Annotated Bibliography and Works Cited
Bowman v. Monsanto Co. No. 11-796. Supreme Court of the United States. 2012. Web. 19 October 2013. <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf>
Bowman v. Monsanto Co. is essential in outlining the nature of court ruling and legal precedence. It outlines vital legislation that highlights the legal privilege of GMO food producers, specifically in protection of corporate entities and patent holders. In this particular case, Monsanto Co.'s seed industry is ruled in favor; in similar court cases, scientific research conducted with Monsanto GMO food products attempted to show that these products had detrimental long-term effects on health, but these cases failed to bear the burden of proof and did not succeed in their actions. Monsanto Co.'s legal success demonstrates a vital legal and economic power of GMO food producers--and subsequently, a vital scientific power that privileges their research. The authority of this source is recognized as a case ruling and effecting this website's analysis in matters of legislative rhetorical influence on scientific rhetoric.
Bowman v. Monsanto Co. is essential in outlining the nature of court ruling and legal precedence. It outlines vital legislation that highlights the legal privilege of GMO food producers, specifically in protection of corporate entities and patent holders. In this particular case, Monsanto Co.'s seed industry is ruled in favor; in similar court cases, scientific research conducted with Monsanto GMO food products attempted to show that these products had detrimental long-term effects on health, but these cases failed to bear the burden of proof and did not succeed in their actions. Monsanto Co.'s legal success demonstrates a vital legal and economic power of GMO food producers--and subsequently, a vital scientific power that privileges their research. The authority of this source is recognized as a case ruling and effecting this website's analysis in matters of legislative rhetorical influence on scientific rhetoric.
California Secretary of State. "Proposition 37." Text of Proposed Laws. 110-113. Web. 21 October 2013. <http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/text-proposed-laws-v2.pdf#nameddest=prop37>
Proposition 37, also known as The California Right To Know Genetically Engineered Food Act, shows how scientific debate uses legislative rhetoric in order to affect the legal and economic spheres. Many of the demands within Proposition 37 have legal and economic ramifications, but they are reinforced by a scientific methodology on the practice of GMO research and safety, on the particular conclusion that the research is underfunded and safety is poorly regulated. Analyzing Proposition 37 and similar pieces of legislation in other states shows that the scientific debate on GMO food science connects to legislative and economic rhetoric in order to access a larger socio-economic sphere. The authority of this source is recognized as demonstrating social acts attempting to effect legislative and economic procedure that, by nature of association, affects scientific procedure.
Proposition 37, also known as The California Right To Know Genetically Engineered Food Act, shows how scientific debate uses legislative rhetoric in order to affect the legal and economic spheres. Many of the demands within Proposition 37 have legal and economic ramifications, but they are reinforced by a scientific methodology on the practice of GMO research and safety, on the particular conclusion that the research is underfunded and safety is poorly regulated. Analyzing Proposition 37 and similar pieces of legislation in other states shows that the scientific debate on GMO food science connects to legislative and economic rhetoric in order to access a larger socio-economic sphere. The authority of this source is recognized as demonstrating social acts attempting to effect legislative and economic procedure that, by nature of association, affects scientific procedure.
Martin, Cyrus. "The Psychology of GMO." Current Biology 23.9 (2013): R356-R359. Web. 19 October 2013. <www.library.csun.edu>
Cyrus Martin's article reports on GMO food debate stances and connects them to consumer distrust. He outlines the contrasting legal approaches to GMO food research and labeling between the United States and the European Union, where the European Union has stricter GMO food labeling and regulation while the United States has no federal legislation and few regulatory devices in place. Cyrus Martin's work highlights divisive scientific opinions as well as divisive social and cultural opinions, tracing it to social and economic factors. Though he tends to focus on narratives primarily in popular media and popular science, he offers an overview on a topic that this website's analysis will narrow toward: the rhetoric of science and how it is accepted in, and affected by, other social rhetoric. The authority of this source is recognized as social critique of historical scientific debate and media reception, though not wholly scientific in background or purpose.
Cyrus Martin's article reports on GMO food debate stances and connects them to consumer distrust. He outlines the contrasting legal approaches to GMO food research and labeling between the United States and the European Union, where the European Union has stricter GMO food labeling and regulation while the United States has no federal legislation and few regulatory devices in place. Cyrus Martin's work highlights divisive scientific opinions as well as divisive social and cultural opinions, tracing it to social and economic factors. Though he tends to focus on narratives primarily in popular media and popular science, he offers an overview on a topic that this website's analysis will narrow toward: the rhetoric of science and how it is accepted in, and affected by, other social rhetoric. The authority of this source is recognized as social critique of historical scientific debate and media reception, though not wholly scientific in background or purpose.
Ronald, Pamela. "The Truth About GMOs." Boston Review 38.5 (2013): 16-21. Web. 22 October 2013. <www.library.csun.edu>
Professor Pamela Ronald outlines the history of modern genetic engineering and relates it to the practices preceding it, identifying GMO foods as a product similar to products created in agriculture for thousands of years. Professor Ronald's research and arguments are strongly supportive of GMO food science and versatile enough to consider socio-economical factors as well. Professor Ronald's work provides a foundation for understanding the scientific basis of Pro-GMO stances and equips readers with a trove of rhetoric to examine in order to see the interconnected relationships of science, law, and economics. Along with Professor Ronald's work are responses from scholarly critics that provide reaction both supportive and contrary, which further demonstrates the bases of Pro-GMO and Anti-GMO sentiments and the rhetorical nature therein. The authority of this source is recognized as scientific opinion and data reinforced by research and position as a professor (Department of Plant Pathology and the Genome Center, UC Davis), as well as a director (Laboratory for Crop Genetics Innovation and Scientific Literacy).
Professor Pamela Ronald outlines the history of modern genetic engineering and relates it to the practices preceding it, identifying GMO foods as a product similar to products created in agriculture for thousands of years. Professor Ronald's research and arguments are strongly supportive of GMO food science and versatile enough to consider socio-economical factors as well. Professor Ronald's work provides a foundation for understanding the scientific basis of Pro-GMO stances and equips readers with a trove of rhetoric to examine in order to see the interconnected relationships of science, law, and economics. Along with Professor Ronald's work are responses from scholarly critics that provide reaction both supportive and contrary, which further demonstrates the bases of Pro-GMO and Anti-GMO sentiments and the rhetorical nature therein. The authority of this source is recognized as scientific opinion and data reinforced by research and position as a professor (Department of Plant Pathology and the Genome Center, UC Davis), as well as a director (Laboratory for Crop Genetics Innovation and Scientific Literacy).
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties." Biotechnology Guidance Documents & Regulatory Information. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 1992. Web. 21 October 2013. <http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm>
This statement of policy, written in 1992, continues to be the strongest modern form of GMO food safety and research regulation in the United States. This policy is important because its language governs legal liability of scientific practices within the economic sphere of biotechnology. It decrees that legal responsibility for conducting research and meeting safety requirements is on the producer of GMO foods and delegates third-party involvement to consultation. It gives the producer full control of its own regulatory device, turning biotech industry into a self-regulating entity. This information, combined with an understand of legal liability, patent protections, and legal precedence, factually establishes a legislative rhetorical narrative that frees GMO food production entities and restricts its legal opponents. Simultaneously, it frees the scientific research of GMO food production entities and restricts its scientific opponents. The authority of this source is recognized as public policy of a federal agency that regulates safety requirements of GMO food production, effectively regulating the practice of GMO science research.
This statement of policy, written in 1992, continues to be the strongest modern form of GMO food safety and research regulation in the United States. This policy is important because its language governs legal liability of scientific practices within the economic sphere of biotechnology. It decrees that legal responsibility for conducting research and meeting safety requirements is on the producer of GMO foods and delegates third-party involvement to consultation. It gives the producer full control of its own regulatory device, turning biotech industry into a self-regulating entity. This information, combined with an understand of legal liability, patent protections, and legal precedence, factually establishes a legislative rhetorical narrative that frees GMO food production entities and restricts its legal opponents. Simultaneously, it frees the scientific research of GMO food production entities and restricts its scientific opponents. The authority of this source is recognized as public policy of a federal agency that regulates safety requirements of GMO food production, effectively regulating the practice of GMO science research.
Additional Works Cited
Gunther, Marc. "Response: The Truth About GMOs." Boston Review. 38.5 (2013): 22-23. Web. 19 October 2013. <www.library.csun.edu>
Jaffe, Greg. "Response: The Truth About GMOs." Boston Review. 38.5 (2013): 23-24. Web. 19 October 2013. <www.library.csun.edu>
Public Law 106-224: Plant Protection Act. 2000. Avilable from: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Web. 21 October 2013. <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/PPAText.pdf>
Washington Secretary of State. "Initiative Measure No. 522." Web. 21 October 2013. <http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_285.pdf>
State of Connecticut General Assembly. "Raised Bill No. 6527." Web. 21 October 2013. <http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/h/pdf/2013HB-06527-R00-HB.pdf>
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms No. 09-475. Supreme Court of the United States. 2010. Web. 19 October 2013. <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-475.pdf>
Federation of American Scientists. Case Studies in Agricultural Biosecurity. Web. 22 October 2013. <http://www.fas.org/biosecurity/education/dualuse-agriculture/index.html>
Golden Rice Humanitarian Board. Golden Rice Project. Web. 20 October 2013. <http://www.goldenrice.org/Content1-Who/who.php>