Frida Hernandez
GMO Mock Trial - My Personal Opinion
The main question for this trial was to what extent should the US federal government advocate for or against the regulation or development of genetically modified organisms? There are a few different points in the question itself that were thoroughly discussed during the trial. There was talk of GMO labeling, GMO regulation and government support towards and against GMO research. I will be stating my opinion on all of these topics based on the evidence and testimony from both sides of the trial.
First off, I would like to bring up that both sides established that GMO’s are in fact safe for human consumption. A GMO is any organism (in this case food item) that has been genetically altered in any way. This includes alterations done in a lab and even alterations done by selective breeding. The lawyers from the anti-government side stated that all of the foods we eat are already GMO’s because farmers have been doing selective breeding for years and years, since we stopped hunting and gathering. This point leads to the whole topic of GMO labeling. If all foods are GMO’s, would we label them all as GMO’s or would we only label the ones altered in labs as GMO’s? Labels are not necessarily needed in this case because they will only lead people to believe that GMO’s are bad, which they are not. I believe that government involvement in GMO labeling is not necessary because they will only confuse the consumer and make them believe that organic is always better, which in some cases it wouldn’t make a difference. In my opinion, I think that instead of having the government label our foods, we should just be able to inform the public about GMO’s. With the right information and guidance, we the people will be able to choose what type of food we eat.
When it comes to GMO regulation, the government isn’t doing much already so why would we want them to get more involved? By getting more involved, they will force GMO labeling and spend a lot of money on testing, which could be used somewhere more important like education. If the private companies who do GMO research and sell foods that are GMO’s can financially support themselves, or think they can financially support themselves, then why not let them? The only consequence in letting these companies try to support themselves with donors and shareholders is that if they do not get enough money they will go out of business, but that doesn’t change the fact that research is still being done within other companies and organizations that could potentially change the world for the better. There are people out there who are shareholders of big companies like Monsanto that are there not just for money, but because they truly believe that GMO’s can help certain world issues. Bill Gates, which was one of the witnesses that the anti-government side called to the stand, is a great example of this. While on the stand, he stated that he truly believed that GMO’s could help world hunger and that is why he is a major shareholder of Monsanto. This shows that by informing the public about GMO’s, companies like Monsanto can gain acceptance throughout the general public and will most likely succeed profit wise without the need of government involvement.
The pro-government side brought up a good point during the trial about the FDA being involved with GMO regulation. They asked what would be the alternative of the FDA. The anti-government responded by saying that the alternative would be a free market. A free market is where there would be no government regulation for GMO’s or any businesses. It would ensure a competitive market and let the people decide. The pro side said that that would create a problem because we can not afford trial and error right now. They said that mistakes can’t happen because we would be risking lives and jobs, but by having the government involved it interferes with the advancement of GMO’s. It would interfere with them helping with current world issues because the public would assume them to be bad. One of the witnesses Ron Paul stated that the government is indirectly saying that GMO’s are bad and that organic is good. He said that the public believes this because they are poorly informed about the topic of GMO’s, but if they were to know that everything they eat is a GMO, they would be more willing to support GMO research.
The topic of testing the safety of GMO’s was also a largely discussed topic during the trial. The pro-government side called Michael R. Taylor to the stand, who is the head of the FDA. He clearly said that the government doesn’t have to control everything relating to GMO’s, but only some aspects of it. To my understanding, all the FDA really does when it comes to GMO testing is supervise the company-made tests and give their approval once they see that a certain GMO has met their standards. If the companies already perform their own tests, why do we need that extra step of the FDA interfering? When Ron Paul was on the stand, he said that the FDA is corrupt. He said that it is “over regulating” and that it “squashes innovation”. The anti-government side brought up the point that the FDA only regulates the flow of new food or drugs and by doing so they are only seeing what best interests them when it comes to profit. I don’t know how much of this they do and to what extent, but it sounds unnecessary.
A well thought out analogy was presented to the justices during the trial. The pro-government side compared the general public to a hermit crab, the shell being our “protection” and in this case the government. They said that as of this moment, that shell is breaking, meaning that the government is corrupt and not very stable, but they proposed a solution. Their solution was to not get rid of the shell completely and leave us vulnerable, but instead fix it and start a new life with it. This means that they believe that since the FDA is corrupt, that we should help it come up with a new system so that it can still be involved in GMO regulation in some way. In my opinion, it would be too difficult to try to fix “the shell”, so instead of fixing it and instead of getting rid of it in a negative way, we can get rid of it and find the benefits from that. This would mean that by skipping the step of the FDA approval, we leave it open for the people to decide what’s good for them and what’s not. As Ron Paul said, we can make our own decisions and we don’t need the government telling us that GMO’s are bad when in fact they can be good.
In conclusion, I believe that government involvement (whether it be by regulating GMO’s or financially supporting them) is not necessary. I think that since it is all we know, people are scared to be open minded to the idea of the government not helping us decide what’s good or bad for us, but research shows that GMO’s in food are good, so we shouldn’t be afraid if they are altered using a different method. This trial mostly focused on GMO’s relating to foods, but it would have been interesting to hear about GMO’s in the environment as well. It could have made me revisit some points of the essential question, but overall I think that the government does not have to be involved in order for us to make progress in the field of GMO research and production.