Extended Inquiry Research Review

Krimsky, S. "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment."Science, Technology &
Human Values 40.6 (2015): 883-914. Web.
An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment by Sheldon Krimsky is a scholarly
article, published by certified Sage Journals. This credited article provides examples and credited
scientific evidence both by people of opposition and support towards genetically modified
organisms (GMOs). Krimsky provides three different clusters. Cluster one provides scientific
evidence that these genes are safe for humans. Cluster two argues that even though GMOs are
known to be safe, they should still continue to be tested. Cluster three shows experiments of
GMOs and the effects they have on animals. This article provides not only evidence that supports
safety of GMOs, but also provides examples of concern against GMOs. This is valuable to my
paper and research not only for the strong supportive evidence to my claim, but also allows me to
see another prospective- and add that to my paper as well.
Amofah, G. "Recommendations from a Meeting on Health Implications of Genetically Modified
Organism (GMO)." Ghana Medical Journal 48.2 (2014): 117. Web.
This medical journal, by Amofah, is another great addition of evidence to support the need of
GMOs. This journal not only talks of health benefits and potential risks but also addresses the
economical advantages of GMOs. Amofah addresses concerns for future generations. Problems
like climate change and world hunger and brought to attention. There is also a reminder of the
reason GMOs were invented and needed in the first place. Biotechnology has brought great
opportunities to keep up with our growing population. This is a key point I wished to address in
my paper. There is a negative stigma of GMOs and advantages can be overlooked. I plan to use
this research to quote and use examples of GMOs on a global scale. Amofahs medical journal
presents all aspects of advantages and disadvantages of GMOs.
Anonymous. "The Traveling GMO Roadshow." Wall Street Journal (2014): n. pag. Web. 2 Oct.
2016.
An anonymous author in the Wall Street Journal presents a political article on the state of
Colorado and Oregon. These states rejected a new ballot that would require labels on grocery
store items that say Produced with Genetic Engineering, in an effort to help inform consumers
of what they are purchasing. There are political points made about the effects of this bill on
residents of the state. It addresses farmers, large corporations such as Walmart, and also common
residents. Political aspects add great perspective to the global GMO argument. It also poses new
questions; how does food play a role in our politics? Most of the public doesnt consider how
food safety is regulated by our government. Also food production is often overlooked. The
government needs to look out for farmers, cooperate companies, as well as the public. This also
brings in the economical status of a state, and the effect GMOs have on it.

"GMO Foods - Truth About Genetically Modified Food." GMO Foods. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Oct.
2016.
GMO Foods- Truth About Genetically Modified Food. Is a great example of non-scholarly
propaganda. The author of this article admits that she has no scientific experience with GMOs or
food, but that her opinions and claims come from her passion of health and food safety. There are
scientific experiments brought up in this article, of long term tests on rats. In these tests, they
found that these rats quickly developed powerful tumors that ultimately killed the rats earlier
than their expected two-year life expectancy. Even though this study is talked about, there is no
solid reference or certification that this study actually exists- or was a valid study. Neither the
organization or the researchers are cited- so there is no way to prove that everything this woman
claims, is indeed true. There are also many big-named chemicals brought up in this article,
probably meant to scare the common public. When these most of these chemicals are actually
researched, there are no bad connotations associated with them. This article is a scare tactic used
to persuade the clueless public. It is a great talking point- that most scholarly articles that
prove GMOs are dangerous, are in fact not scholarly. They are not cited, and provide no evidence
of claims.
Https://www.facebook.com/NaturalNathanael/. "What I Learned from Six Months of GMO
Research: None of It Matters." Grist. N.p., 09 Jan. 2014. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
A dedicated, unbiased blogger/researcher presents a different prospective in his post, What I
Learned from Six Months of GMO Research: None of It Matters. Johnson explains that his
recent GMO posts had brought up controversy, and twitter fights. He writes that he vented to his
wife about these arguments and his wife only replied with No offense, but who cares? This
was an eye opening question to him. Thinking more on the subject he came to conclusion that his
wife was right, that these viscous public brawls were insignificant because the stakes were so
low. He paints a picture of two worlds: one GMO-free, and one where GMO resistance has
ceased. He points out the cons and pros of both worlds- but ultimately comes to the conclusion
that GMOs are not a monolithic entity. There different ways to experience and grow on both
sides of the argument. This is a vital talking point in the GMO debate. The truth is, there are
many different aspects to weigh out. What is more important? How can our society achieve
both? all new questions to answer and address.
(GENERA), GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas. "GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas
(GENERA)." Source Shows Half of GMO Research Is Independent. N.p., n.d. Web. 03
Oct. 2016.
GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas is an introductory article to the highly credited and widely
used atlas of scientific evidence. This article describes the birth of the GENERA. In 2014, the
public feared a lack of independence research and claimed that most research done on GMOs
were biased. The GENERA, public database, was created to prove that assumption wrong. The
new atlas showed there was an abundance of independent, unbiased research done on the topic of
GMOs. This not only strengthened GMO arguments by creating easily assessable, credited

research to the public, but also allowed others to post their findings as well. This is great
publicity to the GMO argument, and shows great evidence that GMOs are not as dangerous as
some may assume. When reading researched experiments to support your evidence, its good to
know that you can trust the source and this allowed the public to do so. The transparency of the
subjects brings cooperate and governmental corruption scams to a halt. There is independent,
unbiased research available.
Toxicology Sciences. "The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through
Biotechnology."The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through
Biotechnology. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2016.
An anonymous author contributes an informing article to the Toxicology Sciences webpage, and
provides not only reliable sources used to create the article, but also conveniently provides a list
of work that uses this article in their citations. He/she educates the public on what GMOs are,
where the discussion comes from, and how they believe the argument should be solved. They
share that the problem is not in biotechnology, and not how science is being used to manipulate
genes but the safety of the food itself. Genes and altercation of genes (the process) is not
considered dangerous. This is not what should be carefully examined and argued. The finishing
product, the food itself, is what should be tested for safety concerns. It should be tested as
validation that what the public is consuming is indeed okay. I appreciate that this article speaks
of biotechnology not as a sin, but as a way to improve our future. Biotechnology is not the
danger in this argument.
Paarlberg, Robert. "GMO Foods and Crops: Africa's Choice." New Biotechnology 27.5 (2010):
609-13. Web. 4 Oct. 2016.
Paarlberg brings the GMO argument to a global scale. GMO Foods and Crops: Africas
Choice. Is an article published by New Biotechnology in 2010, accompanied by a list of sources
used in this publication. Paarlberg speaks of the European Union and their take on GMOs
compared to the United States. The European Union does not recognize GMOs as a danger to
the public, but have laws that mandate evidence of a product having GMOs in it. In their
marketplace, a product must indicate weather it has even the slightest bit of GMOs in it. The
United States does not follow this policy. He also addresses the difference in cultures of the two.
Europe tends to have fewer farmers than the United States does. This is useful for me because in
my earlier research, I wished to gather further information on GMOs on a global scale. This also
addresses how beautifully the US has handled GMOs, by keeping not only the public and
environment safe, but also by allowing the practice and testing of GMOs to continue. This shows
a greater economic advantage to the US, by allowing their farmers to continue their
contributions. Its interesting to see how this can also help Africa get ahead. The discussion of
GMOs is much different on a global scale because you have to take in the factors of culture and
environment.

"GMO Education - Institute for Responsible Technology." Institute for Responsible Technology.
N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2016.