During the Deliberation Nation event, I attended the deliberation titled, “Old MacDonald HAD a farm, but now there’s GMOs: Genetic Engineering and Capitalism.” While I’m still wrapping my brain around the title of their event, I found the deliberation to be extremely informative and overall quite successful. I only have my own deliberation to compare theirs to, however, I walked away with a wealth of information from the event about a topic that I thought I already knew a lot about. GMOs, a publicly discussed issue that has emerged in the last decade, is often known as a subject based in ignorance. Many people falsely believe that GMOs are some chemical modification to their food that is inherently bad. In reality, GMOs present a wide range of positive factors to the food industry worldwide. During the deliberation, the three different groups explained the many effects of GMOs, including nuances that benefits or hurt different communities. Further, they clarified how the law relates to GMOs, and the many disputes between larger companies and more local farmers. While GMOs can present positive benefits to a wide range of communities, small farmers are often victims of industry changes. Also, GMOs can reduce genetic variation amongst species, meaning that diseases or environmental changes are even more detrimental. These are just some of the factors that were introduced by the hosts of the event.

While reflecting, it would be a disservice to not mention the two special guests who were at the deliberation. I cannot remember either of their names, however, two retired professors, one of which who had written a book about GMOs, drove much of the conversation. In areas that they felt were underrepresented in the deliberation, both of them spoke up and brought up invaluable perspectives. Further, they mentioned ongoing research which may not have been readily available to the students who prepared for the event. As a result, the conversation mostly centered between those prompting questions or ideas, and the two professors. Other people certainly chirped in from time to time, bringing in other perspectives, however it was mostly a back-and-forth between the two parties.

I thought that the first approach was lacking, and could have been changed entirely. Their approach was based on the idea that there should be absolutely no GMOs. And while I understand the event was supposed to incorporate three leveled approaches, there was almost no reason to completely ban GMOs. A better approach could have been to seriously regulate GMOs until they are proven to have no drawbacks or issues. The first approach quickly became void in the discussion, making me question whether it even belonged in the event overall.

In conclusion, the deliberation event was a huge success, from which I gained a wide range of informative knowledge. All perspectives were included in the event, and the conversation was particularly rich and authentic due to the two special guests being in attendance.