GMOs & the Government
Ana Reynoso
There is no way to simply answer the question "To what extent should the US federal government advocate for or against the regulation or development of genetically modified organisms (GMO's)?". There are so many controversies tied around this topic, some of which were addressed during the mock trial, that make it hard to come up with a decision. After much thought I've decided the following is the way I feel about this topic.
It is widely known and a universal fact that it is impossible to create a system or government that is completely free of corruption. Humans are too easily influenced by their personal needs which is a fact that should never be ignored. Regardless of what kind of solution is put in place, there will always be ways to bend the rules in a way that benefits individuals and, more importantly, there will always be people willing to bend those rules. With that being said, I believe it is our job to try and lessen the severity of the corruption. It is up to us to choose who is in charge, what kind of decisions they can and can't make for us and basically just what kind of power they have over us. It is up to us to study each person in congress and decide whether or not we trust them, and if we don't, it is our fundamental right to speak out against them. I believe the government is something we need. During the trial it was mentioned multiple times that the government is pointless and there is no need for it, yet, although we are now, the government was something humans weren't just born into. It was the result of people who realized we needed some sort of order to live and fought for that order. Even if it was a long time ago, we tried living in a society without government and the outcome of that was government. This goes to prove how necessary it actually is.
The idea of free market was brought up throughout the entire trial, and from my point of view was presented as the alternative of government. It was said that in the free market, regulation of what is sold would be up to the costumers and the consumers. If they don't like what is being sold to them or if the product has a negative effect, they merely need not buy it and the company would go bankrupt. However, I don't believe this applies to GMO's. The effects of GMO's are still undergoing research and it is yet to be proven safe in the long run. A consumer could purchase and eat GMO's and not feel any effects until later on in their lives. This makes the free market regulation system incredibly flawed and dangerous. Regulating what should and shouldn't be sold and consumed should be up to someone other than just the consumer. It requires research and expertise that not all common citizens have. In the trial, two solutions were proposed, the government regulates GMO's or private parties. To me the clear choice would be the government. More specifically, the government we have chosen is worthy of our trust. This, in comparison to private parties, seems like the best choice because private parties will basically just donate money to companies of their choice, for causes they are interested in, which would completely overshadow the opinions of the average American who doesn't have money to give towards whatever cause they are interested in.This gives too much power to the 1% and, the way I see it, basically creates a form of government that is run by the wealthy and doesn't give an opportunity to the other 99% to speak out about anything. The government, although flawed, at least gives everyone a say in what is done, which is more valuable than I think any of us realize.
Regulating GMO's means regulating the research and testing that goes into them before they are sold to the public. To do this we need set rules and someone in charge of this, which is what the FDA is. However, I do think the FDA can be biased about what products it approves because it's getting its money from the government, which gets money from the corporations selling the products. This is tightly related to what I mentioned at the beginning about humans leaning towards corruption. The best way to solve this in my opinion would be to make the policy so researchers of GMOs get payed for how accurate their findings are and pick the scientists so that they come from different social standings and different backgrounds. Varitey leads to more open mindness and therefore better research. I don't think the proposal of having each company test their own GMOs would be effective because that would be extremely biased. No one wants their own product to not be sold which will lead to turning a blind eye on things that are harmful, but maybe not life threatening.
As for the labeling of GMOs, the fact that the government hasn't gotten involved completely and passed a law, even after 93% of Americans are asking for it, is discouraging. However, it's a clear example of how necessary government is. The fact that there is no one who has set clear standards on the labeling of GMOs has brought forth a lot of confusion and has allowed labeling to happen when it's both unnecessary and/or inaccurate. GMOs need to be labeled when there is the option to buy a "GMO free" product. Alongside labeling, the public also needs to be informed about what GMOs are in order to decrease the stigma that surrounds the word. Making it so the government is the only one allowed to label GMOs would make it all less confusing because the labels won't be used to confuse and scare costumers anymore, they will be used for what they're meant, which is to inform people of what's in the products they consume. It should not be up to each individual to go out of their way to find out where their products came from and to trace the GMOs.
In order to start making all these changes we need to regain control of our government. This means we need to know who is in charge. As we were told during the trial, the government is now made up of mostly all hired people, not elected citizens. Although this promotes stability because the hired citizens remain hired throughout their lives, I question then who is behind all the decisions being made. Are the people we vote into office actually doing anything or do they just function as the public face? We need to know who is working towards making the important decisions, which means knowing the hired workers as well. The government needs to be as transparent as it can be to regain our trust and to make sure it's working for the people and not the industries.
In conclusion, I don't believe getting rid of the government is the answer. As it's been proven through history, we need some form of order to survive peacefully. The best option is to improve what has been in the making for hundreds of years, as opposed to attempting to start over from nothing. We need to remind ourselves that we are in charge of the government. The way it runs is completely up to us and this is something we can't keep forgetting. If we don't like the way something is being handled we need to make our voices heard. Government is nothing if it doesn't have citizens. The changes that need to be made are reasonable and consist of: 1) setting up a scientific team made up of the least biased people to regulate the testing and research of GMOs, which in turn means getting rid of the FDA. 2) Getting involved in the labeling of GMOs and teaching citizens about them. And 3) making sure we know who makes up the government and who is making the final decisions. By doing those three things, I believe the government could be successful in the GMO industry, and it would be a start towards fixing a very flawed government.