Annotated Works Cited

Chien, Shanley. "Genetically Modified Food Is Healthy." Global Sustainability, edited by Dedria
Bryfonski, Greenhaven Press, 2016. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Accessed 9 May 2017. Originally published as "GMOs: The Scarlet Letters of
the Grocery Aisle?" Medill Reports Chicago, 10 Mar. 2015.

Chiens article, originally published in Medill Reports Chicago, discussed the benefits of GMOs
and some of the misconceptions that the opposing arguments make. Shanley Chien is a student at
Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism and cites research conducted on more
than one hundred billion animals that were given genetically engineered and non-genetically
engineered animal feed that concludes both are equally safe. From the very beginning after
reading his title, his bias towards how GMOs are safe for human consumption is evident and
prevalent throughout his article. Compared to GMOs: the wrong answer to the wrong problem,
not only is the article style different but the position each of the two articles take are on opposite
ends of the spectrum. This article was informative and brought up some very unique points on
the reason behind the opposing viewpoint and it was interesting to read.

Davidson, Tish. "Genetically Modified Food." The Gale Encyclopedia of Public Health, edited
by Laurie J. Fundukian, vol. 1, Gale, 2013, pp. 384-387. Gale Virtual Reference Library.
Accessed 7 May 2017.

In Davidsons article, he discusses the definition, purpose, regulation, research, and viewpoint of
genetically modified organisms. The author has written several articles on various medical and
agricultural subjects and several have been published in the Gale Encyclopedia of Public Health.
The author discusses both arguments with relation to genetically modified organisms and does an
excellent job to avoid bias in his work. Compared to Hirschs GMOs this article goes more in
depth to the arguments at hand and both do an excellent job of avoiding bias. This article does an
excellent job giving a basic understanding to the pros and cons of genetically modified
organisms and readers an understanding of the controversy behind the topic.

"GMOs: the wrong answer to the wrong problem." UNESCO Courier, Jan. 2001, p. 30. Student
Edition. Accessed 8 May 2017.

In an interview by Michel Bessieres, he gives statistical and analytical data to prove his position
that GMOs are not the answer to the worlds growing need for food. With well-designed
questions and even better answers Bessieres does an excellent job conducting and analyzing the
interview and has substantial experience in this area of expertise. Unfortunately, there is an
obvious bias to the opposing viewpoint on the subject and he uses data and those he interviews to
support his claim. Compared to the majority of the sources I have found so far, this is the first
that has been set up as an interview style compared to an author giving information on the
subject. I found this article to be just as, if not more, helpful because of its statistical data and
the charts and graphs he uses to make his claim, even though it holds bias.
Hirsch, Jesse. "GMOs." Popular Mechanics, Sept. 2016, p. 108. Student Edition. Accessed 8
May 2017.

In Hirschs article, he quickly addresses the main arguments for both views on GMOs. Jesse is
an author and has written about food and culture for a variety of outlets including The New York
Times, The Wall Street Journal, The San Francisco Chronicle, and more. Hirsch does an
excellent job to avoid bias in his work and even describes how GMOs have shown no
discernible health effects on the human body but Until we're sure they are forcing producers
to label groceries containing GMOs--seems more than fair. Compared to Smiths article,
Taking to kids about GMOS: what you teach your children today can greatly affect the world,
Hirsch shows no bias towards any one argument and identifies both sides of the argument
beautifully. This article does an excellent job to identify arguments from both sides and avoid
bias in the process.

Lilliston, Ben. "Genetically Modified Organisms Are Contaminating Organic

Crops." Genetically Engineered Foods, edited by Nancy Harris, Greenhaven Press, 2003.
At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Accessed 9 May 2017. Originally published as
"Farmers Fight to Save Organic Crops," Progressive, vol. 65, Sept. 2001, p. 26.

Lillistons article develops the claim that GMOs arent necessarily bad for human health but as
pollen from these genetically modified plants spreads to nearby organic farms, farmers are seeing
contamination in their own crops and business. Ben Lilliston is the communications coordinator
for the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a group that works to assist family farmers in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. Lilliston coauthored Genetically Engineered Foods: A Self-Defense
Guide for Consumers. His bias is more towards the contamination that GMOs are causing to
organic crops in nearby fields and the effect on its farmers instead of their effects on human
health. Compared to Mercolas article, both authors support the same position on this topic but
have chosen this position for different reasons. This article offers yet another counterargument to
why GMOs should not be allowed for human consumption and will be useful in further research
on the topic.

Mercola, Joseph. "Genetically Modified Foods Are Not Safe to Eat." Genetically Modified Food,
edited by Tamara Thompson, Greenhaven Press, 2015. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Accessed 9 May 2017. Originally published as "Former Pro-GMO Scientist
Speaks Out on the Real Dangers of Genetically Modified Food, 28 May 2013.

Mercolas article discusses why he believes GMOs are unsafe for human consumption. He
believes that the technology used to create GMOs, genetic engineering, is based on a
misconception and serious problems may arise from horizontal gene transfer. Joseph Mercola
is an osteopath and a 2012 American College of Nutrition fellow; he has authored dozens of
scientific papers in addition to the best-selling books, The Great Bird Flu Hoax and The No-
Grain Diet. Mercola is quite biased towards the opposition of the human consumption of GMOs.
Compared to Chiens article, both authors offer different positions on the subject but Mercola
offers a deeper understanding of his position and reasons. Overall, this article is a very in depth
look into some of the oppositions to GMOs at a genetic level and will be an excellent addition to
ones understanding of the opposing viewpoints of this complex topic.

Smith, Melissa Diane. "Talking to kids about GMOS: what you teach your children today can
greatly affect the world." Better Nutrition, Apr. 2017, p. 66+. Student Edition. Accessed 8
May 2017.

In Smiths article, she addresses one way to bring up the conversation of genetically modified
foods to kids and lists some of the genetically modified crops on the market. Melissa is an author
for Better Nutrition and has written several articles on healthy habits and foods that may be bad
for your health. She shows bias against GMOs throughout her article and even places an image
of a broccoli stem with an evil face on its shadow. As compared to Davidsons Genetically
Modified Food, Smiths article is neither bias-free nor as information-rich as Davidsons but is
much easier to read and understand the content. This article is excellent for identifying some of
the most abundant GMOs and some of the ways to avoid them.

Walia, Arjun. "Genetically Modified Food Is Unhealthy." Global Sustainability, edited by Dedria
Bryfonski, Greenhaven Press, 2016. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Accessed 9 May 2017. Originally published as "10 Scientific Studies Proving
GMOs Can Be Harmful to Human Health," Collective-Evolution.com, 8 Apr. 2014.

Walias article focuses on explaining and discussing a study published in the peer-reviewed
Public Library of Science. The study focuses on the increased levels of Glyphosate in cattle and
some humans after the prolonged consumption of GMOs and their effects on the individuals
health. Arjun Walia is a writer for the alternative media website Collective-Evolution.com and
has written several articles in the past. The author is biased towards the prevention of the
consumption of GMOs and even links the prolonged consumption of these products to diseases
such as gluten intolerance, breast cancer, birth defects, autism, Parkinson's disease, and
Alzheimer's disease. Compared to Lillistons article, Walia offers a study conducted by a
different party as evidence but contradicts himself at the end of his article by mentioning that
more testing is needed and only offers this quote, So, if anybody ever tells you that GMOs are
completely safe for consumption, it's not true. We just don't know enough about them to make
such a definitive statement. A lot of evidence actually points to the contrary. This article offers
evidence based off a conducted study but the accuracy of the study comes into question near the
end of the article.

Weeks, Andrew. "Genetically Modified Crops Help Farmers." Genetically Modified Food, edited
by Tamara Thompson, Greenhaven Press, 2015. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Accessed 9 May 2017. Originally published as "Farmers Say GMOs Give Them
Competitive Edge," Times-News, 28 Apr. 2013.
Weeks article focuses on the effect GMOs have on farmers. When asked about how he stays
effective, one farmer responded by saying, You have to use genetic crops, change financially or
go out of business." Andrew Weeks is an award-winning journalist whose work has been
published in a variety of newspapers and magazines. His bias towards the use of GMOs is based
on the benefits to farmers and the survival of hard-working agricultural jobs. Compared to
Wendels article, Weeks focuses on the benefits to farmers while Wendel focuses on refuting the
evidence of counterargument studies. Weeks article offers yet another excellent point of
information for consumers to consider and should be included in the conversation as to whether
GMOs are a hit or miss.

Wendel, JoAnna. "Genetically Modified Foods Have Been Studied and Found Safe to Eat."
Genetically Modified Food, edited by Tamara Thompson, Greenhaven Press, 2015. At
Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Accessed 9 May 2017. Originally published as
"2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe to Eat and Environmentally Sustainable," 8 Oct.
2013.

Wendels article focuses on arguing against the claim some opponents make that they have
evidence from studies showing the harm from prolonged consumption of GMOs. JoAnna
Wendel is web editor for the Genetic Literacy Project, a nonprofit that explores the intersection
of DNA research, media, and policy to separate science from ideology. He is biased towards the
production and continued research of GMOs and the need for them to combat rising food needs
and costs. Compared to Walias article, Wendels claim is directly attacking articles like Walias
and both give information and statistics to convince others of their claim. Although offering a
claim that directly contradicts some of the previously stated counterarguments, Wendels article
has some great information that allows readers to decide for themselves as to the authenticity of
these studies.