While researching Japan and the United States, I initially cited academic papers as my main sources. However, I later realized that some of these papers were written in Korean, not in English. This made me question whether I was relying on secondary interpretations rather than original research. To ensure accuracy, I decided to trace the references used in the Korean-language papers and locate the original English sources that they were based on. By following the citations, I was able to identify the original journal articles and official reports, and I replaced my references with these primary sources. This process taught me the importance of distinguishing between secondary and original sources in academic research. Rather than simply citing a paper because it appeared academic, I learned to carefully examine its references and verify where the data originally came from. This experience helped me develop a more responsible and critical approach to research.

This time, I examined France's response to BSE in more detail. Through this research, I was able to understand how France balanced public health concerns with the protection of its domestic agriculture and food industry. While researching France, I found that the French government responded to BSE by strengthening food safety regulations, increasing cattle testing, and temporarily banning certain beef imports. Public concern and media coverage played an important role in shaping policy decisions, as consumer trust in beef products declined sharply during the crisis. Studying the French case helped me see how government caution and public pressure can strongly influence policy during food safety emergencies.

This time, I focused on the United Kingdom, where the BSE crisis first emerged and had the most severe impact. By closely examining the UK case, I was able to understand how the early mismanagement of the disease affected both public trust and government credibility. While researching the United Kingdom, I learned that delayed government action and initial denial played a major role in the spread of BSE. As the crisis worsened, the UK government introduced strict measures such as large-scale cattle culling, feed bans, and export restrictions. This case helped me understand the importance of early intervention and transparent communication in managing public health and food safety crises.

This time, I chose to focus more closely on Japan. Rather than comparing many countries at once, I spent additional time examining how Japan responded to BSE in greater detail. This allowed me to understand Japan's approach to food safety, including its strict inspection system, traceability measures, and efforts to restore public trust. While researching Japan, I learned that the Japanese government adopted one of the most cautious responses to BSE, such as extensive cattle testing and strong import regulations. I also found that public concern played a significant role in shaping government policy, as consumer anxiety led to stricter safety standards. By studying Japan in more depth, I gained a clearer understanding of how social trust and risk perception influenced policy decisions during the BSE crisis.

This time, I decided to focus more deeply on the United States. Instead of briefly comparing many countries, I spent more time analyzing the U.S. case in detail. By doing this, I was able to better understand how the U.S. government responded to BSE, including its food safety regulations, cattle testing system, and trade policies. While researching the United States, I noticed that its response shared similarities with other countries, such as stricter feed regulations and increased consumer protection measures. However, I also found unique aspects of the U.S. case, especially in how economic interests and international trade influenced government decisions. This deeper focus helped me understand the complexity of the BSE issue more clearly, rather than just seeing it as a simple health crisis.

처음에는 일본, 미국, 브라질, 캐나다, 영국, 프랑스 총 6개국의 광우병 사태를 비교하는 자료를 정리하려고 했다. 여러 나라를 한 번에 비교하면 국가별 대응 차이와 공통점을 한눈에 볼 수 있을 것이라고 생각했기 때문이다. 하지만 자료를 정리하던 중 브라질에 대한 정보에서 출처가 명확하지 않은 내용이 많다는 문제를 발견했다. 일부 자료는 뉴스나 2차 자료에 의존하고 있었고, 논문이나 공식 보고서로 사실을 정확히 확인하기 어려운 경우도 있었다. 이 과정에서 연구에서 가장 중요한 것은 '많은 정보'가 아니라 '신뢰할 수 있는 출처'라는 점을 다시 한 번 느끼게 되었다. 이후로는 출처와 내용을 더 꼼꼼히 확인해야겠다는 교훈을 얻었다. 이 문제를 계기로 연구 전략을 바꿔 한 나라에 집중해서 깊이 있게 살펴보는 방식을 선택했다. 한 국가의 광우병 발생 배경, 정부의 대응, 사회적 반응을 자세히 분석하면 더 완성도 있는 결과를 낼 수 있을 것이라고 생각했다. 하지만 한 나라에 대해 집중적으로 조사하다 보니, 사료 규제 강화, 수입·수출 제한, 소비자 불안, 정부 신뢰 문제 등 다른 나라들과 공통적으로 반복되는 내용이 많다는 점을 알게 되었다. 이로 인해 단일 국가 분석만으로는 광우병 사태의 '특징'을 충분히 설명하기 어렵다고 느꼈다. 결국 나는 다시 방향을 조정해, 여러 나라를 비교하되 신뢰도 높은 자료만을 선별해 조사하는 방식으로 돌아가기로 결정했다. 이를 통해 각국의 공통된 대응과 차별화된 정책을 함께 분석하는 것이 광우병 사태를 이해하는 데 더 효과적이라는 결론에 도달했다. 이번 조사를 통해 단순히 정보를 모으는 것을 넘어, 연구 과정에서의 방향 설정과 자료 검증의 중요성을 배울 수 있었다. 앞으로의 조사에서는 처음부터 출처의 신뢰성을 기준으로 삼고, 연구 목적에 맞는 전략을 신중하게 세워 나가고자 한다.

Today I read about something both scary and fascinating: Mad Cow Disease, or Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). I had heard of it before, but I never really understood how serious it was until now. It’s not just about sick cows — it’s a disease that once created global panic and even affected humans. BSE is caused by something called a prion, which is a protein that goes "wrong" and damages the brain. What's crazy is that these prions can’t be killed easily — not even by boiling or chemicals. If people eat infected beef (especially brain or spinal parts), they can get a deadly disease called vCJD (variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease). It has no cure and often affects young people. I also learned that BSE wasn’t just a health issue — it caused economic disasters. Farmers had to kill tons of cattle, beef exports stopped, and governments had to spend tons of money for testing and compensation. People got scared to eat beef, and trust in the food system totally dropped. After that, many countries changed their food safety rules. They banned risky meat parts, improved food labeling, and even started tracking every cow from birth. It was interesting to see how much effort was made to restore public trust. And to prevent future outbreaks, scientists and governments now work together under a “One Health” idea — meaning human, animal, and environmental health are all connected. The most surprising part? Even medical tools and blood transfusions could spread these prions. So hospitals also had to change how they sterilize equipment and choose blood donors. This whole thing showed me how a problem in cows can actually affect our entire world — from health to trade to trust. I think it’s a perfect example of how everything is connected. Next time I eat beef, I’ll definitely remember what I learned today!

Today, I spent time diving into the global history of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), also known as Mad Cow Disease. It was fascinating to compare how different countries responded to this major public health crisis that unfolded across the late 20th and early 21st centuries. I looked into the common patterns among nations—like banning specific risk materials (SRMs), prohibiting animal-based feed, and implementing disease surveillance systems. Almost every country initially underestimated the risk, which delayed proper responses. Eventually, most introduced stronger food safety systems and international cooperation guidelines based on OIE standards. But what really stood out were the differences in national strategies: The UK, where BSE originated, initially responded slowly, which led to widespread transmission. They later became a case study in how poor transparency can backfire in public health. Japan implemented extremely strict measures, like full-scale pre-slaughter testing for all cattle, even young ones, and a strong tracking system that helped regain consumer trust. The US focused on selective testing rather than full-scale inspections, relying more on risk management than prevention. South Korea had no domestic outbreak but faced massive public protests when it resumed US beef imports in 2008—making BSE a political issue rather than just a food safety concern. The EU took the most systematic approach, building institutions like the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and enforcing comprehensive traceability systems. It was also interesting to see how public perception and consumer trust varied by country. Japan regained trust through transparency and policy, while in Korea, distrust lingered despite scientific assurances. Learning about this made me think about how food safety issues can shape national policy, international trade, and even social movements. It’s more than just science—it’s about trust, governance, and communication. Definitely one of the more eye-opening case studies I’ve reviewed. I might dig into how BSE compares to the COVID-19 crisis next, especially in terms of crisis communication and public compliance.

Today, I explored the topic of BSE, also known as mad cow disease, and it turned out to be way more complex than I originally thought—it’s not just an animal health issue, but something that actually affects public health policies and even international trade, making it a global concern rather than just a local one. What really caught my attention was how differently each country responded—like how the UK had to deal with a massive outbreak and introduced strict slaughtering regulations, while countries like South Korea reacted strongly to even a few imported cases from the U.S., showing how public fear and politics can shape health decisions in totally different ways. By comparing all these responses, I started to realize that studying these patterns isn't just about understanding the past, but it's also about preparing smarter strategies for future diseases—because in a connected world, one country’s decision can ripple through many others, and knowing what worked before can actually save lives and protect economies too.

Today I learned about the Mad Cow Disease crisis that hit the United Kingdom in the 1980s and 1990s. It started in 1986 when a strange brain disease in cows, called BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy), was officially recognized. But the signs actually appeared around 1985, with cows showing odd behavior. Scientists later discovered that the cause was linked to feeding cows with meat and bone meal (MBM) made from the remains of other cows, especially brain and spinal tissues. That practice created the perfect environment for the disease to spread. The UK government didn’t act fast enough. They banned MBM only in 1988—two years after the first confirmed case. By then, thousands of cows had already eaten the contaminated feed, and the disease was spreading fast. People were scared, and many stopped eating beef. Other countries even banned imports of British beef. Things got worse in 1996 when the first human case of vCJD (a human version of the disease) was confirmed. This meant people had gotten infected by eating contaminated beef. The government, which had previously said beef was safe, had to backtrack and ordered over 180,000 cows to be destroyed. Public trust collapsed, and the UK’s farming industry lost billions of pounds. I also read that by 2020, 178 people in the UK had died from vCJD. This whole crisis is now used as an example of how slow government response and poor risk communication can lead to a huge national disaster. What stood out to me was how the delay between discovering the disease and taking action made everything worse. It also taught me how health, the economy, and public trust are all connected when dealing with food safety. I’m planning to use this case as a key example in my research paper. It’s not just about cows or beef—it’s about how governments make decisions under pressure and how those decisions affect real people.

Today I spent time thinking about how misinformation spreads so easily on social media—and how dangerous that can be for farmers. Platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter) are filled with bold claims like “GMOs cause cancer” or “non-organic food is poison.” These posts go viral fast because they’re dramatic and emotional, but many times they don’t match the actual science. That kind of misinformation can lead consumers to avoid certain crops, which can really hurt the farmers who grow them. While doing my research, I came across a case called “Buttergate” in Canada. People online were claiming that Canadian butter was getting harder because cows were being fed palm oil. It spread like wildfire, but there wasn’t strong scientific proof behind it. Still, it damaged the image of the dairy industry and confused consumers. All of that happened because of a viral assumption. That made me realize something important: whether you’re a content creator or a consumer, we all have a responsibility to think critically. Especially for someone like me, who’s doing research and writing about these issues, it matters even more.

Recently, I’ve been working on my research project for school, and today I focused on looking into big controversies related to GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms). I had no idea there were so many major incidents, not only in the U.S. but around the world. The most shocking one was the StarLink corn recall in 2000. It turned out that a GMO corn not approved for human consumption ended up in Taco Bell’s taco shells and other food products. That led to a massive recall. It wasn’t just a scientific issue—it caused a big public trust problem and hurt farmers too. Another one that stuck with me was a French scientist, Gilles-Éric Séralini, who claimed that GMO corn caused tumors in rats. But his study had serious design flaws and was eventually retracted. It wasn’t exactly fake news, but the evidence was weak, and the damage was already done. What surprised me is that, in most of these cases, farmers didn’t really benefit. Even though GMO technology was meant to increase productivity, the surrounding controversy and misinformation often ended up hurting farmers more than helping them. Today, I really understood that trust in science and communication is just as important as the science itself.

Today was a big step in my research—I finally learned how to use the Twitter API. At first, it sounded super technical and intimidating (I mean, anything with “API” in the name feels like hacker stuff 😅), but it actually made sense once I saw what it could do. I used it to start collecting tweets about GMOs, like ones mentioning "StarLink corn" or “GMO danger.” It’s kind of crazy seeing how fast misinformation spreads, just by reading people’s posts in real time. Some tweets are based on science, but most are just emotion or fear. I feel like I’ve opened a new door. Now I can actually track how misinformation grows, not just assume it. I’m excited (and a little nervous) to dive deeper into this data.

Today I started digging into how misinformation affects farmers, especially when it comes to GMOs. I used to think GMOs were just bad—like, dangerous for our health or harmful to the environment. That’s what I’ve always heard online, and even some documentaries made it sound really scary. But now I’m beginning to question that. I found out that a lot of the fear might actually come from exaggerated or even false claims. It’s weird how something can feel so true just because you’ve heard it so many times. I want to understand what’s real and what’s not, especially how these rumors actually impact the people growing our food.

I read about the StarLink corn recall today. It was honestly kind of shocking. At first, I thought it was another example of GMOs being harmful—but it turns out the bigger issue wasn’t the corn itself, but how the situation was handled and how the public reacted. The corn was only approved for animal feed, not for humans, but somehow it ended up in taco shells. That caused a media storm and led to a massive recall. Even though no health risks were ever confirmed, farmers lost money and trust in the system crumbled. It made me realize that sometimes misinformation—or fear based on misunderstanding—can do more damage than the actual science behind the product. I’m starting to see why it’s so important to look at the facts, not just the headlines.

When genetically modified crops (GMOs) were first developed, many scientists thought it was a big step forward. These crops could resist bugs, grow with less water, and help feed more people. It looked like a perfect solution for food problems. But as time went on, people started to worry. Some didn’t like the idea of “changing nature.” Media and activists gave GMOs scary nicknames like Frankenfood. Even though the science said they were safe, many people didn’t trust them. Later, things got worse. On YouTube and TikTok, some influencers and documentaries started spreading false ideas. They said GMOs cause cancer, infertility, or harm the environment. These claims weren’t true, but they spread fast. As a result, people stopped buying GMO products, and farmers were hurt. Some countries banned GMOs. Others like the U.S. continued to use them. This created a huge gap in how different parts of the world saw GMOs. Science and emotion started to fight. Sadly, emotion often won. Now, scientists and educators are trying to fix the problem. They’re using videos, blogs, and schools to explain the truth about GMOs. But misinformation is still out there. We need better education so people can understand the science before believing rumors.

Lately, I’ve noticed that misinformation is everywhere in the media. It happens with political events, celebrities, companies—basically any topic that goes viral. What really made me interested in this topic was how often my favorite celebrity’s reputation kept changing online. One day everyone loves them, and the next day people are canceling them over something that might not even be true. That got me thinking—how often does this happen around the world? When I started looking into it, I realized that exaggerated or completely false news is pretty common globally. I became especially interested in the U.S. because it's one of the most active places for online news and trends. Then I remembered some stories I’d seen in the past, like how mad cow disease or swine fever was reported in a scary way but later turned out to be misunderstood or even false. Since my major is related to agriculture, I started to wonder: Could this kind of misinformation actually hurt farmers? Now I want to explore both sides—maybe some farms were actually harmed unfairly, but maybe in some cases, the farms themselves made exaggerated claims. I plan to collect social media posts and news articles to understand how misinformation spreads and whether it causes real damage to the farming industry.

Today, I started thinking about how fake news affects agriculture. I found some famous cases in the U.S. like the “pink slime” story and GMO rumors. (The name Pink Slime is cute) I want to study how people react to this kind of misinformation on Twitter—especially when they ignore the facts or change the topic. Maybe I’ll try labeling tweets by their attitude, not just emotion. #Pink_slime

Today, I started thinking seriously about my research topic. I wanted to work on something that combined agriculture—something practical and important—with human behavior and society. Then one idea really stuck with me: what if crowd psychology and misinformation were hurting farmers directly? It might sound dramatic, but with all the fake news and rumors spreading online these days, especially through platforms like TikTok or Instagram, I wondered: how do farmers deal with the consequences when people believe those lies? So I started digging. I found a paper titled “Misinformation in U.S. Food and Agriculture: A Policy Analysis of Impacts and Recommended Solutions.” It discussed the policy implications of misinformation in American agriculture, but as I read through it, I realized that it lacked certain things. There weren’t any in-depth interviews with farmers or experimental data showing how misinformation actually changed consumer behavior or market prices. It felt a bit distant from the people who are truly affected. That’s when I thought—maybe I could go deeper. Maybe I could build something that focuses on actual harm to farmers, not just theoretical discussions.