74 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2016
    1. That was the most eye-opening finding in a Pew Research Center study on science literacy undertaken in cooperation with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and released in January. The survey represented a sample of 2,002 adult citizens and 3,748 scientists, all members of the AAAS.

      A company that has vested interest in making GMOs appear safe.

    2. Yes, there is a vigorous public discussion over GMOs. Yes, the thought of tinkering with our food in a lab—unaccountable scientists mixing steaming flasks—conjures up visions of soylent green and grotesque deformities. Let us acknowledge it; no one wants “technology” for dessert. The thought of GMO foods is not appetizing!

      The author really connects to the opposition here, voicing their concerns and somewhat agreeing with them.

    3. then tested the heck out of them for safety and allergenicity

      In all the previous articles I've read it has been stated that these GMOs are not required to be tested, so I would probably like to research this topic more so I could determine whether or not these products are tested for safety.

    4. You may have read, from anti-GMO websites or oh so reliable sources like Dr. Oz, or Jeffrey Smith’s Institute for Responsible Technology or Food Babe that the use of GMOs has unleashed a pesticide tsunami that is sweeping across the plains. Not

      The overtly sarcastic tone in this article is just obnoxious. With such a controversial topic I think it would be wise for the author to be a bit more serious.

    5. Introduced barely a decade ago, now upwards of 90 percent of Indian cotton is grown using Bt seeds

      While bragging that the crops have been introduced very recently and their benefits in such a short time the author is missing the very controversial point that these crops have not been tested for their long term effects.

    6. Among other nefarious tactics, anti-GMO activist posing as journalists have been telling farmer that their children could become paralyzed from eating Br brinjal.

      This statement seems overly defensive possibly turning away the author's intended audience. It also has improper grammar, further lessening the author's credibility.

    7. alled Bt, that is highly specific to pests but is nontoxic to birds, fish and humans. It is less toxic than table salt. It has been used safely in organic farming for nearly 100 years.

      I have trouble fathoming how something can kill insects but is completely harmless to humans, is is because of the dosage? I would like to do more research on this to see if this is possible.

    8. It is not owned or patented by major corporations. It is grown from public sector seeds, developed for distribution to resource-poor shareholder farmers.

      The author states this as if it is an important fact, whereas most GMOs are produced by a private sector.

    9. In fact, almost none of our foods that we eat today is the product of Nature’s way.

      Selecting genes to pronounce in food is different than taking genes from other organisms and inserting them into another organism. Author loses credibility here for presenting GMOs as selective breeding.

    10. The Case for GMOs and Sustainability

      Entine, John. "The Case for GMOs and Sustainability | Genetic Literacy Project." Genetic Literacy Project. 02 June 2015. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.

    11. GMO critics seem comfortable with that kind of genetic manipulation. But when it comes to inserting genes from one species into another, many people go “yuck,” claiming that it is “totally different” than conventional breeding.

      The author just led his readers to believe that the two were the same in the beginning of the article, yet now he states that they are different things. Again, losing credibility.

      The author's claim is that selective breeding and genetically modifying foods are essentially the same and we have been doing this for thousands of years, so GMOs must be safe.

    12. In fact, almost none of our foods that we eat today is the product of Nature’s way.

      The author here loses credibility because selective breeding in plants is different than genetically modifying plants genes.

    13. And that way you could avoid the ‘taint’ of eating food that might have come in contact with ‘dangerous’ GMOs

      The author already loses the interest of the audience they are trying to reach here by mocking them. The "they" the author is trying to persuade is probably cautious of genetically modified foods.

    1. documented health dangers

      Not very reliable since it links us to the author's own website.

    2. By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them out of our food supply.

      The author's call to action to the people.

    3. GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all.

      Interesting, since this is one of the main arguments for GMOs. I would like to look further into this for scientific proof for my paper.

    4. Attempts by media to expose problems are also often censored

      Since a lot of studies are conducted by the GMO pioneer companies themselves, such as Monsanto, it really is impossible to get diverse and unbiased information out to the public.

    5. GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects.

      Such as? The author isn't a doctor and does not present his education, so I do not know where he is claiming to have gathered this information.

    6. M plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.

      The author is losing ethos here as he does not even have an example. These claims would have been super convincing if he had some citations to back them up.

    7. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

      Without a citation, all of the evidence he is presenting from apparently his own knowledge is hard to believe.

    8. Not only does this create environmental harm

      What does it do to our environment?

    9. GMOs increase herbicide use

      Are herbicides bad? Bad for humans, the environment?

    10. . GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure

      The only reason why this is bad is because of the possible negative effects of GMOs. If GMOs are safe then this reason would not matter.

    11. The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.

      Throughout this whole article the author is trying to convince the people who do not oppose GMOs. The "they" he is addressing is the group of people who are convinced that gm foods are safe.

    12. 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs

      Smith, Jeffrey. "10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs." Institute for Responsible Technology. 14 Mar. 2016. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

      The author's claim is in the title, he wants consumers to avoid GMOs for 10 specific reasons. And obviously this author is very biased as he is advising his readers to avoid GMOs without providing any evidence first.

    13. AAEM

      This appears to be a credible and reliable source https://www.aaemonline.org/

    14. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.

      Would like a citation for this, this is too serious of a claim to not have any proof.

  2. www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org
    1. In summary, there are no data to support the claim that GM products are universally safe. In contrast, there is increasing evidence from the scientific community that some GM crops and definitely the herbicides that are required to produce the major GM crops are toxic

      restating claim

    2. These issues are too complex to discuss here,

      This kind of discredits the author, it seems like he is jumping around the issue or does not think his audience is intelligent enough to comprehend the data.

    3. But the glyphosate resistant GM crops do not die, while the surrounding weeds are killed. There are a number of studies showing that glyphosate is an endocrine disrupter and toxic to humans.[18][19]

      So while tests have not been conducted on gm foods, there have been tests conducted on the herbicides sprayed on gm crops - which have been found to be toxic.

    4. [12][13]

      I really appreciate that he has links for every one of his claims, no matter how small.

    5. Within the U.S., the scientific discussion of health hazards associated with GM crops is muted because it is largely controlled by industry and pro-industry plant scientists within the major scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

      Interesting because I just annotated an article from the AAAS and did not notice an inherent bias, but also did not notice any criticism of gm foods.

    6. and we do not know about future GMO

      ok but what about present gmos?

    7. The laws that dictate the approval of GM foods were written by Monsanto, the company that developed the first GM plants.[9]

      This shows that the interests of large companies (monopolies in the GMO industry) do not put the concern of the consumer first, instead profit is the end goal.

    8. This case would have been much harder to trace to the source without the required labeling of the supplement.

      This is an accident related to gm foods, without gm labeling,companies could not be held accountable for deaths caused by their products (may be why they're pressing for non-required gm labeling)

    9. and from my view as a medical research scientist

      again, boosting his ethos by showing the reader that he has experience in this subject.

    10. n contrast, Bt-corn makes a bacterial insecticide that binds to and damages cells of the gut of insects and likely does the same in humans.[5] Finally, the GM papaya was engineered to resist a plant virus and may be perfectly safe to eat.[6] But until some comprehensive safety testing protocols are mandated, at a minimum similar to those required for all other food additives, the buyer should be given the option of whether to take the risk or not

      The author states the supposed harms of gm foods, but also says that there is a possibility that some of them are perfectly safe. This adds to his credibility by showing he is open to the possibility that gm foods may be perfectly safe, just a bit testing is required to prove that.

    11. The production of GM soy requires large amounts of herbicides containing the chemical glyphosate, declared a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization (WHO).[3][4]

      Quoting the World Health Organization which is very reliable is a big ethos booster for the author. The WHO is an unbiased organization that doesn't have any corporations interests in mind.This is also very valuable information for me and my twine project, who would want to each a verified carcinogen?

    12. (1) All existing plants produced by GM technology are different from each other and all pose different levels of risk to health; (2) Because most anything is possible in the world of genetic engineering, we have no way of knowing what will be introduced into our food chain in the future, and; (3) Finally, this is all made more problematic because there is no required Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety testing of any GM product, and in fact to date none has been tested for toxicity.[1][2]

      He is addressing the "they" throughout the article that do not believe it be necessary to label GMO foods. Here he states his reasons simply upfront with citations.

    13. David Schubert

      He is a Salk Institute scientist with plenty of experience and education.

    14. Most people would prefer to have foods containing genetically modified products labeled as such.

      This is the author's claim, he is stating that even though there are many studies claiming that GM foods are safe, there is mounting evidence that says differently.


      Schubert, By David. Gene Watch Page. Gene Watch Page. Jan. 2016. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

    1. Were any of the Séralini data genuine, major producers of breeding livestock could not have failed to notice and report similar phenomena

      Again these are claims without any evidence. How do we know that many animals in factory farms do not have tumors because we do not see them and many tumors on larger animals are not easily visible.

    2. Well-designed chronic toxicity studies in multiple species using doses of herbicide orders of magnitude higher than those tested by Séralini and colleagues have demonstrated no toxic effects

      Now this just doesn't make sense. Something designed to kill another living organism is somehow considered safe to consumer for humans?

    3. Perhaps the most revealing aspect of this report is the claimed toxicity of glyphosate (Roundup) in drinking water (0.1 ppb of Roundup or 50 ng/L of glyphosate) with the highest incidence of tumors supposedly found in the animals administered the lowest dose

      I agree that this does not add up, but also I think that it is implausible that such a large number of the rats developed such significant and life threatening just because of their breed.

    4. author’s


      The author of the study that they are criticizing has his own website. It honestly does not look very credible, but I have not read the information that he has provided regarding the study he conducted.

    5. It is therefore a disturbing trend that when the science is indefensible, the tactic has become one of questioning the right of other scientists to critique questionable results. Scientists who have questioned Séralini’s flawed results have been automatically accused of corporate corruption or of making attacks on academic freedom

      This article continually makes claims that are not supported. I am confused as to if they expect their readers to go and research the claims they are making or if they expect them to believe them without evidence.

    6. was a transparent attempt to discredit regulatory agencies around the world, and to get the public to insist on different standards of regulation for GM crops (Entine 2012)

      This journal is attempting to claim that there was some duplicitous motive to the study they are critiquing. Kind of unnerving that it feels like they have to defend the standards of regulations on GM foods.

    7. erroneous

      The bias in this paper is palpable. If they were simply reporting facts and left out the claims that the this study was "erroneous" without first supplying proof then I would trust this article much more.

    8. The tide of criticism was joined by the competent national authorities

      Claiming that nations that are "competent" because they agree with the authors of this article is extremely biased and an unsound claim.

    9. (Butler 2012).

      Off the bat the source they cite does not appear credible, they reference a study that the company itself (Monsanto) conducted that had different results than an independent study.

    10. Here we discuss the many errors and inaccuracies in the published article resulting in highly misleading conclusions, whose publication in the scientific literature and in the wider media has caused damage to the credibility of science and researchers in the field.

      The claim for this article is that another study has had many inaccuracies that have led the public to distrust GM foods. The "they" that they are refuting is the people who have read and trust the conclusions presented by the article they are attempting to disprove in this article.

    11. Manuel Portero


      This author appears qualified and has some other articles he has published on different topics.

    12. Gemma Arjó


      This author appears to have several articles on the safety of GM foods showing she already has a set opinion on this topic.

    13. Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: an in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats

      Arjó, Gemma, Manuel Portero, Carme Piñol, Juan Viñas, Xavier Matias-Guiu, Teresa Capell, Andrew Bartholomaeus, Wayne Parrott, and Paul Christou. "Plurality of Opinion, Scientific Discourse and Pseudoscience: An in Depth Analysis of the Séralini Et Al. Study Claiming That Roundup™ Ready Corn or the Herbicide Roundup™ Cause Cancer in Rats." Transgenic Research 22.2 (2013): 255-67. Springer Link. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

    1. Moreover, we must avoid the temptation to further sacrifice Earth’s already hugely depleted biodiversity for easy gains in food production, not only because biodiversity provides many of the public goods on which mankind relies but also because we do not have the right to deprive future generations of its economic and cultural benefits. Together, these challenges amount to a perfect storm.

      I think the "they" the authors' are addressing in this article are people are unaware or in denial of the urgency of this situation.

    2. Efforts to increase sustainable production limits that benefit the poorest nations will need to be based around new alliances of businesses, civil society organizations, and governments.

      Unlike one company making all of the decisions, we need multiple organizations working together to keep the interests of the people and the environment in mind.

    3. Because genetic modification involves germline modification of an organism and its introduction to the environment and food chain, a number of particular environmental and food safety issues need to be assessed

      The authors' appear to be doing a good job of leaving their biases out of this article. They evenly present to pros and cons of the situation and offer solutions but also explain the drawbacks.

    4. We also accept the need for this technology to gain greater public acceptance and trust before it can be considered as one among a set of technologies that may contribute to improved global food security.

      They say "we" as though they have a dog in this fight with the universal acceptance of GMOs.

    5. Just as seriously, it also led to a virtual monopoly of GM traits in some parts of the world, by a restricted number of companies, which limits innovation and investment in the technology.

      This goes right back to my current research question. Monopolies in the food industry, especially in the agrichemical business delete competition and innovation leaving the consumers' interests behind.

    6. and a switch from public to private sources

      Is it dangerous that we are switching from a public to a private source? Do these private sources have the consumers' best interest in mind?

    7. Currently, the major commercialized genetically modified (GM) crops involve relatively simple manipulations, such as the insertion of a gene for herbicide resistance or another for a pest-insect toxin.

      Genetically modifying foods can make them resistant to certain toxins which are sprayed on the foods. To do this they insert a gene to make these plants resistant - do we know where these genes come from and if they're safe?

    8. conventional breeding to develop F1 hybrid varieties of maize and semi-dwarf, disease-resistant varieties of wheat and rice. These varieties could be provided with more irrigation and fertilizer (20) without the risk of major crop losses due to lodging (falling over) or severe rust epidemics.

      Conventional breeding of selected traits could increase yield and limit crop losses.

    9. In this article, major strategies for contributing to the challenge of feeding 9 billion people, including the most disadvantaged, are explored. Particular emphasis is given to sustainability, as well as to the combined role of the natural and social sciences in analyzing and addressing the challenge

      This is basically the thesis for this article.

    10. n recent decades, agricultural land that was formerly productive has been lost to urbanization and other human uses, as well as to desertification, salinization, soil erosion, and other consequences of unsustainable land management (16). Further losses, which may be exacerbated by climate change, are likely

      All the ways that humans formerly increased food production are becoming less available as it is destroying our ecosystems. Therefore other solutions must be found.

    11. A threefold challenge now faces the world (9): Match the rapidly changing demand for food from a larger and more affluent population to its supply; do so in ways that are environmentally and socially sustainable; and ensure that the world’s poorest people are no longer hungry.

      The authors' claim is that the way we are producing food now is not sustainable and there needs to be a new way to get food to the masses without further damaging our environment.

    12. Science  12 Feb 2010:Vol. 327, Issue 5967, pp. 812-818DOI: 10.1126/science.1185383

      American Association for the Advancement of Science is the world's largest general scientific society. It publishes five respected peer reviewed journals.

    13. H. Charles J. Godfray1,


      Godfray has a lot of experience and including nine other authors this article most likely has a lot of relevant information.

    14. Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People
      Godfray, H. C. J., J. R. Beddington, I. R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence, J. F. Muir, J. Pretty, S. Robinson, S. M. Thomas, and C. Toulmin. "Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People." Science 327.5967 (2010): 812-18. AAAS. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

      The article is already setting the tone that it will be exploring the ways for the majority of people to get fed with the skyrocketing population.

  3. Sep 2016
    1. . Which, Adnan wrote, “took about ten to fifteen minutes.”

      Again, creating the doubt in our minds with Adnan's words instead of hers so she doesn't seem to be taking sides.

  4. Aug 2016
    1. Maybe I’m a little bit confused. As you’re standing on the south side of the tree, between the tree and the road

      http://i.imgur.com/3H9LWuZ.png This is a picture of the crime scene, as we an see the area is fairly open and visible to the street. Maybe this is why Mr. S goes so far back, but it is curious how he stumbles on a body that seems to be fairly well hidden.

    2. quite a ways it seems like for a guy who just has to pee.

      Again her bias is very obvious, she assumes that something is fishy because he goes 127 feet, what seems quite a bit of a distance to her, in order to urinate. Koenig is doing her best to make this sound like a mystery novel by creating so many possible scenarios in the audience's mind by making her thoughts and assumptions known to the reader.

    3. Her brother, Saad, Adnan’s best friend, he didn’t know anything about Leakin Park either.

      Again, Koenig is painting a picture of Adnan and the company he keeps for us. This line makes us assume that since Adnan's best friend was not aware of where the park was, why would Adnan have such knowledge either?

    4. A lot of law-abiding Baltimoreans, they don’t really know where Leakin Park is

      As far as Koenig has presented Adnan, we view him as a a "law-abiding" citizen (besides being a normal teenager). She is already attempting to create a bit of doubt in our minds that Adnan even knew where the park was or how to get there.