The author is Monsanto (but who exactly, it isn't clear...), their purpose is to promote and sell their product and the concept of GMO safety and it's importance in feeding the world, protecting biodiversity, etc. Their bias is clearly toward their product; they want positive public opinion; they want happy shareholders; they look like heroes on their website. Info is basically current; and hey, every 2 weeks you can get their latest videos and newsletters. Audience: people who are questioning GMOs and the Monsanto name, and/or normal everyday folks. Shareholders. I'll add, people who want to be reassured that our health and safety and the future of our planet are in the hands of trustworthy corporations and governmental institutions that really do have our well being in mind....Contact info is available. Clear design, easy to use....very professionally done and polished. Lots of video clips...some convincing experts speaking...lots of images of good ole American farmers...and they are somehow in bed with the International Food Information Council (in at least the "comparison of organics and gmo foods" video...which isn't even a comparison at all, rather a mockery of organics). Who is the IFIC? They look good on paper....but they're on Monsanto's video clip...?
Least credible. It's a huge corporation with shareholders and a mission to promote their business and make money. They're holding hands with how many government agencies?
Scitable
Author of this article: Theresa Phillips PhD. Purpose: to educate people and to publish her research findings on the "free science library and personal learning tool". Bias: toward the furthering of our understanding of GMOs and their scientific risks, controversies without trying to sell us one or the other. It's a little old, 2008, but the website itself as a whole seems up to date. Intended audience: anyone; it's posted on "the collaborative learning space for science". Power to the People through knowledge. Yes, contact info given clearly. Great design and easy to use.
I think this has the most authoritative info given. It is the least biased; it is a forum for science education and research; PhDs are posting well researched articles.
Say No To GMOs
Author: Volunteers put together the website, and within it one can find articles written by many different scientists on the various topics surrounding GMOs. Purpose: to educate the public. Bias: against GMOs. Current information, with past issues/versions available as you click around the site. Intended audience: people concerned with the safety and prevalence of GMOs. Yes, contact information in the form of send us your email and here's a comment box. Clear design. It doesn't look as professional and svelte; it looks a bit homemade and crazed-leftist-earth first-y. With this website design against Monsanto's, the general public is least likely to dismiss Monsanto's message. This one looks far less credible.
This is the second most reliable; within it's links you will find articles written by PhDs as well, but they are on a website that is clearly and strongly biased in one direction.
1. Yes, I definitely have qualms about eating GMO foods. I'm outraged that they aren't labeled, and that they produce health concerns to children....isn't that saying something? What about all the unintended impacts of all of this manipulation of nature? This is reductionist science, and I just don't believe that you can change one thing (supposedly to make an improvement on nature) without the entire web being affected, and negatively. And those negative affects are too far-reaching to then turn around and fix with more science. I would turn away from any gmo food IF I knew it was gmo; sadly, I'm sure I consume more gmos than I probably realize due to the lack of labeling laws. If I buy regular (not organic) corn tortillas at the market, it's gmo corn. Same with masa when I make tamales. Same with cornmeal. Same with oils if you're not careful....it goes on and on. And the chicken food I feed my hens in order to enjoy healthy homegrown eggs; if it's not organic feed, then it's gmo corn. But organic is $10 more per 25 lb. bag. And here's another thought: If we are feeding people a product that leads to 50% death in laboratory rats, then what we are essentially doing is executing natural selection on the human race; only the survivors who can tolerate these gmo products are able to reproduce with each other; creating a whole new race of humans. Far fetched perhaps, and now I sound crazy, but it's just one of my fears. Big Brother. Brave New World. Handmaid's Tale. Any futuristic doomsday novel or nightmare coming into being....this is how I feel about the corporate domination of our agricultural land with gmos.
2. The only reason I can think of why foods shouldn't be labeled as containing gmos is because the public wouldn't buy them. They want to sell their product. Don't tell America what's in hot dogs or chicken nuggets either....or let them see inside our chicken farms...they might not buy Tyson corn dogs at Costco next week....I'm feeling jaded and cynical at the moment.
Smith, Jeffrey M. Seeds of Deception. Fairfield, IA: Yes Books, 2003. Print.
Nelson, Gerald C., ed. Genetically Modified Organisms In Agriculture: Economics and Politics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 2001. Print.
I really liked your comparison between labeling GMOs and what hot dogs are made out of, because it is so true. People who don't care enough to look up information on GMOs (like myself) would definitely freak out and not buy something that had it on the label, that is if they care enough to even look at the nutrition facts, which I tend to avoid doing...
ReplyDelete