Last night at 6 pm, the debate began. The first team began with a clear overview of the problem. The second team then attacked through cross-examination, attempting to place their sharpest comments where they could most easily deflate their opponent’s argument. Each team threw a few zingers and each reached for an emotional connection with the audience. The “Pro” side spoke of a persons right to know. The “Con” side spoke about a persons right to live. Each debater appeared so well-prepared for debate that I think they could have taking anyone on. It was lucky for McCain and Obama that they were tied up that night. They would have been crushed like government bureauocrats in this crowd of young talented scientists and sociologists.

Some comments here from the “Yes lets label” side:
“If it is labeled, you can git it and go home”
“ignorance is not bliss”
“If it is labeled vegans and those with philosophical opposition will know not to buy it”
“People care about reducing pesticides will buy it”
“They just need to have it explained to them”
“It is more risky to eat”

From the “No, lets not label” side:
“But most people are not aware of the vast reductions in pesticides, so instead , if there is a label, they wlll think something is wrong with it and a stigma would be attached. No one would buy it then and consumers would lose the overall environmental benefit”
“It would be costly to isolate each food proccessing step to be sure that GE and non-GE dont mix.”
“There is no evidence of increased risk; in fact studies show that you are healthier if you grow GE cotton because you are not exposed to pesticides”
“Who will do the explaining? We cant necessarily rely on the media”

Last night, the students in the Genetics and society class shined. The 90 people in the audience called the debate a draw.