Krystall Fasel
English 102
Annotated Bibliography
Ackerman,
Jennifer. “Food: How Altered?” National Geographic. Environment:
National Geographic, 2015. Web. 10 October 2015.
In understanding GMO products I looked into an article in National Geographic Magazine. Jennifer
Acherman wrote, “Food: How Altered?” that introduced the differences in
modifying plant DNA. There has been many instances where people breed and
crossbreed different plants for different outcomes. Most often these natural
breeding processes produce plants that grow somewhat differently than their
original DNA seeds produced. With the genetic engineering introduced in the
1970’s the plant’s DNA changes unnaturally and significantly. These changes
sound to be positive though there are still many questions. Countries outside
of the United States have banned many of these products even though they have
many starving citizens. This article is helpful in understanding GMO crops and
the environmental concerns around the world.
“Bacillus
Thuringiensis.” University of San Diego.
www.be.ucsd.edu/gmo. Web. 24 Oct. 2015
The group at the University of San Diego work with
understanding the Bt proteins used in GMO crops. The Bt gene is a natural
insecticide that has been used for many years externally on crops to control
insects without using chemical pesticides. In 1996 bacillus thuringiensis was
modified into many crops to help the plants protect themselves without having
to actually spray insecticides on them. The procedure helped environmentally by
not needing dangerous toxins though there have been other concerns on the
effects that could potentially come out. Throughout my research the Bt protein has been
talked about as a concern. This article goes in depth on explaining exactly
what it is.
Barbot, Paul.
“Monsanto and Syngenta Tighten Stranglehold on Global Food Supply.” Truthout. OP-ED, 06 Oct. 2015. Web. 24
Oct. 2015.
Paul Barbot wrote an article “Monsanto and Syngenta Tighten
Stranglehold on Global Food Supply”, these companies are chronicled throughout
most of these articles as being in control of the patented GMO seeds. There are
political and monetary gain in owning the rights to these altered organisms,
taking over the needs of the worlds food supply. Perhaps this is just one of
the reasons that other countries are adverse towards allowing such products
into their agricultural systems. An explained introduction to these companies
is crucial to my research as they are mentioned in many articles.
Bello, Walden.
“Twenty-Six Countries Ban GMO’s – Why Won’t the US?” The Nation. Foreign Policy In Focus, 29 Oct. 2013. Web. 24 Oct.
2015.
In the article by Walden Bello and Foreign Policy In Focus,
“Twenty-Six Countries Ban GMOs—Why Won’t the US?” prove that many countries
have banned GMOs based on the fact that there have not been enough studies done
to prove that the cross pollination of a GMO field would not have adverse
effects on natural crops being grown close in proximity. There are also
concerns with the patented GMO seeds being in control of a single corporation.
This article chronicles the concerns of many countries outside of the United
States that are against using GMO crops, it is helpful in the asking of
questions for the lack of understanding or involvements in the U.S.
Carini, Frank. “Are
GMO’s Safe?” ecoRInews. ecoRInews, 22
Sep. 2014. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.
Carini brings into perspective one of the leading causes for
GMO concerns being in the large corporations gaining control of the world’s
food supply. There are six main
companies that control this multibillion-dollar market of bioengineered
products:
·
Monsanto
·
DuPont
·
Bayer
·
BASF
·
Syngenta
·
Dow Chemical Co
Many organic farmers feel that there is an unfair advantage
to these companies to patent and control many of these crops when the wind and
nature play an important role in seed pollination. The article also considers
scientific research as to why GMO’s are safe as well as concerns that contrast
the same information. Labeling is addressed with many facts including the
differences between the U.S. and the U.N.
Delwaide,
Anne-Cécile, et al. "Revisiting Gmos: Are There Differences In European
Consumers’ Acceptance And Valuation For Cisgenically Vs Transgenically Bred
Rice?." Plos ONE 10.5 (2015): 1-16. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 8 Oct. 2015.
In the research article, “Revisiting GMOs: Are There
Differences in European Consumers’ Acceptance and Valuation for Cisgenically vs
Transgenically Bred Rice?” We dive into the fact that with global growth we
must find a way to feed so many people. Rice is a staple for many cultures and
it seems that genetically altering the DNA of the rice will increase its
production rate even in times of flood or drought. This article gives fact and
percentages to make points very clear. The information is useful when discussing
rice or wheat and important in explaining how other countries are excepting the
GMO products.
Dubock, Adrian.
"The Politics Of Golden Rice." GM Crops & Food 5.3
(2014): 210-222. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.
“The Politics of Golden Rice”, is a thorough investigation
into the not-for-profit Golden Rice project. Using the explanation that a GMO
is where the DNA from one species is added to another to alter its organic
properties. The golden rice is a GMO rice that has been modified by adding
vitamin A to its DNA to make a healthier product for human consumption. The
thought was to grow these crops in countries devastated by famine to far better
feed the communities in need.
“GMO’s: Solution
or Problem?” EOI: Escuela De Organizocion
Industial. Guillermo Jose Latorre Merino, 27 Feb. 2014. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
This article explains what a GMO or Genetically Modified
Organism is. The Advantages of using these crops to produce more food using
genetically altered crops. Also explaining that are still unknown health
concerns for human consumption that have created an objection worldwide to
these organisms. This article has helped
me ask questions for my research project as well as explain both the positive
and negative effects.
Herrick, Clare B.
"‘Cultures Of GM’: Discourses Of Risk And Labelling Of Gmos In The UK And
EU." Area 37.3 (2005): 286-294. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 8 Oct. 2015.
“Cultures of GM’: Discourses of Risk and Labelling of GMOs
in the UK and EU” by Clare Herrick the questions are begging to be answered.
The controversy of what these crops could possibly do to human health, agriculture
and local farms are being looked at. People are looking at facts from around
the world and wondering why the United States has not been labeling possible
GMO products. This is a useful article when conveying the importance of GMO
labeling.
“Honey Bee Health.” Monsanto. Monsanto, 2015.
Web. 13 October 2015.
This article comes from the Monsanto Company showing concern
for the honey bee. These bees are essential to the health of all crops.
Monsanto explains how they are using many organizations to promote healthy ways
to protect honey bees as well as care for them. This is an article that leads
me to question why so many organizations are against this company.
Kwa, Aileen.
“Agriculture in Developing Countries: Which way forward?” focusweb.org.
Focus on the Global South, June 2001. Web. 13 October 2015.
In the article by Aileen Kwa, “Agriculture in Developing
Countries: Which way Forward?” many farmers in South America, Africa and Asia
are being forced into the new farming industrialization. These practices are
causing concern in the overuse of pesticides. Many farmers are having to
modernize their farm manufacturing for their own livelihood and welfare of
property. This article coincides with my understanding and explanation of small
farmers throughout the world and how the GMO
product is effecting small crop fields.
Lieberman, Sarah,
and Tim Gray. "Gmos And The Developing World: A Precautionary
Interpretation Of Biotechnology." British
Journal Of Politics & International Relations 10.3 (2008): 395-411. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Oct.
2015.
Sarah Lieberman and Tim Gray consider the differences
between the United States and European Union when it comes to GM food aid
policies and agricultural biotechnology. Where China is the leading recipient
of GM crops from the U.S. many other nations have refused shipments of even
food aid containing GM products. This article shows all of the differences
between the U.S. and E.U. and how it is effecting other nations in their
decisions in using GM crops and products.
Lobb, Richard L.
“Green Revolution.” Encyclopedia of Food
and Culture. The Gale Group Inc., 2003. Web. 24 Oct. 2015.
The Green Revolution is talked about in many other articles.
This is an explanation of when and how it was all started. In the 1960’s and
1970’s the modernization of genetically altered agriculture was just becoming
popular. Its products were doubling the production of many crops including
wheat, rice and corn. The thought was to produce more food per capita though
many objections came out when it seemed that the larger farms were the only
ones able to benefit from altered seeds.
“Maps of GMO-Free
Zones in Europe.” Map. GMO Free Europe.
GMO Free Europe, 2015. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.
The web site (http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/gmo-free-regions/maps.html)
shows how many different countries in Europe are gluten free or closely
moderate how many GMOs will be allowed. It is extremely interesting to see how
other countries perceive GMO products in relation to the US that does not seem
to mind them at all.
Paarlberg, Robert. "A Dubious Success:
The NGO Campaign Against Gmos." GM Crops & Food 5.3
(2014): 223-228.Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.
Robert Paarlberg
explains NGO organizations and their effect on GMO crops. NGO organizations are
not-for-profit nongovernmental organizations. They tend to be more accepted by
society as they are not corporate-led with monetary agendas. In “A Dubious
Success: The NGO Campaign Against GMOs” the Greenpeace International and
Friends of the Earth International are European NGO groups that work with NGO groups
in the United States as well as Canada. Their most recent global campaign it
for the labeling of foods containing GMO products. For the parties that are
pro-GMO, using scientific proof that GMOs are perfectly safe has not seemed to
make much of a difference for many other countries that have refused GMO crops or
aid shipments containing GMO products. Many feel it to be unfair that NGO
organizations of rich countries would label a product unsafe causing the
rejection from poor cultures to receive aid. This article also counters other articles
in stating that GMO crops are beneficial to farmers.
Roe, Brian and
Mario F. Teisl. “Genetically Modified Food Labeling: The Impacts of Message on
Consumer Perceptions of Labels and Products.” Food Policy 32.1 (2001): 49-66. Science
Diet. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.
Brian Roe and Mario Teisl’s article “Genetically Modified
Food Labeling: The Impact of Message and Messenger on Consumer Perceptions of
Labels and Products” detail the fact that there are potential benefits to using
these genetically modified seeds though there still claims of health and
agricultural concern. Manufacturers can voluntarily label products of GM
content though they are not required to. There is concern that because not
enough testing has been done labeling a product GMO could potentially make the
product second-rate to organic products of its own category. Many farmers being
pressured into using genetically altered seeds are forced to buy products from
companies such as Monsanto or Syngenta. The labelling of GMO product are very
important to my research as it is part of my thesis.
"The Farmer's Friend. (Cover
Story)." New Internationalist 481 (2015): 23-27. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.
In “The Farmer’s Friend” cover story of New Internationalist, the controversial Bt seeds are explored.
These seeds are genetically altered to reduce the need of insecticides. Again
farmers are expected to use these seeds coming from corporate companies and not
being able to reproduce other crops with stock of regrowth seeds. In the height
of necessity many farms are producing these crops that produce products that
consumers are buying every day at the market. The United States consumers are
asking questions and wanting to know what it is that they are buying.
"The People Vs Monsanto (And Other GM
Giants). (Cover Story)." New Internationalist 481 (2015):
24-25. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.
“The People Vs
Monsanto” is a collective statement from farmers, beekeepers, and campaigners
around the world showing the devastation of such a large corporation being in
control of a “seed”. There are many that have won the battle by proving
scientifically how much damage can be done with such a great power. These are
the groups and people that have succeeded in pushing back at Monsanto by using
science and the law to prove their point. There are many great sources to check
into throughout this article.
“The war Against
GMO Labeling.” GMO Awareness. GMO
Awareness, 21 Aug. 2012. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
The GMO Awareness
website is fighting hard to have manufactures label GMO products. The site
gives some history on failed propositions and ways to promote finally approving
one. These initiatives have been denied or rejected due to Monsanto and other
large corporations funding anti-labeling campaigns. Buying organic produce and
organic groceries is a sure way to stay clear of processed GMO foods. Many companies
that Americans are familiar with using GMO products are:
·
Bumble
Bee Foods
·
Campbell
Soup Company
·
Pepperidge
Farms
·
Coca-Cola
·
Dole
Packaged Foods Company
·
General
Mills
·
Hershey
Company
·
Kelloggs
United States.
Library of Congress. “Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms.”Law.gov. 9
June 2015. Web. 1 Nov. 2015.
“Restrictions on
Genetically Modified Organisms” is from the Library of Congress. It outlines
and somewhat defines the many different organizations that are in control of
GMO crops and products. The public and scholarly opinions are examined and
considered. Many feel there is not enough regulations on GMO products in that
many citizens don’t even know the amount of the product that they are
consuming. It is also brought up that the United States relies on the
biotechnology industry and products for a large percent of profit for the US
economy.
Walia, Arjun. “10
Scientific Studies Proving GMO’s can be Harmful to Human Health.” Collective-Evolution. CE,
8 April 2014. Web. 13 October 2015.
Arjun Walia lists the ten most common reasons for many
countries to ban or consider banning GMO products. The article “10 Scientific
Studies Proving GMO’s can be Harmful to Human Health”, begins by explaining
that there has not been enough research done on GMO’s to prove that it is completely
safe for human consumption. Some of the studies done go into detail on the negative
effects of GMOs in the human body. There have been cases of toxins being found
in the fetus of a woman’s body and in newborns with birth defects. The
complexity of DNA in the modified crops are showing up in the bloodstream of
some tested. This also has been shown to create difficulty with the digestion
of gluten containing GMOs. There have also been studies that link some of the
chemicals used on bioengineered crops can have cancer causing properties,
mostly with human breast cancer cell growth. There are many more health
concerns including links to GMOs and autism or Alzheimer’s. The chemicals used
on these crops are much more dangerous than organic grown plants.
