Blog #7: Authoritative Information

Most Reliable: I consider the Scitable website to have the most authoritative information. The fact that it has a clear author and that she is also a Ph.D. makes the article more credible. It covers point-by-point aspects and issues associated with genetically modified foods. Within the article there is a table that presents examples of genetic changes in various products. The article covers the current and potential use of GMOs, the risks and controversies – including economic, philosophic/religious, and natural issues, the history, and future research. Overall it appears to be a generally well rounded article.The article is from 2008 so it is not too dated. The author cites many resources and they are listed clearly at the end. The audience targeted seems to be people who are curious to know about what GMOs are and how they affect them.

Least Reliable: For me it was a tie for least reliable between the Monsanto website and saynotogmos.org. Due to my own bias I think that if I had to choose the least reliable I would say Monsanto because they just generally scare me. I believe these sites are tied because they both have a clear agenda.

For Monsanto it is to sell a product and inform people about what they do in terms of biotechnology and how it is safe and efficient way to approach agriculture. Their website was very clear and easily navigable. In addition to the text, there are embedded videos with some man (CEO?) going over the points presented. I think these videos were attempting to give the information a certain authoritative aspect but I was too distracted by the man’s vague information and poor presence on camera. There is however, no discussion of unaltered food and the company clearly has a biased towards its own product and technology. There is no way to tell how old this actual article is but the website overall has been updated in 2010. The content seems to target investors to the company giving them a little background on the basic concepts behind breeding and biotechnology.

For saynotogmos.com the authors are attempting to convince readers that GMOs are not safe. In their mission statement they state that they support “mandatory labeling, long-term independent safety testing, more stringent regulation and full corporate liability for damages resulting from the irresponsible introduction of GMOs to the food supply and environment.” After reading that I totally agree with their mission, which is not to necessarily ban all GMOs but to allow a consumer choice and government regulations on foods produced by these bioengineering companies. Nonetheless, the information is incredibly biased; just look at the title of the website. I found this site to be the least navigable and I believe that a revamp of the layout would boost their legitimacy (in a visual sense, readers will naturally consider it more credible) to the average web surfer or researcher. The website has updates every year up to 2010, so the information is definitely up to date. It is nice that you can look back and see change and development of information regarding GMOs over time. The audience seems to be, put bluntly, “liberals” who want to reinforce their beliefs by reading a bunch of articles. <--I’m not hating, go liberals!

1. Genetically modified foods really freak me out, but I’ve come to realize it is almost impossible to completely avoid them considering products are not labeled. But I do understand that genetic modification is not a brand new science and that it is beneficial in the growth of agriculture.

2. There is no reason a person should not know where their food comes from. So I think it is ludicrous that the FDA does not require labeling, especially if all of Europe does. *But I guess it’s just us Americans trying to be rebels with no universal health care and no labeling of GMOs. (*sorry that is kind of annoying)

Gerdes, Louise. Humanity's Future. 1st ed. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Print.