Blog 7

The first site I reviewed was the Monsanto site. The Monsanto company seems to be the author of the website as well as this particular page. The purpose for posting the information is simply to inform potential customers about the breeding and biotechnology of Monsanto's products. I would assume the author has a bias because it is a company trying to sell a product so obviously they are going to talk up the product. It looks as if the information has been kept up to date as of 2010. The intended audience would be anyone looking to invest or purchase Monsanto seeds, such as farmers or investors. At the bottom of the page there is contact information including a website, email, phone numbers, and an address. For me the design of the website was familiar and easy to use. I feel that this website is credible because it is a large corporation, however it is still biased and makes me want to get customer testimonials about the product.

The next website was the Scitable one. This website seemed the most reliable to me for the following reasons. The author has a PhD and has also been cited. There is a works cited page at the bottom. Even though it was published in 2008, it is still relevant information. The article seems relatively unbiased as it is mostly facts about GMOs. The intended audience seems like it would be anyone interested in the subject matter, particularly people into science. There is no contact information for the author, just for the website. The design was very clear and easy to use.

The last website I looked at was saynotogmos.org. The first thing I noticed was how confusing the layout was. It looked like there was just a site full of links to click on and no particular author for the website. After clicking the contact link I found out that the website was maintained by a bunch of Texan volunteers who are concerned about their health and GMOs. Although this is a noble cause, this isn't a site I would use as a source unless I could prove that their information was correct through another source. This also leads me to believe that there would be extreme bias in the site, especially when the bottom of the website says "Genetically Engineered Food is Corporate Bioterrorism". Although the website is updated as of 2010, it seems to me that this is the least reliable/authoritative of all the websites in this assignment.

1) Just the concept of GMOs kind of grosses me out, but I always try to look at both sides of an issue. It seems like a very unnatural way to produce food and from what I hear can have many health risks. However, GMOs can be beneficial (if used correctly) to help solve world wide hunger by being able to increase the availablilty and amount of food.

2) I can't really think of any good reason as to why the FDA wouldn't demand that food be labled as containing genetically modified foods. This seems like something that should be of high importance to consumers. I know that I would want to know if I'm eating something that was mutated or altered in some way.

Lutz, C. Greg. "Genetically Modified Organisms: A Continuing Controversy." Aquaculture Magazine 27.4 (2001): 8. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 24 May 2010.