Diego Quintanar
Final Judgment
For my final judgment i'm leaning more towards the anti government in some aspects to how far the government should be involved in regulating GMOs
Both sides came out with some very good points in their opening statements for example, the pro side clearly made the point that if it wasnt for the government corporations that are dedicated to solve world problems like hunger and illness just wouldn't be able to keep running just from private donors like Bill Gates. Another example is we've been modifying our food for a very long time the only difference now is that with technology we can do it quicker. They made a really good point by saying that people aren't well informed of what GMOs can do for us, that some people might jump to conclusions and think theyre bad just because they were made in a lab and ignoring all the good that can come from this. If the government doesn't do anything at all then private corporation could do whatever they want and they're wouldn't be able to stop them from getting richer so the rich would stay rich and the poor would stay poor, the economy would grow.
The anti side made some valid points as well for example they made the point of free market would give some power back to the people by doing so corporations would be forced to make good, quality products. The government doesn't trust the people with the free market so they need all the power. since the government pays these big corporations big amounts of money the corporations want to keep the government happy by doing what they want them to do. Also the government isn't made up of scientists so why should they make the decisions. They made some points that our food already has GMOs of some kind so why shouldn't they label those? They came after the FDA only being a stamp of approval and not conducting their own tests, drug corporations would pay the FDA to just approve the drug.They state that big corporation dont need money from the government that they have enough from private donors.
When the anti side called up their third witness Ron Paul he mentioned his idea of a free market. And how it would power back to the people since FDA isn't doing a very good job of using their power to help the people, that the FDA doesn't trust the people. Big companies would be able to run the way the CEOs feel is the best and most profitable, and would create natural competition and if a company would create bad products then the people wouldn't buy the product and the company would do bad and eventually go down. So companies would be inserted to make good quality products. But I feel there is potential for some companies to only make good products for the wealthiest and leave the rest in the dust, then if that ever happens it would be appropriate for the government to step in break those companies down so there is equality of all options in the markets for all.
While the anti side isn't completely right neither is the pro side. They make a good point that if the government wasn't there to regulate or keep in check with the big companies, then they have the potential to get out of hand. Also if they were to switch into a free market system companies wouldn't be able to run with government support. The government gives 74% percent to agricultural and 70% of that money goes to research companies so the government would still need to be involved for a while if they were to switch.
There second witness Michael Taylor stated that the government doesn't need to be in complete control of everything it just needs to be a player and a referee. That means being a referee by regulating only and only when things get out of hand and be a player to act when companies cross the line. We should not tear down the government but try to fix it by holding new elections new people that will live to serve the people.
I believe that the people are being convinced that the word GMO is a bad thing but don't realize that we have been researching GMOs and breeding which is a type of GMO which choosing which genes you want to grow. For example if you have a cow that grows faster and a cow that grows more meat than you would breed those two together to grow a faster more meatier cow. But the fact that now we make the them in a lab I think it scares the public. So if the companies inform the public of how much good potential they have. One potential is that if we can modify rice to carry more nutrients if that was possible then we could have to resources to end world hunger.
The closing statements were strong and left me with a couple things to think about the anti side and the pro side. The pro side said why are we trying to take down the government when we should be fixing the government. Which is true the government also has the potential to be for the people and by the people. They stated if we do take the government down then we ( the anti side) is blind to the consequences that will come with no government. They gave the example of a hermit crab and the government is the shell and if we get rid of the shell then we will be left exposed to so many dangers. Which I believe is true that we dont have to take it down completely we made need to take down some parts but not all. By holding new elections we are being more involved in our government and at the same time giving some power back to the people.
The anti side left with some strong statements. The people have the potential to make a huge difference in the government if the government would trust them. They stated “We've been doing this for thousands of years but now that we are able to do so faster and in a lab that makes it bad?”. People need to be more informed before jumping to conclusions.