GMO Discussion

Monsanto:

There is no author listed on the Monsanto page, so it will be attributable to the corporation in general as a result. With Monsanto itself responsible for the post, the purpose is to "educate" the general public as to the many benefits of GMO's, including the science behind this wonderful technology. The inherent bias, as a result, is to sell the idea of GMO's as good, which would be beneficial to the Monsanto corporation as a business. The site is copyrighted through 2010, though the exact time this page was posted is up in the air, as no date is explicitly given. The intended targets of this information would be the general public, mostly including those with curiosity or minor doubt (not to discount firm believers). Contacting the author seems to be unlikely, but there is a Contact Us link at the bottom of the page, which would put you in touch with the company. But, the site is nice to look at and labeled in a very neat fashion.

Scitable:

Theresa Phillips is the author of this piece, and it seems to be an article that seeks to inform the public of the various risks and benefits of GMO's. The bias seems to be almost non-existent, as there is no advertising readily noticed and no issues to sell. It is an information hub, and that would require a look into the people behind the website. But the article is from 2008, so fairly recent, though science has most assuredly advanced since this was published. Concerned and curious citizens seem to be the target. There are links here that will put you in contact with the people running the site. Everything here is structured nicely.

Saynotogmos:

Again, we have no author for this work, whose purpose it seems is to persuade people against buying products with GMO's. The bias is that the author explores only the negative aspects of GMO's and is clearly bent on trying to eliminate them. There is nothing that points to when this section was written, but there are links to 2010 information. It seems to be wanting to sell its point to those who are already doubters of the whole GMO issue. Like the others, no direct author contact, but you can contact those in charge of the site. The design is more busy than the others, and less professional looking.

Scitable may be the most reliable, as it is authored by somebody specific, a Ph.D. no less. It has research available and touches on both sides. Monsanto is likely least, as it stands to make or lose the most depending on how the public reacts. Millions and millions of dollars are at stake here.

1. I don't have any real issue with GMO's, it just hasn't been an issue that strikes me as most risky, and I just haven't looked into as much to really know.

2. I think the foods should be labeled, and the refusal to do so seems to be a way to disguise issues rather than inform.

Ruse, Michael, and David Castle. Genetically Modified Foods: Debating Biotechnology. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2002. Print.