Collins 1

Lauren Collins English 1102 Instructor: Fran Voltz 10/2/13 EIP Annotated Bibliography- GMOs Holtug, N. "The Harm Principle and Genetically Modified Food." Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2001): 169-78. Print. This article discusses how plausible the Harm Principle is, using the proposed prohibition of GM food as a main example. Holtug first states that the harm principle is how law makers can justify limiting personal liberty, as long as the general population is saved from the risk of harm. In using the harm principle to evaluate GM food, it would need to be decided if allowing it to be sold would significantly harm the general population to an extent where questions of personal liberty can be overlooked. Holtug's problem with this theory is that "harm" is a difficult concept to define. It can be measured by quantity, described by quality, or based on morals. Holtug asserts that even if we assume the harm principle could be applied to GM food, it would not be sufficient as the only decision making factor. Lawmakers should not only consider the possible harm but also the possible benefits from GM food. This article provides a lot of useful information on my topic. It discusses how lawmakers should make a decision on whether to allow the sale of GMOs. This will be helpful because my essay focuses on whether GMOs are ethical. The use of the harm principle is consistent with most of my research, but I like how this article also addresses the fact that it might not be the best or only way to evaluate GM food. It also goes in depth to explain the thinking behind the harm principle. I can use the knowledge that this article provides to help me better understand and evaluate some of my other research. While this article is particularly addressing the legality of GM food in the European Union, the concepts and arguments are applicable on a global level.

Collins 2

This article is more theoretical in nature and does not address how to reconcile the ideal conditions under which to evaluate GM food and the actual conditions politicians are having to deal with. I would consider this a credible and reliable article. First of all, it is a scholarly article published in an accredited journal. Also, Holtug is a professor who specializes in bioethics and risk assessment at the University of Copenhagen so it is safe to assume that he is knowledgeable about the topic. He cites sources that also appear to be credible and scholarly. While Holtug clearly takes a position in this article, I do not believe he is biased in his decision. He addresses all sides to the argument and approaches it from a logical and neutral stance.

Jefferson, V. "The Ethical Dilemma of Genetically Modified Food." Journal of Environmental Health 69.1 (2006): n. pag. Print. This article evaluates the ethical questions involved with the use of Genetically Modified food. GM food can be engineered to have greater yields, be resistant to environmental conditions, or even have better nutritional values. These possibilities are of concern to the scientific community especially as malnutrition and chronic hunger, due to a lack of available food and rising populations, plagues large portions of our global society. While there is the possibility for GM food to be beneficial, there are ethical questions at play in deciding whether to continue with the research. Introducing GMOs into the ecosystem can have long term affects on the health of human and animal populations. Also, there is the possibility of genetic pollution and a decrease in the global genetic pool. Jefferson argues that the question at hand is should world hunger try to be reduced through the riskier technology of GMOs, with a possible higher positive return, or should scientists continue with methods that have already be proven safe and effective, but with possibly lesser of an impact.

Collins 3

This article will be very useful when it comes to writing my essay. I can use this source to explain the history behind the development of GMOs. Also, it has many statistics that I can use to provide supportive evidence for my argument. This article does a good job at detailing both the possible risks and benefits of using GM food. All of this information will help me further develop my own standpoint on the issue. The scientific information in the article supports what I already knew, where the information on ethics has broadened my knowledge extensively. Scientific facts are objective and do not vary much from article to article, but the process of evaluating the ethics of GMOs is more subjective so the more viewpoints I am exposed to, the better. This article is both a credible and a reliable source. The author could be considered an expert in the area, as the President of the National Capital Area Environmental Health Association. In addition, this article was published in the Journal of Environmental Health, which is a recognized publication in its respective field. Jefferson writes in an unbiased way with the chief purpose of the article being to inform the reader and present both sides of the argument. Oriola, Taiwo A. "Consumer Dilemmas: The Right to Know, Safety, Ethics and Policy of Genetically Modified Food." Singapore Journal of Legal Studies (2002): 514-73. Print. This article explores the use of GMOs in the agricultural industry. Oriola recognizes that GMOs have the scientific potential to be useful in trying to reconcile the problems of world hunger. As population continues to rise, it will become necessary to increase agricultural production yields. While the WHO has deemed GM food safe for human consumption, many countries are still skeptical about this relatively new technology. One reason is that people have economic concerns about large corporations using patented GMOs to control the world's food production for their personal greed. Oriola also argues that consumers have a right to choose on

Collins 4

an individual basis between GM and non-GM food. One way to ensure this would be to require labeling that would identify those products that are GMOs. This article was very long and technical, from a legal standpoint, but I believe that I would be able to use parts of it as support for my essay. This article supports a lot of my other research in viewing GMOs as a possible solution to world hunger problems. It provides specific examples about African countries refusing aid in the form of GM food, which I could use in my essay to support one of my main points. Oriola's main point is about required labeling of GMOs, which I wasn't planning on focusing on in my essay. Regardless, a lot of his information does relate to the topic of my essay. If I do use this article, it will be for very specific facts and examples rather than as support in line with my main argument. There is good evidence that this is a reliable and credible source. First of all, it is a scholarly article with the purpose to inform. Oriola is more concerned with presenting facts and a logical argument that with revealing his personal opinions on the subject. Also, this article was printed in a Singapore Law Journal. These types of publications are usually well recognized and peer-reviewed so that the reader can trust the information presented within them. This particular article clearly shows its sources, adding to its credibility. In addition, this article does not seem biased. Oriola supports his argument using logical facts. Poortinga, Wouter, and Pidgeon F. Nick. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food." RISA Risk Analysis 26.6 (2006): 1707-719. Print. This article explores the impact of public opinion on policy decisions regarding GMOs. This article asserts that the commonly held assumption that most British citizens oppose GM food is inaccurate because it uses a bipolar model to measure attitudes. Most surveys conducted ask whether the subject supports or opposes GMOs, without a consideration for those with mixed

Collins 5

or weak attitudes. This article argues that a more accurate study on the subject should include the categories of negative, positive, ambivalent, and indifferent attitudes. Those who have strong feelings for the benefits of GMOs and weak feelings for the risks of GMO's would be said to have a positive attitude, with a negative attitude being characterized by weak feelings for benefits and strong feelings for risk. The most important distinction is between ambivalent and indifferent. An ambivalent attitude is characterized by strong feelings for both risks and benefits, while indifference is characterized by weak feelings for both risks and benefits. The importance of this is that people with positive or negative attitudes are unlikely to change their views, while those with ambivalent or indifferent attitudes can be swayed by strong arguments. While this information was interesting to read about, I do not believe that I would use this source in my essay. To begin with, it addresses consumer attitudes toward GMOs and does not take into account the ethics behind these attitudes. This article was more a study of the psychology of measuring attitudes and included a report on a statistical analysis of differing attitude measurements. I feel that while the authors used GMOs as the topic for their experiment, the actual purpose of the article does not contribute to my research on the ethics of GMOs. I am glad that I read this article because I can apply this information when reading other research, but I will not be using this article itself. I have reason to believe that this article is a credible and reliable source. It is a published, peer-reviewed scholarly article. Though it was not published in a well known journal, I came across it through the use of a reputable database, so I trust its validity. In addition, it uses many references and citations to credible sources such as government agencies and academic journals. I do have some questions about bias because the authors did not publish their credentials with the article. I do not know if they work in an academic setting or for a corporation. With the costly

Collins 6

nature of experiments, most researchers have to find funding. The source of the funding can either intentionally or unintentionally influence the findings. This particular research was funded by the Leverhulme Trust , which appears to be a well-known organization with no obvious ties to any profit-centered corporation. For this reason, I would overall trust this source. Toft, Kristian Hyer. "GMOs and Global Justice: Applying Global Justice Theory to the Case of Genetically Modified Crops and Food." Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25.2 (2012): 223-37. Print This article attempts to answer the question of ethics, in regards to GMOs, using a theory of Global Justice. Originally, people were concerned with the long-term risks and inherit "unnaturalness" of GMOs. As the technology in the field has increased, it has become evident that using GMOs could greatly decrease the threat of world hunger. In the name of global justice, it would be unethical not to utilize GMOs if they could actually help so many people. The basic needs for survival of a large portion of the population should outweigh the intrinsic concerns of the elite few. According to Toft, there are 3 main views on GMOs: cosmopolitans, pluralists, and skeptics. Cosmopolitans favor the use of GMOs to solve global problems, while skeptics disagree. The pluralists believe that GMOs could be very beneficial as long as correct institutions are in place to ensure they are utilized to their full potential. These institutions include international agencies to distribute the goods, cooperative schemes, and interdependency. This source will be very helpful in writing my essay. It is focused on the ethical theories and principles regarding GMO usage, while discussing the practical institutions that would need to be in place for GMOs to reach their potential. This is a slightly different perspective because most of the articles I have found talk more about theories under ideal conditions that may not actually be applicable to the current situation. Also, this article focuses on the benefits of GMOs while other articles tend to focus on explaining the risks. This article seems very balanced in its

Collins 7

argument, realizing that there should be a medium between the two polar views on the subject. GMOs are neither inherently good or bad, but rather it depends on how they are used to benefit society and the precautions taken to guard against risks. This article appears to be a reliable and credible source. It was published in a well known academic journal and is scholarly in nature. It has many references that show it was well researched. In addition, it was written by a PHD student at the University of Copenhagen. This most likely means that the author had knowledgeable mentors and colleagues who could help revise and polish the ideas in the article. The article appears to unbiased. The author has factual support for her claims and approaches the subject from a logical standpoint.