The most readily apparent element of each of these websites it the biases that the creators hold in terms of each. With both the Mon Santo site and “saynotogmos.org”, their motivations are quite clear, as the author, their purpose for providing this information, and their biases are clear within the realm of the work. Because of this, when it comes to instilling any particular fears about eating genetically modified foods, the assertions of either site simply cannot be taken at face value. Still, there some notion about fearing something upon which so much debate rests. That said, the fact that there is so much debate does create the precedent for a great degree of openness regarding the issue, whether it is simply labeling the products using genetically modified ingredients. Even though the industry might claim that this might lead to a consumer backlash, discussion is still the best method to promote greater safety and responsibility. With the internet, even though there still may be some form of contact, as was apparent on the sites, there remains a disconnect between the viewer and information supplier, separated by technology and geography. There is little accountability this way, the individual can make variable assertions and suffer few repercussions for their actions. Because of this, even though a website may be accessible to the user, the fact remains that this form of media allows a certain degree of anonymity and thus potential irresponsibility on the part of the author.


Here are two opposing viewpoints regarding the issue:

“Attack of the Really Quite Likable Tomatoes” Economist 27 Feb. 2010: 16. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 May 2010.

Clark, John. “Why Should We Believe in GM?” Farmers Weekly 24 Oct. 2008: 56. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 May 24, 2010.