Annotated Bibliography RT

Why does the United States still allow ingredients that are banned outside the U.S.?

Check-in Evaluation:

I found this research to be particularly interesting: because it made you really evaluate the source and gave you the opportunity to do the CRAAP test.

This part of my annotated bibliography was surprisingly difficult: It was hard to find two credible sources from the data base to relate to my topic and I feel like some of my sources are repetitive.

Next time I would do this differently: By allowing myself more time to find more sources that differentiate from one another. Also by getting another person to review my page rather than just one.

Kleinman, Daniel Lee, and Abby J. Kinchy. "Boundaries in Science Policy Making: Bovine Growth Hormone in the European Union." Sociological Quarterly 44.4 (2003): JSTOR. Web.

This journal talks about rbGH which is a kind of growth hormone put into animals to make them produce dairy products faster. This was used for quite some time. But in 1999 FDA finally had banned the added chemical because it was deemed to be unhealthy for the animal and the human conception. This journal is in favor of banning the growth hormone and lists many reasons why. They include many resources and studies along with many experts who had something to say about the subject.

Using this source on the CRAAP test:
Currency: This scholarly source was published in Autumn of 2003 . This topic does not require newer information since the FDA has stepped in to ban this chemical although there are similar chemicals being used similar to the same name.
Relevance: This information did relate to my topic as I talked about the worst food additives placed in our foods and growth hormones placed in cows were one of them. The intended audience was set for a classroom and or professor. Also for other students who are interested in this subject. This information is at an appropriate level for the research I was looking for. As for looking for a variety of sources I knew the requirements were two scholarly journals and as for finding ones to relate to my paper this was one of the few. I was comfortable citing this in my paper for the arguments however I do not believe I used this source for my citation.
Authority: The sponsor of the website was JSTOR. The credentials is high as it is a scholarly journal and used for research. The authors are from the University of Wisconsin and would be qualified to write the paper as there is a lot of data they referenced. Theere is one emial address listed as to who's it is, is unknown. The ending of the website ends in .org.
Accuracy: The information comes from research conducted by studies and universities and with that include scientists and professors or related individuals in the field to make comments. This information is supported by evidence in such that there is a great number of logos being used in the paper. I can verify this information is correct from outside research I have completed on my own. The tone did not come off biased as they stated different views. Although the final outcome was the ban and there was reasons listing up to why it was banned it still had some counter arguments. There are no errors that I had noticed when reading through this source.
Purpose: Is to inform others about the harm it brings cows and humans when the chemical is being used. The purpose is very clear. The information is fact without any opinion based. The point of view does not seem to be objective or impartial. There are cultural view points in this paper but it is a minimum and is used to discuss in counter arguments.

Although this paper was one of my scholarly sources I did not use it as much as I wanted to and I do not believe I added any more direct lines into my solution paper. This paper did not offer a broad enough topic as I was hoping for but it did still relate and offer me some further information into my growth hormone aspect of my papers.
This paper is very narrow in and does not stray from rbGH like I was hoping for it to. Although the paper still does relate to my paper because it shows the process of it becoming banned and the events and the studies that had to be done to get the hormone banned.

This is a much credited journal as it has a publisher and is found through online database. I like how there is ample amount of information and how the paper itself flows. Starting with what rbGH is and the “hurdles” the U.S. went through to ban it. The paper is very precise and has taught me banning a ingredient is much harder than anyone could realize.

Boundaries In Science Policy Making: Bovine Growth Hormone in the European Union

Ceccoli, Stephen, and William Hixon. "Explaining Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Foods in the European Union." JSTOR. Sage Publications, n.d. Web.

Explaining attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union

This journal is by far the best credited journal that fits perfectly into my paper. It explains the attitudes of the population towards genetically modified foods and what influences our attitudes. This is a source that really expands into what I’m trying to cover. It gives me a different view point and a different way to look at this project. As we know the media has a huge influence on how we look at many things in our life and what to think about it. Not only does it cover how media can influence our attitudes but also politics, and science. This journal has given me something new to add and will be the perfect touch as to what I am trying to write.

This journal provides statistics. Something I never had before. According to this article “genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) is identified as organisms in which the the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or naturally recombination.” It also includes how the European Union had tried banning GMO’s at one point but the ban was lifted years later. Although the banning couldn’t stick they enforce strict rules when coming to GMO’s. This article gives both sides of the argument and doesn’t look at this as universal like many of my other sources. It breaks it down looking at the culture itself and our understanding of science, and our views on politics. This journal covers from top to bottom and is definitely my strongest argument and most informative source I have.

Using the CRAAP Test:
Currency:This journal was published in March 22nd 2012 . It was then revised one month after its published date. My topic does not need current information unless there was a law passed of a banning of a certain ingredient.
Relevance: This article by far relates to my topic. The intended audience was a professor and or classroom. This information is an appropriate level as it is published through a scholarly journal. I did look at a variety of sources picking the ones that best fit my paper. I was comfortable citing this paper in my academic papers.
Authority: Sage journals is the publisher of this site. The authors credentials are the international political science review and they are qualified to write on the topic as they have written an extensive paper with a lot of information and a lot of references used. There is contact info through the publisher and this source ends in.org
Accuracy: The information comes from but their research came from many different places. The information is supported by evidence as they have also included studies into their paper along with professionals standing by what they are talking about. I did not find the review date. Again I can verify some information in this paper from background knowledge on my subject. The tone seems focused to me not too biased. There are no grammatical errors.
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to teach and persuade the awful food additives out there. The authors do make their intentions clear about GMO's and how they are NOT good for you.The information is fact. The point of view does not seem objective nor impartial. Along with that there are no biases I found present in the paper.

This paper I found using not as much as I thought I would which I am surprised. Although it was more areas covered then my other academic journal there was not as much as I wanted. Although this source was used I wish I could have used it more. Either way this source gave me greater support in my paper.

Kim, Susanna. "11 Food Ingredients Banned Outside the U.S. That We Eat." ABC News. ABC News, 26 June 2013. Web.

Home> Lifestyle>Lifestyle 11 Food Ingredients Banned Outside the U.S. That We Eat

This article published by ABC news is very informative. It brings in expert opinions by others such as professors and book authors, and scientists. In the article it gives a list of 11 foods that are banned outside the U.S. and what the experts have to say about it. The article also touches with the FDA and why we haven’t banned these dangerous preservatives. This paper shows both sides of the argument. One side is supporting the facts that these foods are hazardous; and the other is taking science, and politics in hand. The argument here is every country has a different set of politics and science that follows. All of my other sources are focused why the FDA isn’t having our best interest in hand. Not only is this article detailed, and comes from a wider viewpoint it also provides dates, and information found from institutions around the U.S. It will be the helping hand to give my paper some extra cushion by getting professionals making comment about the subject. The 11 foods that they include tell us what foods it is in and substitutes that will help my paper.

This paper passes the CRAAP test and is exactly what I was looking for:
Currency: The information was published on June 26th 2013. Through scanning the webpage I did not see that it was ever revised. I would only have to require new information is one of the worst additives became banned making that listed item no longer prominent to my paper. Yes the link is functional posted above.
Relevance: The information does relate to my topic and addresses questions that I have. The intended audience is people in the U.S. as it is run by ABC news. The information is at an appropriate level considering the wide range of audience that reads their news articles. This was the first article I found and I knew right away that I wanted to use it. I was comfortable citing this in my paper.
Authority: The author is Sussana Kim and the sponsor of this page was ABC news. The authors credentials is being a write for a big news company. The author is qualified to write on this subject because she interviewed the right people and dug up the correct information. For contact information she provides her twitter name so you could get a hold of her there or there is a comment box at the bottom of the page. As for the URL it ends in .com
Accuracy: The information comes from a food expert Jayson Calton who is a certified food nutritionist. The information is supported by evidence as there is a direct cause of the harm the 11 foods do to your body. The information has not been reviewed/ refereed. I can verify that the information is correct. The tone does seem biased as there is no counter arguments or the reasoning that they continue to use this food. I did not come across any grammatical errors.
Purpose: The purpose was to inform the citizens exactly what we are eating. The author does not wrap it up with sayoig avoid these foods or for that matter have much of a conclusion at all. It is implied but she does not come out and say it. The information is fact.The point of view seems biased but I'm unsure in what way.

I can definitely and will be using this source in my paper as it is well written and well credited. It was written last year and comes from a very reliable source. It relates to my topic and gives it a new perspective.

I did use this source in my paper quite a few times. This article and a few others were responsible for the type of ingredients I chose to do in my own paper. This source definitely helped me out more than my two academic journals because i is more broad and talks about so many more things in my paper.

Säätelä, Elsa. "Foods Americans Eat That Are Banned Around the World." Fox News. Fox News, 23 Oct. 2013. Web.

Foods Americans eat that are banned around the world

This article written by FOX news gives a detailed list of foods that Americans eat but are banned elsewhere. The list is made up of 6 items and goes into small detail about what it is and why its banned. This list is repetitive with what I have for my other sources. Also it only includes half as much as the others.

This source seems to be credible since it is coming from Fox news, and was written about a year ago so it is pretty current. This article is good to have because it helps with my topic and gives me further information of what foods we should have banned as well.

Using the CRAAP Test:
Currency: This article was published in October 23rd 2013 and I had found no revision dates. The topic does not require new information because I barley referenced this source and no items discussed have yet be banned. The link is functional.
Relevance: The information does relate to my topic and does provide insight onto what I was talking about. The intended audience was anyone in the U.S. because it is a news company. The information is at an appropriate level considering how many people the journal is reaching. I did look at a variety of sources before listing this one on here. The problem is, is that there is not many papers published on this specific topic. I was comfortable citing this paper in my project even though thus paper I only referenced once.
Authority: The author is Elsa Säätelä and the publisher of this article is Fox News. I could not find the authors credentials but I'm assuming she is a Fox employee and would have some sort of degree in order to write on Fox's behalf. The author is qualified to write on the topic because again they interviewed and dug up the correct information. I was unable to find any contact information for this author. As for the URL it does end in .com
Accuracy: The information comes from outside sources that were not mentioned. The information is supported with evidence as she tells you why the certain food additive is bad for your health. The information has not been reviewed or refereed. I can verify this information is correct from current knowledge I have on this subject. Te tone is biased because there is no other viewpoints but you can't rally be overwhelmed by an opinion in the paper either because there isn't one. I did not come across any errors well reading this paper.
Purpose: The purpose was to inform you about the hazardous things many of us have go in our body every day. The paper was informative. The intentions are clear in the fact that those foods listed are a major problem for our consumption. The information is fact based. I did not come across any political biases in the paper.

If I’m looking at my weak sources this would have to be the one. Only because I have more detailed sources with the same list that provide more information. This source is good for background information; however I do not think I will be including this in my paper. I hope to find a better fitting article that I can use.

Another side note about this source, overall I am not too impressed with this article published by this author. She did not include any direct person or credible sources in her paper and overall the paper could use some work. I know FOX can do much better than that.

Goyanes, Cristina. "13 Banned Foods Still Allowed in the U.S." Shape 15 January 2013: n. pag. Print.

13 Banned Foods Still Allowed in the U.S. 1072

Published in Shape Magazine is an article of 13 banned foods that are banned elsewhere. FDA is supposed to protect us from companies that sell their product on the shelf. Recently FDA did propose two regulations, but nothing to do with foods that are banned elsewhere. Food borne illness causes approximately 3,000 deaths per year in the U.S. alone. Yet when it comes to the FDA regulations it doesn’t seem like they are too concerned with our best interest. If they were we would join the many other countries that banned the 13 (major) ingredients. The list that Shape magazine provides is the most harmful to human health. Also in this article Shape had interviewed Mira Calton who is a nutritionist and her husband Jayson Calton (Ph. D.) who wrote Rich Food, Poor Food. The two had spent six years that took them to 100 countries on seven continents to study a big list of 150 ingredients that the U.S. still has not banned. Their solution is to spread the word, and urge you to refuse to buy foods that include at least one ingredient found in this article. Many people are concerned about the cost of eating healthy and that’s why they included a related article that gives those people a solution to cheaper, better food. Not only does this article tell you the most harmful 13 ingredients it includes what it is, what its used in, why the U.S. allows it, and the harmful health hazards that go with it.

Using the CRAAP Test:
Currency: This paper was published on April 29 2014, Im assuming this is the revised date because that would be impossible to have used this source in my argument paper. The original date I could not find posted on the webpage. This topic is as current as it can get. Yes the link is functional.
Relevance: Yes by far this paper relates to my topic. The intended audience is anyone who cares enough to read the article as it is from Shape magazine (so it applies perfectly with their type of audience.) The information is at an appropriate level. I did loom at a variety of sources and the funny thing is other sources that I used actually mentioned this paper being the one they took information from. So it is kind if the leading paper so a perfect one at that to include in my paper. I was comfortable citing this in my paper.
Authority:The author is Cristina Goyanes and the publisher being Shape magazine. The author is more than qualified to write on the subject.She has a great piece that is easy to follow and understand but yet being mature all at one. She knows how to apply towards her audience and use correct information on her paper. For contact information she also provided her twitter name to be reached. As for the URL it ends in .com
Accuracy: The information comes from the Calton's as well who wrote rich food poor food which are tow very credible sources as they spent years going around the world to study over 150 ingredients that were bad for you. The information is absolutely supported by evidence in many different ways. This article has been both reviewed and refereed. I can back up the information due to personal knowledge and the way she writes is appropriate and scholarly. There were no grammatical errors.
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to teach and persuade. When I say persuade I mean it in the fact that there is a better way of eating and they are trying to persuade you to boycott those foods. Along with that they mention in great detail about the rich food poor food maybe trying to encourage people to buy their book. The authors intentions were crystal clear. The information is fact. As for the point of view it seems non objective.

This was probably my favorite source that I was able to use in my paper. I say this because I like how she writes the bst and alot of my other sources that I have had on this page had mentioned her article and had gotten ideas off of this page. I also like how they actually are on top of things and reviewed it within a decent amount of time.

Sagon, Candy. "8 Foods We Eat That Other Countries Ban." AARP Blog. AARP, 25 July 2013. Web.

8 Foods We Eat That Other Countries Ban

In the AARP blog it focuses on eight foods that are banned outside the U.S. “Fake coloring” seems to be the most toxic. An example of items that use food coloring that is banned in other countries is Kraft and their product of macaroni and cheese, colored cereal such a Fruit Loops, or Fruity Pebbles, Mountain Dew, and Gatorade. So why is food coloring such a big deal? It states that certain food coloring is” linked to behavioral changes in children, allergies, migraines, and possibly cancer. “According to AARP there has been two mothers who petitioned Kraft to use natural food coloring that is much safe. Kraft had said no, even though in other countries they do not use the harmful food coloring. Even though Kraft said no, Pepsi announced they would no longer use the harmful food coloring additive in Gatorade but would continue to use it in Mountain Dew. Besides food coloring; Brominated Vegetable Oil (BVO) is another huge topic. BVO is now banned in European Union countries, Japan, and India. Yet we still allow the flame – retardant in our drinks. BVO is originally to help keep carpets amongst other things safe from catching fire, but yet it is used in Mountain Dew. It is reported that BVO is banned in over 100 countries. So why does the U.S. still allow it? What do we gain from the harmful substance? The list of banned foods that AARP provides are found in almost every category of what we eat.

Using the CRAAP Test:
Currency: This article was published on June 25th 2013. I could not see a revision date so I am concluding that it has not been revised since being published. My topic would not require new information from this source. The link provided is functional.
Relevance: The information in this article provided by AARP dos relate to my topic and I was able to use that. The intended audience is those of the older part as that is what AARP surrounds themselves with those of retirement or so around that age. The information was at an appropriate level. I did look at a variety of sources and this one I was able to actually use because it offered something different. I was comfortable citing this source.
Authority: The author was Candy Sagon and the publisher was AARP. The author is qualified on the topic as AARP has her as a journalist and she did the proper research to become informed about the topic. There was a form of contact available by pressing her name which was a link to her page. The URL ends in .org
Accuracy: Again like almost all of my other sources mentioned this came from The Calton's who had published Rich Food Poor Food which as I explained before they are credible. The author is qualified to write on the topic as she met with a credible source and did her research. I can verify this article with some of my own personal knowledge about her source of information and the facts that were provided. It does not seem biased nor are there grammatical errors.
Purpose: The purpose of this information is to inform their readers the harm that goes into some common foods. The author makes is clear that there is a problem with our food. The expression in the paper is fact.

This was a great source to use in my paper. There was the same credible source being used in this paper as the rest but she was able to display her information different then the rest. Just looking at the comments back on this page alone you know she did a good job and others do agree. There was also a lot of awareness that her article brought on that many people were unaware of.

Eng, Monica. "U.S. Allows Chemicals in Food That Are Illegal Elsewhere." Chicago Tribune News. Chicago Tribune News, 21 Jan. 2013. Web.

U.S. allows chemicals in food that are illegal elsewhere

I found this article very interesting. It is about a 15 year old girl who started a petition to remove the harmful substance brominated vegetable oil (BVO) from her favorite drink, and won! Her petition alone received over 200,000 supporters. When the FDA was asked for a representative to talk about why we still allow BVO in the U.S. that would decline, and not provide any information. Chicago tribune found in past statements BVO is allowed for a number of purposes, the biggest being a lack of resources. Not only is there a lack of substitutes but there was a study that claimed BVO is safe in small enough doses. Since 1970 BVO makers had marked the product as temporary. Over 40 years has passed and it is still not a priority to come up with a better substitute. In a statement made by the FDA they claimed their “mission is first and foremost to protect public health by ensuring that foods are safe and properly labeled.” It is because of them the U.S. food supply is “the safest in the world.” Yet we still have harmful ingredients found in many foods. The concern is that the same food companies that have these harmful ingredients in them changed for other countries that banned the ingredients yet they won’t do it in the U.S. even if petitions are sent their way. So why is that? Why isn’t the U.S. on board? According to the tribune once FDA approves something it’s nearly impossible to reverse it.

Using the CRAAP Test:
Currency: This was published in January 21st 2013. I could not find a revision date so I'm assuming that they have not yet revised it. For this source I would not be needing updated information. The link provided is functional.
Relevance: The information does relate to my topic especially in the sense of BVO. The intended audience is anyone. The information is at an appropriate level especially compared to the other two newspaper sources. I did look at a number of sources and this one was a great one to use in the fact that petitions do work! I was able to cite this correctly in my paper.
Authority: The author was Monica Eng and the Publisher was Chicago Tribune News. The author is qualified to write on the topic, especially because most of it revolved around a teenage girl petitioning and winning. There was no contact information made directly off the article and as for the URL it ended in .com
Accuracy: The information came from a direct source of the teenage girl who has learned the harmful things Gatorade had added and petitioned to get rid if BVO. The information is supported by her petitions and Gatorade complying. I can verify this is correct from all other research done.The tone does not seem biased and there were no errors found well reading.
Purpose: The purpose was to persuade and teach us that much about something you can make anything happen. She was only a teenage girl and she accomplished so much. The girl who petitioned was clear as for the author she presented the problem and even gave a solution. The information was fact but also opinionated since the story did revolve around the teen. I did not see an cultural or religious biases.

This article is even more great in the fact that the same girl took on Powerade and just got that passed as well through petitions. What I really liked about using this in my paper is that it made my petition solution look that much stronger and greater. I wish when I was writing this paper I also could include the Powerade win in which they are also not going to use BVO but that is so recent. This source by far was the best out of all on this page to have on my solution paper and overall that is where it came in hand the most.

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