they are not as bad as some people would want to believe. The author believes that GMOs are the future of agriculture and that the regulation on GMOs in Europe are impeding progress.

This information is very current, being from 2013, and has plenty of relevance to my paper. It is true that the writer is discussing European GMO debate instead of American, but it provides an extremely interesting perspective from our neighbors across the lake. The writer seems to have the perfect resume to discuss this issue. She is a university instructor and served for a food and agricultural organization as a director of research for a time. The article seems to be very legitimate and has plenty of sources to back it up at the end of the writing. This paper definitely has an alternative motive than just informing people about the health of GMOs. This article is trying to convince people to loosen the laws on GMOs in Europe to make way for progress in the author's eyes.

I really like this article. It provides plenty of information and it's really nice to see the opposite argument to what we are facing in the U.S. I am very excited to use this article in my report because of the validity of the author's background and because of the great information in the article.

Palmer, Roxanne. "GMO Health Risks: What The Scientific Evidence Says." International Business Times 30 March 2013. 11 Feb. 2014

This article talks about the different health tests that have been done on GMOs. It states that credible scientific tests have found minor health risks in using GMOs, but the tests that found extreme health risks were skewed in some way. One valid argument that they found against the health of GMOs is the possibility of allergies being transferred. An example of this is if someone is allergic to nuts and a nut protein was put into a different food then the person could be allergic to the altered food. The author states that there could very well be health risks to GMOs but plenty of future study is needed.

This article was written in 2013 and is recent enough for me to feel safe using. It also has plenty of relevance to the paper that I want to write. The writer doesn't have a pristine resume, however, she does have background as a botany lab assistant. It is still concerning that she was an English major and may not have all the information necessary to write the perfect article on genetically modified organisms. She does make up for this by having plenty of links in her article to back up her statements. The content seems to be accurate, but it does seem to want people to approve of the use of GMOs more.

I think that I'm going to use this article because of the nice information that it provides and the links that it has throughout it. The author may not be the most credible source by herself, but it appears that she did quite a bit of research and is published in a very respected website.

Parker, Laura. "The GMO Battle is Heating Up-Here's Why." National Geographic 11 Jan. 2014. 11 Feb. 2014

This is a short article that talks about why corporations are so concerned about the idea of mandatory labeling for GMOs. The statistic in the article states that over 90% of foods in the U.S. have some sort of GMO in them and the corporations say that mandatory labeling wouldn't be very beneficial to anyone. The different companies want to support voluntary labeling of GMOs on their packages. They encourage companies to write down if they don't use GMO's as a way to attract people that don't want GMOs in there foods. The article also states that over $70 million was spent on defeating bills that supported the mandatory labeling of GMOs.

This article was written on January 11, 2014, exactly one month prior to me reading up on it. The relevance is well along the lines about what I want to write about and it gives interesting aspects of the government issues behind the labeling of GMOs along with what goes on behind the scenes. I couldn't look up on the actual author that wrote the article, but the article was published in National Geographic and they have been very reliable in my research in the past. The article seems to be reliable but at the same time it seems to be very against the companies that pay to defeat GMO labeling laws.

I feel like I'm going to lightly use this resource in my paper. I like the different information that the article provides about what different companies do about GMO's and I also like how it refers to the different legislation that has been passed and presented on the subject. It isn't a very long article and doesn't have a lot of information to it.

"Genetically Modified Organism" The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2013. 5 March 2014.

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