Sample #2: Annotated Bibliography on Public Opinions about GMOs, especially Meat

Sample #2: Annotated Bibliography on Public Opinions about GMOs, especially Meats
Question at Issue: Can labeling of GMO meats improve public acceptance of them?
Questions to Consider
I – How reliable is this source?
II –What main arguments, reasoning, evidence, and examples does this source offer to help answer the research questions you posited in your proposal?
III – What reasoning and evidence does this source offer to build its argument?
IV – What is the central argument of this source?
V – What flaws exist in this article’s argument or what questions remain unanswered?
Ex**
Holdrege, Craig, Beyond Biotechnology: the Barren Promise of Genetic Engineering. Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 2008. Web. 8 March 2016
This scholarly monograph is written by a single author, Craig Holdrege, an ecologist and is a secondary source. The book was edited and published by the University Press of Kentucky as well as Steve Talbott. This source is reliable because it is credited by the Commonwealth, a University Consortium for which it was published. Yet, Holdrege does not have any personal experience as an insider within the biotech industry, which may engender an anti-corporate bias in his approach.
The content of this source is relevant to my line of inquiry regarding the perception of GM foods, even though it doesn’t directly address public perceptions. The portion of the book which is useful to my argument is the section regarding the labeling of GMOs in food products. More specifically, it is relevant to me because it gives insight into the general public’s blind trust of government and regulatory policy, which impacts how GM foods are received.
The author states that while the lack of labeling on food products is considered deceptive even by the government, the government declared that GMOs do not need to be labeled on food products. Additionally, the article cites that the policies that stand today regarding GMO labeling were created in 1997 and are now outdated. This pointed reasoning and policy evidence conveys that the author is not satisfied with current state of GMO labeling.
The author’s central argument regarding GMO labeling is that the government must be called to action to reform the policy and ultimately require labeling. The author’s argument is made clear by the not so subtle disapproval that seeps through when analyzing the current state of labeling policy.
A flaw of the book is the evident bias which the author possesses: he clearly disapproves of the current lack of GMO labeling requirements. For my research purposes, it is best to draw from objective sources; however, in general the book is still useful to my paper in order to illustrate this side of the debate due to the author’s clear preference in this conflict.