Newman 1

James Newman

Professor Alexa Doran

ENC2135

23 March 2017

Annotated Bibliography

Alesci, Cristina. Monsanto CEO Frustrated over Polarized GMO Debate. CNNMoney, Cable

News Network, 18 Apr. 2016, money.cnn.com/2016/04/18/news/companies/monsanto-

ceo-gmo/index.html. Accessed 27 Feb. 2017.

Cristina Alescis article is set up in an interview like fashion with the Chief Executive

Officer of one of the most controversial companies on the global market, Monsanto.

Alesci brings in many different issues into the topic for reasons this company has such a

broken relationship and horrible reputation with the general public.

This source gets the feelings of the leader of the genetically modified food movement

which is highly useful because it allows the reader to get the pro side from no better

source. This relates to the public perception in the younger generation because it is very

easily conveyed Hugh Grant, Monsanto CEO, wants to change his company's relationship

with so many people.

This source holds a lot of credibility because not only does it come from the reputable

source of CNN but also does not have a lot of biases towards the topic which allows one

to trust the information received a little bit more.

Hugh Grant gives the reader a good amount of insight into the next steps Monsanto wants

to take, which reveals that he does not want the debate about GMOs to be so highly

polarized. The strength of this article is that it brings in arguments against Monsanto but
 Newman 2

does it in a way that does not attack the other side but lets the reader decide how he or she

wants to use the other sides disagreements. A weakness however is that this article is

very limited because of its short length and does not get in depth enough to really make

progress in the debate, especially when one has a chance to discuss with such a powerful

figure in the genetically modified field.

Bittman, Mark. GMO Poll Results (and More). The New York Times, The New York Times,

24 Feb. 2011, bittman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/gmo-poll-results-and-more/?_r=0.

Accessed 24 Feb. 2017.

This is a column written by the highly respected source, Mark Bittman, from the New

York Times in response of an independent poll to find the general feeling of the presence

of genetically modified foods in their everyday meals. The results were not very kind to

the topic with a very high disapproval rate, 83% to be exact.

Sources like this one present a direct poll exactly on what the research topic is involving

education and how that would change ideas of GMOs. This poll though is just a baseline

because it does leave out the educational part needed but gives directly the numbers on the

issue that need to be worked with.

This source credibility lies in the fact that Bittman is a highly educated individual who is

giving his educated opinion which can be held to higher standard. He is not someone who

is uneducatedly sitting in one's garage righting a status update on facebook. Even then he

is very biased in this debate when he speaks of the poll but the poll is an excellent source

because it comes straight from social media, Twitter and Facebook, and with the high
 Newman 3

response rates to polls conducted like this one, the reader can not very easily get much

closer to the feelings on young citizens.

The strengths of this blog post is that poll it speaks of comes directly from the general

public that is most interested in this topic and with such a high response rate, the results

can be trusted. However there are always biases that need to be examined with polls,

because the New York Times has a very specific audience and that audience would be the

majority of who even sees the poll to begin with. If there is to be use of the comments

made by Bittman they cannot be held to much use because of how obvious and evident his

bias is in the debate on GMOs.

Costa-Font, Montserrat, et al. Consumer Acceptance, Valuation of and Attitudes towards

Genetically Modified Food: Review and Implications for Food Policy. Food Policy, vol.

33, no. 2, 2008, pp. 99111. Science Direct, doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.07.002. Accessed

23 Feb. 2017.

This is another article that delves deeper into the issue with consumer acceptance of

GMOs. This journal entry also uses many different studies and uses them to analyze the

issues in these studies in debunking the real issues.

This source is extremely credible and reliable because it comes from a peer reviewed

science journal that tries its best to remain unbiased and only present the facts.

This is relevant to the research question because it gives the reader a lengthy explanation

of the issues of public view of GMOs.

What is so interesting and also a strength of this journal entry is that it looks at how the

studies are presented to the public and how they are used to push an agenda that is unfair
 Newman 4

to the education of the public. However this journal does leave out many background

issues that need to be included to truly understand everything.

Frewer, Lynn J., et al. Public Perceptions of Agri-Food Applications of Genetic Modification

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology,

vol. 30, no. 2, 2013, pp. 142152. Science Direct, doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2013.01.003.

Accessed 20 Feb. 2017.

In the scientific journal, Trends in Food Science and Technology, it is no surprise that a

number of their articles pertain to genetically modified organisms, and more specifically

the general publics opinion on this controversial topic. This specific volume complies

articles from all around the world and varies the times in which the articles where written.

This was done to acquire a global map of perceptions of the topic at hand.

This relates to the topic because it takes perceptions to a global scale which can be hard to

achieve when only looks at American sources. This also shows how perception changes

based on many different factors like socioeconomic status and location.

Trends in Food Science & Technology is a peer reviewed international journal that is there

mainly to present unbiased information and pursue the advancement of science in todays

ever changing world.

One of the main strengths of this source is the worldly view that helps erase biases that

can arise when research is compiled in an isolated small study pool. However, a weakness

is that when a study is conducted globally it is near impossible to come up with the source

of findings on a local cultural level by only looking at this specific article. What is most

interesting is in what is analyzed it reveals that the issue on GMOs is extremely complex
 Newman 5

and quite frankly is a first world problem because areas in the eastern world do not have

the choice to go and buy very expensive organic foods to feed themselves and their

families.

Giddings, Val. Mandatory. Mandatory "GMO" Labeling Proposals Are Failing Despite

Unprecedented Efforts and Expenditure, Information Technology & Innovation

Foundation, 10 Mar. 2015, itif.org/publications/2015/03/10/mandatory-%E2%80%9Cgmo

%E2%80%9D-labeling-proposals-are-failing-despite-unprecedented-efforts. Accessed 18

Mar. 2017.

Grunert, K. G. Food Quality and Safety: Consumer Perception and Demand. European

Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 32, no. 3, Jan. 2005, pp. 369391. Oxford

Academic , doi:10.1093/eurrag/jbi011. Accessed 22 Feb. 2017.

This particular article not only looks at genetically modified food but also biotechnology

that is a whole other division of engineering nature to our needs. This study is more

narrowly based in that it only focuses on isolated states in the United States and major

cities in Europe all while testing how income affects perception.

This article is so beneficial because to understand the makings and uses of genetically

modified foods, one has to look at the whole picture and today biotechnology must be

included in that picture, which this journal brings into question. What this study brings in

particular to the research question is the before and after results in this study; before

consumers where educated they demanded a high compensation to risk their health to
 Newman 6

consume GMOs, but once they were educated on many of the benefits that biotechnology

and GMOs bring especially to third world countries, that compensation dropped

significantly.

European Review of Agricultural Economics is a peer reviewed science journal from a

highly respected database from Oxford Academic, one of the best universities in Europe.

Even though this study brought forth the misconceptions people may have about the

engineering and altering of what is put on our plates, one weakness is it still failed to

educate on all the unknowns in the long term effects of such a major change in the way we

eat. The main strength is that the whole study revolves around the research question and

perfectly executes the before and after aspects of the study.

Noussair, Charles, et al. Do Consumers Really Refuse To Buy Genetically Modified Food?

*.The Economic Journal, vol. 114, no. 492, 2004, pp. 102120. Wiley Online Library ,

doi:10.1046/j.0013-0133.2003.00179.x. Accessed 25 Feb. 2017.

This source goes extremely in depth to the debate of genetically modified foods and gets

deeply into the misconceptions help by the public in the western world and western media.

Once again this study finds a high amount of opposition to the genetic debate even though

the participants have a serious lack of unbiased education on the topic.

This journal will help the discussion of the research question because it also gives a

history of perceptions in the publics mind which is imperative to understand current

feelings.
 Newman 7

The journal entry in discussion is very useful because of its credibility coming from a high

admired database from the Wiley Online Library in which this source is peer reviewed.

However with reading the source the author almost comes off as mad at the idiocy of the

public which can only be looked at as a form of bias and hurts the integrity of this entry.

The strength of this article is the full breadth of the issue it discusses and leaves no room

for left out arguments and even goes into very interesting trends in taboo controversies

that have shown themselves throughout the years. Unfortunately, the author shows too

much of a bais and anger to the topic just in the intro which can already set a jaded view to

the rest of the writings.

Potrykus, Ingo. Golden Rice, a GMO-Product for Public Good, and the Consequences

of GE-Regulation. Journal of Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology, vol. 21, no. S1,

2012, pp. 6875. Journal of Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology, doi:10.1007/s13562-

012-0130-5. Accessed 22 Feb. 2017.

The Journal of Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology presents a strongly pro sided entry

on the debate of GMOs which talks about the infamous golden rice. This rice is heavily

genetically modified but is saving countless lives in many eastern countries that have high

poverty and hunger rates.

Journal of Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology is peer reviewed and a very reliable

source when it comes to scientific debates and discussions.

This journal is crucial to understanding the research question because it is hard to find in

the western media a mostly unbiased pro GMO article that does not come from genetic
 Newman 8

companies. This is the education people need to have to truly understand that the world

cannot survive without genetic modification.

The strength of this article is that it helps to educate the general public on this

controversial issue, but that is also the weakness that people are so polarized that they will

ignore this article because of the confirmation bias people have grown up with in this

western society.

Grure, Guillaume P., and Mark W. Rosegrant. Assessing the Implementation Effects of the

Biosafety Protocol's Proposed Stringent Information Requirements for Genetically

Modified Commodities in Countries of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation. Review

of Agricultural Economics, vol. 30, no. 2, 2008, pp. 214232. Agricultural & Applied

Economics Association, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9353.2008.00401.x. Accessed 25 Feb. 2017.

This journal entry discusses the implications of the stringent laws passed against genetic

engineering companies and the issues this places for the advancement of research of

GMOs.

This source is highly credible because it comes from a peer reviewed science journal.

This relates to the research question because it is so relevant in the debate of GMOs. With

such strong regulations on genetic engineering companies, there will be no benefits and

only play into the misconceptions.

This is such a strong article because it is another one that works to destroy misconceptions

of the general public that think they are solving the problem but are only causing a much

bigger one. A weakness to this journal is that it is very hard to reach and extremely lengthy
 Newman 9

and the majority of the general public will not take the time to read and understand the full

scope of the problem.

The Editors. Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea. The Sciences, Scientific American , 8

Aug. 2013, www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/#.

Accessed 26 Feb. 2017.

The main point of this article is the problematic use of mandatory GMO labeling. One of

the issues it points out is that humans have been genetically modifying foods by natural

selection since the beginning of agriculture. Also it points out the very useful information

that labeling will only polarize more the feelings to GMOs without the proper education.

This shines a light on what people think will solve the problem of public perception

however it does so by only making it once, so this article points out a huge issue in one of

the most common responses to the research question.

This article is very credible because it comes from an independent incorporation that

seeks to educate the public and because it is so recent and relevant to the current debate.

This is such a strong source because GMO labeling seems to be such a simple answer to a

complex problem but in reality it only sets the public back farther in the problem. This

article is so interesting because it seems to initially take the side of big companies like

Monsanto on the issue but with further reading it only is there to educate the public more

and stop the ever rising polarization against GMOs.

Newman 10