GMOs

Monsanto
The author of the information on this site is Monsanto, the company that owns the site. The intention behind the article seems to be to inform readers of the science behind the company's food technology and the audience seems to be those curious enough to discover what they're really consuming. The author is obviously biased because they are referring to their own food and their own technologies, without addressing outside sources. They are trying to promote their own products, which to me suggests a bias. Although there's not a date listed for the actual link provided, there is a 2010 copyright at the bottom, which tells me that the information is at least somewhat current. Although it's not advertised, there is a link for contacting the company at the bottom of the page. The design of the website seems pretty straightforward and is easy to use.

Nature
The author of this post is stated, unlike Monsanto's, and this one happens to be written by someone with a Ph.D. Considering the fact that Monsanto didn't mention an author and Nature had a Ph.D author who was willing to submit their own name to the work, I already consider this source more credible. The purpose of the article is to address where the line should be drawn for creating new GMOs. The article is pretty current, only seeing publication two years ago. The bias seems to be against GMOs, at least advocating for more research to be done on them. I think the intended audience is different from that of Monsanto's link, this audience seems to be a bit more educated and interested in the problems with GMOs in current use. I did not see any contact information for the author listed on the page, but I did like the sizable amount of sources cited. Additionally, the site was easy to navigate around.

Say No
The bias of this site is pretty obvious from the domain name alone. The author is not stated, but like Monsanto's webpage, the information is more general and probably not attributable to a single author. The purpose behind the webpage is as clear as the bias, and that purpose is to convince readers not to consume GMOs. The intended audience seems to be people who are already skeptical about GMOs and want more information about the harm they can cause. Although I don't see a date posted, there is a link for "2010 updates" so at least part of the site is up-to-date. The website is really easy to use, with a bunch of helpful links on the main page, as well as a link for contact information.

Of the three sites, I would say that the Nature site is the most reliable. There are plenty of sources cited for further reading, the article sounds much less biased than the other two, an the information provided seems much more scientific and scholarly based than the other websites. I think the Say No website has the least reliable information, or at least the least reliable presentation of information. Although I doubt the validity of Monsanto's claims, they are at least tactful enough with their website, which I cannot say the same for the Say No group. I agree much more with their arguments, but the layout of the site seems rudimentary and childlike, it looks as if a 12-year old designed the site.

Eating GMOs does bother me, though I try not to think about it. I don't like the idea that my food is no longer natural, and that it's been tampered with biologically. I certainly think that the US needs to catch up to the times and start labeling GMOs like Europe already does. There is no good reason to lag behind on this that I can think of, but plenty of greedy, exploiting reasons why corporations don't want to make this information available.

Dahm, Lori. "To GMO or Not to GMO." National Provisioner 215.1 (2001): 50-57. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 May 2010.

Von Gotz, Franz. "See What You Eat: Broad GMO Screening with Microarrays." Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 396.6 (2010): 1961-1967. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 May 2010.