Gabriella Castillo
GMO Mock Trial - My Personal Opinion
To what degree should the United States federal government be able to be in favor of or in opposition to supervise the progress of genetically modified organisms? Within this trial there were several moments where the main question was applied to a variety of things that associated to the topic. The majority of this debate lasted within the conversation of GMO regulation, and labeling. In significance to how much should the government contribute or partake assisting in the direction or opposed to GMO exploration. Personally, I want to declare my judgement during the course of matters and verification that was set from the trial entirely.
Essentially, I want to introduce that the trial across the table recognized GMO's from an assortment, are cautious to use for human ingestion. Both sides from the debate presented that a GMO can be any bacterium that can be genetically improved in a matter of particular circumstances. Understanding what the lawyers tried to influence on the justices, the grouping from the side of the room that opposed the government caught my attention. They indicated that from the layout of foods that we ingest farmers and scientists have been contributing to GMO testing for ages. From what was being said, it reeled and keened on labeling of GMO’s. I brought on a great question to the court that, If all the foods from a widespread are GMO material, then why would we consider identifying and stickering them as GMO’s? Or even a change for the better, why label the genetically modified individuals improved in test beds as GMO’s too? If everything we consume are GMO’s. Labeling in my opinion is a suitable and difficult task all in one. We want the public to know what GMO’s are. But think about it, if we consider on doing this it will make the public believe that they are an unhealthy thing to consume. But in cases like these they aren't if the federal government has approved on them. From what has been influenced on me, I have faith in that , the participation of our federal government on labeling with GMO’s, is only necessary in a few amount of ways. It will make the public bewildered and perplexed influencing that non genetically modified foods are bad for you. Personally I think that the government should not label what we ingest and be capable to notify the public like usual on what's bad for us like we know with other things.
When the trial discussed the directive ruling on GMO’s there was an amount of controversy during the topic. When the justices were able to talk about this on their own time meaning on break, we discussed that the government does not actually do as immeasurable work as they say they do and why should us as voters want them to be in further contribution as is? As if the government progresses in more contribution, GMO categorization will be enforced and required with a large contribution in expenses. We think that if we let private corporations who do the most on examination with genetically modified organisms and be able to sell them, we mostly focused on how will they be capable to financially support themselves as a company or even deeper as just them as individuals? Why cannot we just allow them to complete that task? The only entity in value in allowing these corporations doing so is the encouragement from themselves with benefactors and investors. That is if they are risked in not meeting the income they need and will eventually attempt in them going out of business.
Contributing like Monsanto, they have big investors and benefactors that allow them to the bigger research on GMO’s. One of the witnesses called to the stand was Owen ( I couldnt remember who he stood for) he contributed to the opposed side of anti- government. At the same time as he gave his speech on being opposed to GMO’s, he quantified that GMO’s could aid and benefit for the public in the long run. It was questionable if we can benefit from genetically modified organisms, corporations like Monsanto is a great case in point that they can receive agreement from people like Owen that they need no involvement from the government in any aspect of ways.
While listening to each side of the court sharing their evidence to this trial, the side of the room that was in favor for government had a good argument mentioning how the FDA can be responsible as well in directive ruling on GMO’s. All in favor for pro government asked the ones opposed what could possibly be replaced or substituted for the regulations on GMO’S by the FDA. The opposed side of the court defended themselves by saying it would b a great deal if everything was substituted as a free market.There would be no regulations and it would guarantee a ready for action cheap market.The ones in favor of government alleged that it would generate produce in a way giving a mess to manage to pay for. It would eventually just delay and get in a way of serving the stream of existing complications in the nations because we would be mixing them up for something defective and unhealthy.
From the trial ending, a group of justices from each class decided to understand how each side is created and we came up with this example. During this trial taking place, a similarity was referred to the in favor side of the government. The in favor side of the government resembled a fish bowl to me somehow. The glass surrounding the bowl was to be intended as “protection” in the government way of putting it. The government wants the public to inten to be protection. But as time passes and years float by the glass begins to crack every minute that goes meaning how the government in all ways are just a safety device after much time as passed, they are shady and not fitted to protect us, yet again they say they have so many answers and result to how we can fix this problem. The result was to not protect the fish within the bowl whatsoever, they want it crack so with time passing by someone will find a way to repair and pick up the pieces to create a new world. Meaning if the FDA is as shady as we think they are, we need to create a up to date solution to this mess of directive ruling of GMO’s. Personally, I think its too hard now that the glass bowl will be able to fix with the amount of cracks it has withstood. As a substitute of trying to repair what has been lost or clearing what has been created, create and find what everyone can take advantage of in the long run.
Finishing in my judgement, the government contribution should not be needed or required whatsoever. During the trial everyone kind of eventually realized that this debate in majority was fixated in genetically modified organisms within our food ingestion. I have became more educated with what GMO’s are from this trial and hearing what others had to say about it. Yet again, I was perplexed when Owen in his own speech said GMO’s are good for government intake on. Overall, it was a great thing to explore upon. I have never ever heard of GMO’s until it was brought into this project.