1.

Book
Ensuring Safe Food: From Production to Consumption. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy, 1998. Print.
1. The primary audience for this book is people with a scientific background.
For example, this book discusses pathogens that are of concern with
regards to food poisoning. This would be something someone with a
scientific background would be interested in, but probably not the general
public. This is very helpful information for me as a researcher.
2. This book helps me with my research project because it explains the
process that food goes under between its production and its consumption.
For example, the author discusses the hazard systems that are in place to
reduce foodborne illness. This is helpful for the part of my research paper
regarding prevention of foodborne illness. The author also discusses
human and animal disease in regards to causes of foodborne illness, such
as Salmonella. This is helpful for the part of my paper regarding causes of
foodborne illness.
3. The book is unbiased and does not make any unsupported claims. One
example of exemplary scholarship in this book is when the author
discusses how the FDA handles imported foods. The author supports this
claim by saying that the FDA uses chemical and physical inspection, by
sampling, which results in inspection of about 3 percent of imported lots.
The author then cites the source from which they got this information.
4. The author cites a variety of information. For this reason, the author has
broken down these citations into appendices. Anything that the author
cited is explained in these appendices, including appropriate dates and
times. This makes the authors citation information more organized and
lends to the credibility of the information in the book.
5. The book is not from within the last five years. The book was published in
1998. While some of the more biological information may be somewhat
out of date, much of the information is still relevant today. The safety
procedures still exist and foodborne illness is still as much of a concern
today as it was in 1998.
6. The author of this book is actually multiple authors. It was written by the
Committee to Ensure Safe Food, the National Research Council, and the
National Academy of Sciences. The acknowledgements at the end list
many people who contributed to the book, including members of the FDA,
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the EPA, the
CDC, etc. Therefore, between the many people who contributed to this
book, the credibility of information is very high. These individuals could all
be considered authorities on at least specific parts of the subject, so
together they make up multiple committees of authorities on this subject.
7. The book was published by the National Academy Press in Washington,
D.C. This is not necessarily important for scientific-type research.
However, the National Academy Press is a well-known publisher.

Therefore, people may be more likely to trust information coming from this
source.
8. The book is listed on WorldCat, which is a database specifically for
academic research. Therefore, the book is considered at least somewhat
academic in nature. It can also be found on the National Academies Press
website. I did not find any book reviews for it online, but it comes up on
multiple websites that generally cite prestigious and/or credible works.
Therefore, it has likely been used in other works. The information in the
book, however, is not necessarily ground-breaking. Much of it is wellknown information, but it is organized to help people with scientific
backgrounds better understand the issue of foodborne illness and what is
being done/has been done about it.
9. The implication of this source are mostly related to the direction of
research. The book points to new safety procedure in food processing,
handling, and consumption. It also helps give a broader idea of how
people get food poisoning. Therefore, this book gives people new things to
look into and a better idea of where the research needs to go from here.
Whether that means there needs to be safer food handling processes or
there needs to be more research done on causes, there is still a lot of
research that needs to be done on this subject.
10.I would rate this book a 4 on quality. While the information is well
organized, there is some political jargon that I got hung up on.
Additionally, because it is a bit older the information has to be checked to
ensure that it is still relevant to what is happening today on this topic.
2. Article from academic database #1
Argudn, Mara ngeles, Mara Carmen Mendoza, and Mara Rosario Rodicio.
"Food Poisoning and Staphylococcus aureus Enterotoxins." Toxins 2.7 (2010):
1751-773. PubMed Central. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
1. The primary audience for this source is those with a scientific background.
This article meets the expectations of this audience by discussing
specifically scientific terms such as enterotoxins, superantigens, etc. This
source fits my needs as a researcher because it discusses one very
specific cause of food poisoning.
2. The content of this source is very specific to my research project. The
source discusses the enterotoxins that are released by Staphylococcus
aureus and how these toxins give people the characteristic symptoms of
food poisoning.
3. There are no biases or unsupported claims in this article. The authors do a
good job of citing sources where need be within the article. Most of the
information is about how the enterotoxins get people sick and where/how
the genes of different colonies of Staphylococcus aureus differ and how
that changes the enterotoxins released. Any information not done directly
in the study is cited. For example, the mode of action of the enterotoxins
from this bacteria are discussed. The author discusses carboxymethylation

of histidines and then cites the source from which this information was
reported.
4. The research was done very thoroughly. There are 152 sources cited in
this article. They specifically cite the name of the study they were looking
at and some citations even include where to find these studies. The
sources are from a variety of time periods, but most are from the early
2000s on. Therefore, the information is mostly current. All of these things
give credibility to the authors and help give the information they present a
lot of support.
5. The article is about 5 years old. I have not found any information that
refutes the claims made in this article. Therefore, despite the fact that it is
somewhat older, the information is still very relevant today.
Staphylococcus aureus is a big name in food poisoning and there is still a
lot of research being done to understand it today.
6. The authors are from the Department of Functional Biology (Section of
Microbiology) and University Institute of Biotechnology of Asturias.
Therefore, they do have the necessary qualifications to be considered
authorities on the subject. They would have a good working knowledge of
an organism such as Staphylococcus aureus.
7. The article was originally published in Toxins. This is not necessarily a
well-known journal in the area of science, but the fact that the article
made it into the National Institute of Healths (NIH) National Library of
Medicine lends a lot of credibility to the information.
8. While there are no reviews listed for this article, it is cited in 17 other
article from the NIHs National Library of Medicine. This includes an article
that was just published in December 2014. Therefore, this information has
been important to many other studies done in this field and it is still
relevant today, though the information was presented about five years
ago.
9. As mentioned above, the information is still relevant to research being
done today. The future research that can be done would be on the
functions of the many different enterotoxins of Staphylococcus aureus and
the way the genes are propagated in this organism to yield these different
organisms. The mechanism in which this organism causes sickness can
also be further studied because of this article.
10.I would rate the overall quality of this source as a 5. This article gives a
brief, yet extensive understanding of the enterotoxins in Staphylococcus
aureus and the ways in which this causes illness. It also has a lot of
citations, which can be used to yield additional information about this
topic.
3. Article from academic database #2
Pillai, Suresh. Electron beam pasteurization of raw oysters may reduce viral
food poisoning potential. Emerging Food R&D Report 25.1 (2014): 5.
EBSCOhost. Web. 09 Feb. 2015.

1. The primary audience for this article is one with a scientific background.
This article meets the expectations of that audience by discussing things
such as electron beam pasteurization, viral pathogens, etc. This fits my
needs as a researcher because it discusses a specific way to prevent food
poisoning.
2. The content of this source applies to my research project because it
discusses a way to prevent food poisoning. It discusses oysters, which are
eaten by people, and the fact that they cause food poisoning and how to
prevent this.
3. There are no biases or unsupported claims in this article. All information is
cited directly to those whom the information originated. For example, the
article is talking specifically about an experiment done by Texas A & M.
The author reports that electron beam pasteurization was done and uses
specific statistics about how that affected human infection risk. The article
cites the author, whom participated in the study, for anyone to obtain
additional information. The study was summarized very shortly, but all
information was supported with statistics.
4. While there is not much additional information about this study but what
was cited in the article, there is information regarding the author. The
author has been involved in at least six other studies that were published
and made available on EBSCOhost. Therefore, this gives credibility to the
author, which also helps give credibility to the article.
5. This source is up-to-date. It was just published in April 2014. This gives the
user the impression that information is still very relevant to this issue.
However, since it is so new there also hasnt been much research done
that could refute the report as well. Therefore, this information must be
used carefully.
6. The author could be considered an authority on the subject. The author is
the Director for the National Center for Electron Beam Research at Texas A
& M. Therefore, while the author may not be an authority on food
poisoning, they are an authority on the usage of electron beam research.
Therefore, they would know how it works and how it would have affected
the pathogenicity of these oysters.
7. The research was published in the Emerging Food R & D Report. This is
probably not where a scientist would generally look for research or
scientific studies. Therefore, this information is not necessarily in the most
credible journal. It may have been peer-reviewed, but it was not
necessarily judged scientifically. The journal is more about food
technology. This information would need to be expanded on to be
considered more credible.
8. The information is very original, so it will likely receive some attention and
be expanded on in the future. However, it is so new that it does not
appear that anything has been done to expand on it yet. There are no
reviews of it yet. The scholarship of it is still in question do to the fact that

it was summarized very shortly and the fact that it has not been tested
more than this one time.
9. This research will lead to many new developments in the field of food
safety. It is a non-traditional take on how to handle and process food.
Therefore, there will be many new studies done using both the electron
beam technology and the theory behind the study regarding food safety.
10.I would rate the quality of this source a 2 because it needs to be expanded
on. It is not in a scientific journal, which makes it hard to trust the
information reported. Additionally, the information is so new that there
hasnt been much done to refute this information yet. I would need to see
some more evidence to really trust the information in this article.
4. Website from World Wide Web #1
"Food Poisoning." Foodsafety.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
1. The primary audience for this source is the general public. The website
meets the expectations of this audience by using common language to
describe things, such as the causes of food poisoning (lists them as
bacteria, for example, and then goes into shallow detail, rather than
talking specifically about enterotoxins released by bacteria that cause
illness). This source is important to me as a researcher because it gives
me a broader view of the causes of food poisoning and the affects it has
on society, rather than giving me very specific information.
2. The content of this source applies to my research project because it talks
about causes of food poisoning, people who are at risk to get food
poisoning, and how the government responds to this issue. That addresses
a large part of my research project.
3. There are not any biases or unsupported claims on this website. For much
of what is addressed, the website lists specific agencies where additional
information can be gathered. Much of the information that is on this
website is general information about the topic of food poisoning. For
example, the website talks simply about bacteria that cause food
poisoning. To support this claim, the website gives a link to the Center for
Disease Control (CDC) which gives more detailed information about
foodborne illness and disease.
4. There is no works cited or bibliography for this page. However, the fact
that most of the information is kept broad and ambiguous suggests that
this website is used more specifically to get people to other specific
websites for their specific needs regarding this topic. There are a lot of
links to other websites, mostly to major government organizations, that
give more detailed information about specifics regarding food poisoning.
5. The website is listed to have been updated as of Feb. 10, 2015. This would
suggest that all information on this website is still relevant and has not
been proven to be inaccurate. Again, due to the fact that much of the
information is left broad and non-specific, most information listed is known
by the general public.

6. No author is listed for this website. The information provided is a broad

overview of what has been provided to the public by numerous
government agencies, such as the CDC, the Food Safety and Inspection
Service, etc. Based on this information, there are likely many authorities
on these subjects being utilized to provide the information on this website.
7. The press probably plays a pretty big role in this area of research. There
are different links on the website that correspond to food issues that have
recently come up. For example, there was a link regarding peanut
allergies that was issued by a specific company via the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). Therefore, the press does play somewhat of a role
because if these government agencies choose to comment on food safety
type of issues, it will affect what is reflected on this website.
8. This website probably have little to no effect on other scholarship. It
simply reflects what is given out by government agencies regarding food
safety.
9. The only way this website will affect future research is if it is used for
ideas for future research. There are no significant findings and no groundbreaking information provided on this website.
10.I would rate the quality of this website a 1. This is because all information
has been gained from an external source (i.e. FDA, CDC, etc.).
Additionally, the information is generally public knowledge and has been
verified repeatedly through other government agencies.
5. Website from World Wide Web #2
"Food Poisoning." Mayo Clinic. N.p., 24 July 2014. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
1. The primary audience for this source is the general public. The information
meets the expectations of this audience by using common terms to
describe how to treat food poisoning and even discussing some wellknown over-the-counter medications. This information is useful for me as a
researcher because treatment of food poisoning is an important part of
understanding the illness.
2. The content of this source applies to my research project because part of
my project is discussing effects of food poisoning. Utilizing time/money for
treatment of food poisoning, as described on this website, is one effect of
food poisoning.
3. All claims made on this website are unsupported. There are no citations
for any of the information either. All information is provided by Mayo Clinic
staff and they refer all readers to speak to their doctors about all options
discussed regarding treatment of food poisoning. For example, Mayo Clinic
suggests getting antibiotics for treatment of food poisoning, but gives no
indication as to what antibiotics are most effective or any other
information regarding the actual effectiveness of getting antibiotics to
treat food poisoning. Therefore, this claim is not well supported.
4. There is no works cited or bibliography for this information. This suggests
that the information provided is the best advice that Mayo Clinic can give
a person. Some additional links to give a person extra help regarding the

topic of food poisoning treatment would be helpful and support their

claims more.
5. This webpage was written on July 24, 2014 so the information provided is
pretty up-to-date. There is no information listed to refute any of the
information provided by Mayo Clinic about this. However, there is also no
information provided to support the claims that Mayo Clinic makes. The
treatment for food poisoning is probably the same from July 2014 to now,
but there is no way to tell if Mayo Clinics suggestions are useful or not.
6. There is no specific author listed for this webpage. Only Mayo Clinic
Staff. There are specific medical editors, whom can be looked up.
However, only one specializes in infectious diseases. Therefore, only one
of the medical editors can be considered an authority on this subject, and
we cant be sure that this doctor was the one to edit this webpage.
7. Press probably plays a pretty big role on this area of research. Mayo Clinic
comes out with new information about different medical conditions rather
often. If some large-scale medical question/research were to come up in
the news, Mayo Clinic would likely have something about it on their
website.
8. This source has probably had little to no impact on other scholarship.
There are links on the website regarding education and research and
exploring those opportunities, but any medical information provided on
the website itself would not contribute to other scholarship. It is simply
advice on how to care for different medical conditions, diseases, etc.
9. This source will probably have no implications on future research. Aside
from providing links to those interested in medicine or medical research,
any medical information provided on the website does not generally spark
researchers to examine new questions/information. Any new research
done on this website would simply be in response to something a
researcher thought of when reading the advice given by Mayo Clinic.
There is very little chance, however, that Mayo Clinic would provide
someone with the necessary mental tools to pursue new research.
10.I would rate the quality of this source a 2. This information is helpful for
me because I am interested in how food poisoning is treated and I can go
out and verify the claims made by these doctors through other sources.
Aside from that, however, this website gives a lot of information about
medical treatment without any supporting materials.