I read through the websites, not really sure what the next one would entail. When I finished reading through all three it seemed that two had the exact opposite information in it and one included each point of view. The purpose for posting the information on each site was pretty clear. The Monsanto site seemed focused on selling their product to farmers. Since there was a product involved it was clearly not going to address any negative side effects, even if they were aware of it's existence. Saynotogmo's was a site dedicated to educating Texans,a s well as the rest of society, sbout the dangers and effects of genetically engineering food. Nature.com, at first seemed to present the advancements and benefits of GMO's. Until I read further and realized it had information in support of and against GMO's.
I believe that the Scitable (Nature.com) site had the most reliable/authoritative information. It was the only site tha It included an author This site included references and links to other pertinent information.This site had credible information clearly posted. The second most credile site was 'Saynotogmo'. including reliable references and contact info, as well as being an organization. It was obviously biased, stating only the negative aspects of Genetically modifed organisms. Monsanto was, in my opinion, the least credible due to the fact that it's main purpose was the sale of a product. Monsanto was definitely the most biased, presenting GMO as the answer to the World's lack of food. I read absolutely nothing in this website that stated anything negative about gmo's, when there obviously are numerous concerns regarding this subject.
Until I began learning about genetically modifed foods in this course, the thought never crossed my mind that they couls be harmful. Actually I was oblivious to anything about this subject. I can't really say that I will stop eating any certain foods now that I am aware of this issue either. I do pay more attention to the things I buy, however my trips to the grocery store and the foods I buy have not changed. Maybe in the future, when I am not struggling to feed a family of six, I will be able to become pickier about my selections.
I cannot think of a reason that food shouldn't need to be labeled as containing genetically modified foods, when that is exactly what it contains. Consumers in America should be able to know exactly what it is they are buying.
McHughen, Alan "Pandora's picnic basket:the potential and hazards of Genetically Modified Foods" Oxford, New York: Oxford University; Press 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my post I had Monsanto and saynotogmos.com as tied for least reliable. But I was definitely siding more with Monsanto as the least. The reason I mention this is because most people's blogs that I've read has put Monsanto as the second most reliable. For me, I ask myself "who will gain the most from me reading their material?" The answer is always corporations because they are trying to sell you something. The saynotogmos organization gains nothing from you and you can choose what you gain from them.
ReplyDelete