The Mock Trial ReflectionFall 2014

In a thoughtfully written, well-revised & organized reflection, please respond to the following
questions & prompts.

The Pro Side

1. Opening StatementsWhat ideas & perspectives were established?

During their opening statement, the pro side established that government is essential for the
regulation and development of GMOs because the government has the resources required to
fund genetic research and has multiple branches that specialize in the regulation of crops and
foods. They also proposed that a truly free market would result in out-of-control companies that
would pursue cheap, easy ways to make money that would not necessarily put the safety of
consumers first.

2. Witness TestimonyArguments advanced, evidence examined & major points made.

The witnesses for the pro side focused on testifying on how the FDA is important for the things
we consume to be safe and how they are proficient at their job, and how the government
provides a valuable source of funding for researchers seeking to test the safety of GMOs. To
elaborate, they expanded on different ways that GMOs have potential to help the world, such as
Golden Rice, and how government funding and involvement is essential in the development in
these projects.

3. Closing StatementHow the lawyers tied together the elements of the trial.

during their closing statement, the pro side recapped their core argument: that government is a
great source of precious funding for researchers, and that government is and will be an
essential part of the process of developing GMOs to feed the world. They then concluded that
the government should have a major role in the development of GMOs, rigorously testing them
and heavily regulating them.

The Anti Side

4. Opening StatementsWhat ideas & perspectives were established?

In the opening statement, the anti side stated that GMOs are a valuable way to feed the
world, especially with our increasing population. However, they stated that the government
cannot be a reliable and safe mediator or regulator over GMOs, as the government has close
ties with big agribusinesses like monsanto. Such ties would make the government hesitant to
hold such businesses accountable for their actions, said the anti side, and would create an
environment of leniency that would lead to possibly dangerous products entering to the market
with little recourse for the corporations that made them.

5. Witness TestimonyArguments advanced, evidence examined & major points made.

A major argument that the anti side made during witness testimony was that the
government cannot be trusted as an impartial regulator because many officials are in the pocket
of monsanto. They further argued that GMOs could easily and safely be advanced without or
with minimal government interference because GMO testing could be carried out by third
parties.

6. Closing StatementHow the lawyers tied together the elements of the trial.

To conclude the trial, the anti side wrapped their arguments together by stating that
GMOs have been a part of society since the dawn of agriculture with no ill effect on humans,
and that the federal government can not be trusted as they are closely affiliated with Monsanto
and other large agri-businesses. They also pushed that there must be more research on lab-
made GMOs before they start to be introduced to the market and regulated, as there is
inconclusive and conflicting evidence on the effects of lab-made GMOs on humans.

The Justices Deliberations & Opinions

7. Summarize the Justices deliberationsWhat did they focus on & why? What arguments,
ideas & evidence most struck their interest? What did you see happening in their conversation?

Though I was not present for fridays deliberations, I have to say that Mondays result
shocked me. After seeing almost all of the justices say that they were at or below the 50%
support line for the government, imagine my surprise as they almost unanimously voted for
pretty much 100% government control or involvement. Although it is some consolation that I
also support government involvement, so this trial was not really a total loss for me.

8. Describe one Justices opinion in particularwhat is most interesting about it to you?

During the deliberations, one justice (I believe it was Cody, but Im not entirely sure)
made an interesting point about GMO funcing by proposing that all americans should be able to
choose where their tax dollars go. What mostly interests me about this is the opportunity to see
if what happened in class, i.e. a large number of people saying that they are opposed to
something but who say that they approve of different things that that something would involve.

9. Summarize the Majority OpinionHow did they structure their argument & why?

As I stated before, the majority opinion was surprisingly pro-government, with pretty
much all of the proposed government actions approved, except for a government run labeling
program(a government required labeling program, however, was still approved, so Im not really
sure to count that one truly as a defeated proposition). When arguing for their position, I noticed
that a lot of the justices used more hypothetical scenarios than actual data(for instance, when
trying to decide whether the government should be the one who finances the labeling of GMOs,
there was a lot of speculation into what would/could happen if the government were in such a
position). I assume that this was due in part to a lack of specific knowledge in the area of GMOs
and of our government.


The Significance of the Trial

10. Please write your thoughtful responses to the prompts below:
What economic ideas shared or referenced during the trial are most striking to you?
Why?
What governmental or political ideas shared or referenced during the trial are most
striking to you? Why?
Where do you stand on at least one issue raised in the trial?

I found it very striking how the justices almost unanimously decided to allow for near
total government involvement in GMOs, especially after the conclusion that I saw on friday. In
terms of economics, I like the idea of the government having the power to determine what sorts
of GMOs are okay to make; while I fully advocate for and approve of GMOs such as golden rice
or GMOs that have naturally occurring pesticides encoded in their genome, I find it hard to
justify roundup ready crops, which just encourage farmers to spray and spray and spray their
lands with pesticides, which could have a negative impact on the customer. I also find the idea
of having a hybridized testing system in place, with third-party scientists conducting experiments
and government scientists monitoring the labs to make sure that the science is being done right;
this just seems to be a very sensible thing to do, much more reliable than our current system
(maybe the anti side did win a small victory here; if so, awesome!). However, I do have to say
that I am personally opposed to labeling GMOs, as this would simply stear most people away
from such products, slowing down their development and tainting them in the eyes of the public,
when they really have no negative consequences.