• Who are the main actors discussed in the article? Lay experts? Government agencies? Private companies? Scientists? Medical practitioners? University Academics? Combinations of some of these? Something else?
• What are the specifics of the controversy as each ‘side’ understands it? Simply put, what are the different arguments being put forth?
• On what basis do the various actors explicitly or implicitly seem to be grounding their right to make claims? In other words, why do different actors feel they are able to make legitimate claims to knowledge?
• According to YOU: Did one or another actor seem to have more legitimate claims than others? Why??

Genetically modified DNA

Hicks and different arguments, not harm body directly but issues with social and cultural, doesn’t want to look at science but looks at seed, might become a huge monopoly of access to foods or not access to foods

How they talked about health and safety, they want the public to ask questions of gmo.

Infringes upon our true democracy they try to say scientific ideas but how do you know what is what and real could be false.