Introduction
I affirm the resolution: on balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms. In this debate, I will prove that GMOs have been beneficial in three specific areas: health, economic, and ecological.
Observation 1: Everything is a GMO
The first thing I want to point out is that everything we eat is genetically modified. This is simply how evolution works. For thousands of years, humans have been artificially breeding animals and plants to select the traits that they want to improve and pass down. Let's take a look at the banana, for example:
If you enjoy fresh bananas, then you can thank genetic modification via artificial selection.
Genetic modification works the same way except that we can make the traits we want much faster. Let's now look at the three areas which GMOs have improved our lives.
Area 1: Health
A) GMOs are safe
The scientific evience overwhelmingly states that GMOs are safe to eat. More than 3,000 studies came to the same conclusion. GMOs do not negatively impact our health. In fact:
B) GMOs improve health
GMOs can help improve the nutritional value of foods. "An example is GMO soybeans with healthier oils that can be used to replace oils that contain trans fats." - Source.
Another example is golden rice which has signiifcantly increased the nutritional value. The PNAS writes: "The consumption of the genetically modified rice variety known as Golden Rice (GR) offers a potent and cost-effective strategy to combat VAD. But this innovation has been cast aside owing to fear or false accusations, resulting in numerous lives needlessly lost (1–3). With the recent exception of the Philippines, governments have not approved the cultivation of GR (5). We believe it should be broadly approved and given the opportunity to save and improve lives."
Area 2: Economic
Because GMOs can singiicantly increase the produciton yield this has translated to a signiciant economic benefit for farmers. PG Economics notes:
"Crop biotechnology helps farmers earn more secure incomes due mainly to improved control of pests and weeds. The net farm level economic benefit in 2014 was $17.7 billion, equal to an average increase in income of $101/hectare. For the 19 years (1996-2014), the global farm income gain has been $150.3 billion;
The total farm income benefit of $150.3 billion was divided almost equally between farmers in developing (51%) and developed countries (49%)..."
This has lead to a noticable reduciton in suicide among farmers. The genetic literacy project demolishes the false claim that GMOs have increased suicide rates:
We find that the suicide rate for male Indian farmers is slightly lower than the non-farmer rate. And Indian suicide rates as a whole are not notably high in a global context. The pattern of changes in suicide rates over the last 15 years is consistent with a beneficial effect of Bt cotton, albeit not in every cotton-growing state.
The Conversation noted:
the available data does not support the view that farmer suicides have increased following the introduction of Bt cotton. Taking all states together, there is evidence to support the hypothesis that the reverse is true: male farmer suicide rates have actually declined after 2005 having been increasing before then.
Finally, Stuart J Smyth noted:
Research examining the relationship between farm suicide and Bt cotton adoption revealed a plateauing of the suicide rate following the commercialization of Bt cotton (Gruère and Sengupta, 2011). Farmer suicides were trending upward from 15 000 per year, peaking in 2004, the year after Bt cotton was first commercialized in India. By 2007, the actual suicide rate was 25% below the extrapolated suicide rate. Cumulatively, the reduced rate of suicide associated with the adoption of Bt cotton represents the prevention of a minimum of 75 000 farmer suicides.
Area 3: Ecological
The final area I will look at is the ecological impact of GMOs. The FDA notes:
Overall, studies have shown GMOs can have positive environmental impacts and can be important tools for addressing the causes and effects of climate change...
When farmers grow Bt crop varieties, they can apply less insecticide while still preventing insect damage to their crops. This in turn allows for a higher diversity of beneficial insects. For example, insecticide application among U.S. corn and cotton farmers decreased by over 80% from 1996 to 2017
The GMO answer project noted:
Herbicide-tolerant crops help farmers control weeds more effectively, and in turn farmers plow fields less frequently if at all, to manage weeds. Because the soil isn’t turned, the carbon naturally stored in soil stays there (soil carbon sequestration). Because machinery isn't used to plow fields, less gasoline is needed, resulting in fewer CO2 emissions from engines.
These benefits add up: In 2020 alone, the GM crop-related CO2 emission savings from reduced fuel use and additional soil carbon sequestration were equal to the removal of 15.6 million cars from the road3 - two million more than all the cars registered in California!4
Conclusion
GMOS have had significant benefits in multiple areas. The resolution is affirmed. Please vote PRO
I shall argue, on balance, the harms of genetically modified foods outweigh the benefits.
Shall argue the areas of health, economic, and ecological, while linking them to The People in weighing the harms and benefits of GMOs.
"The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard defines bioengineered foods as those that contain detectable genetic material that has been modified through certain lab techniques and cannot be created through conventional breeding or found in nature."
https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/how-gmos-are-regulated-united-states
The debate description states,
"There are many countries in which GMO foods are allowed, and many where they are substantially regulated or even banned."
Countries are not banning foods which are naturally cultivated. But GMO lab foods.
One is not going to get a GloFish by standard breeding techniques.
It required the "adding a variant of the jellyfish gene."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GloFish
Little glowing fish, seems harmless enough.
But it's the implications see.
Ecosystems can be surprisingly delicate, when certain additions or subtractions are made.
We 'had food before GMOs,
Now, we 'still have food.
But what is worse, we have people able to 'quickly and near invisibly damage ecosystems.
There is 'much legislation on GMOs, in 'some countries.
There is much legislation on 'nukes, in 'some countries.
It's not necessarily 'great that nukes exist and it's constant apocalypse threat exists.
GMOs have exhibited and possess potential for a great deal of harm
Nutrition,
"most of the comparative analyses (275; 41.9%) showed no significant difference between organic and conventional foods. "
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10987935/
GMOs can contain nutrition, or they can not.
Pesticides, Safe? Unsafe?
Consider this, leaded water can safely be drunk once, maybe twice, but over months or years, deadly effects stack up.
GMOs are tightly under the grasp of corporations.
"Since the mid‑1990s, Monsanto has filed suit against 145 individual U.S. farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases
What do companies like?
Profit.
What do consumers eat? Whatever is available.
We 'already have nutrient rich foods that people could buy. But people are often drawn to what is cheap, tasty, or available.
https://news.yale.edu/2008/09/10/healthy-foods-scarce-poor-neighborhoods-yale-researchers-find
Is a lack of nutrition safe?
Not over time I'd say.
And that is something to fear of 'companies with monopolies.
"In the United States, monopolies and monopolistic behavior are highly criticized. Monopolies remove consumer choice, and often lead to higher prices for lower quality goods and services."
https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/9k/on-balance-the-benefits-of-genetically-modified-foods-outweigh-the-harms
Pesticides
"Mexico’s report presents dozens of studies from peer-reviewed scientific journals that link a wide range health effects to consumption of GM corn and exposure to glyphosate residues that often come with it – since 80% of U.S. corn is sprayed with glyphosate-based herbicides."
https://usrtk.org/gmo/new-scientific-analyses-mexicos-restrictions-on-gm-corn-glyphosate-health-risks/
Imagine the groundwater from all those pesticides.
Are 'farmers making money, or are corporations?
Recall the court cases earlier
Here is another from Australia.
https://www.farminstitute.org.au/getting-the-story-right-on-the-marsh-baxter-gm-case/
Much of a farmers livelihood was 'ruined by the wind, and a corporations 'patent on said wind blown seeds.
And frankly, the economic benefits are little to no benefit.
"The Top 10 Percent Own 70 Percent of U.S. Wealth"
https://www.statista.com/chart/19635/wealth-distribution-percentiles-in-the-us/?srsltid=AfmBOoom-ovCrtrxvLph-8OXxO9-_9MOJkgNOW3Y38xdzGL2O6EYfBQ-
The economic benefit to The People is little, yet the people are the majority.
What average farmer anywhere has a lab by which to Frankenstein GMO their crops?
What average farmer has the funds or lawyers to finance and copyright their crops to 'such a degree as large companies are?
Make America 10 times as rich, but if all the added bounty goes to the companies, and the rest of us are left serfs.
I ask you, what type of economic improvement is 'that?
Below I shall argue frequent examples of GMOs gone astray.
PESTS
"It is also possible that if insect-resistant plants cause increased death in one particular pest, it may decrease competition and invite minor pests to become a major problem. In addition, it could cause the pest population to shift to another plant population that was once unthreatened."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3791249/
Here again we see the monopoly of companies, and the destruction of any who will not rent from them their seeds.
"These effects can branch out much further. A study of Bt crops showed that “beneficial insects, so named because they prey on crop pests, were also exposed to harmful quantities of Bt.” It was stated that it is possible for the effects to reach further up the food web to effect plants and animals consumed by humans"
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3791249/
Safe in the lab is one thing, safe deployed into various ecosystems, is another.
DAMAGES TO HUMANS
And what happens when crops are made so strongly pest resistant, other than diverting and killing bits of the ecosystem.
"Court documents filed by attorneys for Waimea homeowners who successfully sued DuPont for pesticide and dust impacts to their homes show the company sprayed ten times the mainland average, based on internal pesticide records obtained from DuPont."
https://theecologist.org/2015/nov/04/hawaii-anger-rises-over-health-impacts-pesticides-used-gmo-crops
Can apply less pesticides, does not mean that is standard practice.
Not to mention the insecticide 'corn some companies grow.
"engineered to resist weedkillers and produce its own insecticide."
https://www.nongmoproject.org/blog/the-gmo-high-risk-list-corn/
Healthy?
ESCAPES
"For years, some farmers in central and eastern Oregon have been battling an unexpected new pest: a genetically modified strain of the soft, lush grass you’d commonly see on a golf course.
In 2003, a botched experiment by agribusiness giants Scotts Miracle-Gro and Monsanto unleashed a mutant strain of creeping bent grass across the state."
https://www.opb.org/news/article/gmo-grass-oregon-creeping-bent-scotts-monsanto/
We also might worry of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
"Imagine a pest resistance gene jumping to a native plant that is the main food source for an ecologically important caterpillar."
- Some Guy Off Reddit
Pesticide
"In 1999, a paper stated that, in a laboratory environment, pollen from Bt maize dusted onto milkweed could harm the monarch butterfly.[293] A collaborative research exercise over the following two years by several groups of scientists in the US and Canada studied the effects of Bt pollen in both the field and the laboratory. The study resulted in a risk assessment concluding that any risk posed to butterfly populations was negligible.[294] A 2002 review of the scientific literature concluded that "the commercial large-scale cultivation of current Bt–maize hybrids did not pose a significant risk to the monarch population" and noted that despite large-scale planting of genetically modified crops, the butterfly's population was increasing.[295] However, the herbicide glyphosate used to grow GMOs kills milkweed, the only food source of monarch butterflies, and by 2015 about 90% of the U.S. population has declined."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies
"A 2010 study showed that about 83 percent of wild or weedy canola tested contained genetically modified herbicide resistance genes.[335][336][337] According to the researchers, the lack of reports in the United States suggested that oversight and monitoring were inadequate.[338] A 2010 report stated that the advent of glyphosate-resistant weeds could cause GM crops to lose their effectiveness unless farmers combined glyphosate with other weed-management strategies.[339][340]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies
Consider Thomas Midgley Jr. and his creation unleashed upon the world.
"In 2011, researchers retroactively estimated the annual impact of tetraethyl lead worldwide to be 1.1 million excess deaths"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead
People 'want and require the GMO sticker on foods, 'because they are worried.
A sticker that 'companies (No surprise) are eager to remove.
https://www.ewg.org/research/big-food-companies-spend-millions-defeat-gmo-labeling
My opponent is quick to notice 'lab safety, and controlled environment safety.
But they ignore the effects that GMOs can have when applied in the real world.
They ignore the soulless money grubbing companies whose first focus is 'not safety.
They ignore the wideness of the world, even 'if first world companies manage to rein in GMOs to be farmed a 'bit more safely (While often failing), what of the world at large?
What of third world farmers and sweatshops, what 'safety will be found there?
The US government could not force China to not kill all the sparrows,
And the US government cannot force China to follow US safety regulations on GMOs.
On balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms.
Because we don't need 'more food, we need more infrastructure, planning, and safety nets for the people we have 'now.
We 'have the food and money, it just needs to be 'applied to the people.
There are little to no benefits, GMOs are rather additions of risks and downsides.
Thank you, Leaning, for your arguments. I am sorry I had very little time over the past few days so I may not get to everyhting. I want to at least touch on the major points.
GMOs have exhibited and possess potential for a great deal of harm
Nutrition,
My opponent completely misrepresents their first source. The source was not comparing GMOs to non GMOs but rather comparing organic farming to conventional farming. This is evidence by the title of the paper: "Are organics more nutritious than conventional foods?..." The paper dealt with the hypothesis that organic foods are healthier than conventional foods. The paper itself concludes:
Therefore, if a belief in the nutritional superiority of organic foods over conventional foods is established among consumers, such a belief can only be grounded in subjective knowledge.
GMOs are only one part of conventional foods and conventional farming. This is not a comprehensive study showing that GMOs are nutritionally equivalent to non-GMOs.
Pesticides, Safe? Unsafe?
My opponent griped about corporatoins and also blatantly cherry picked their own source:
Since the mid‑1990s, Monsanto has filed suit against 145 individual U.S. farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed but has proceeded through trial against only eleven farmers, all of which Monsanto has won
So in the past 30 years Monsanto (which no longer exists as a company) only took 11 individuals to trial. Further, from the same source:
As Monsanto argued, the principle behind a farmer’s seed contract is simple: a business must be paid for its product, but that a very small percentage of farmers do not honor this agreement. While many lawsuits involve breach of Monsanto's Technology Agreement, farmers who have not signed this type of contract, but do use the patented seed, can also be found liable for violating Monsanto's patent.[11][10]: 581 That said, Monsanto stated it will not "exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means."[12] The Federal Circuit found that this assurance is binding on Monsanto, so that farmers who don’t harvest more than a trace amount of Monsanto's patented crops "lack an essential element of standing" to challenge Monsanto's patents.[13]
What do companies like?
Oh no, not the profits! God forbid if a company actually makes a dollar. The horror!
Corproations will always try and make a profit whether it is with GMOs or non GMOs. The fear mongerring of ProFiTs are not relevent ot the scientific data. Going off of my opponent's own standards they would be forced to reject non-GMO products:
Labeling Food GMO-Free Is Now A Multi-Billion Dollar Business
To receive the label, a product has to be certified as containing ingredients with less than 1 percent genetic modification. Westgate says that’s a realistic standard, while totally GMO-free is not. She says natural foods stores began the process of defining a standard, involving other interested players along the way, including consumers. Now, General Mills is just one of the big food companies selling non-GMO products.
Sales of food labeled as “Non-GMO” ballooned to over $3 billion in 2013, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Companies chase profits. If they can gain a profit by selling non-GMO products then they will. Profits =/= GMOs are dangerous and not beneficial. Cross-examination for con: Are companies not allowed to make a profit? What is the maximum profit a company should be permitted to make and why? If you don't explain this then your entire argument about profits collapses.
Pesticides
First, my opponent's source is highly questionable. The site promotes a lot of pseudoscience nonsense and even has an entire section promoting COVID conspiracy theories. Second, the article overstates the dangers of glyphosate.
1) It is listed as an IARC group 2A carciogenic "This designation is applied when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, as well as sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals." To compare night shift work is listed in the same category of carciogenic as glyphosate.
2) The EPA found:
In February 2020, after receiving and considering public comments on the glyphosate proposed interim decision, EPA published the interim decision registration review decision (ID) for glyphosate. As part of this action, EPA found that there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label. EPA also found that glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen. The ID also identified potential ecological risks to non-target organisms, primarily non-target plants through spray drift. The ID identified interim risk mitigation measures in the form of label changes, including spray drift management language, herbicide resistance management language, a non-target organism advisory, and certain label consistency measures. It concluded that the benefits of glyphosate outweigh the potential ecological risks when glyphosate is used in accordance with labels.
Are 'farmers making money, or are corporations?
The question that I ask to my opponent once again: Are corporations not allowed to make money? If not, why not? Is there a maximum profit dollar that they should make? What's that standard and why?
Once again, my opponent blatantly misrepresents his first source:
https://www.farminstitute.org.au/getting-the-story-right-on-the-marsh-baxter-gm-case/
The picture that emerges from the published findings of the judges is one where, instead of the normal situation where the offending canola stalks would have been quickly collected up and removed, or the neighbour asked to collect them and remove them, the situation was escalated all the way to the courts as a consequence of actions by the organic farmer, the over-zealous and incorrect actions of his organic certifier NASAA, and ultimately a band of anti-GM campaigners who saw the case as an opportunity to inflict some damage on those supporting GM crops.
The case has backfired on the anti-GM campaigners rather spectacularly. First, the judges have pointed out that merely having some GM crop plants present on a farm does not constitute ‘contamination’; that in any event contamination implies harm or damage and there is no available evidence that GM crops have ever caused harm or damage; and finally that as a consequence of losing the case, it is possible that all the costs of the case will have to be borne by Steve Marsh.
As noted in relation to the first court decision, it seems that the Judges are hinting quite strongly that the party most to blame in this situation was the organic certifier NASAA, and the organic standard which sets a zero tolerance requirement, contrary to the more realistic and practical standards that apply everywhere else in the world.
All those anti-GM campaigners who so willingly jumped on the bandwagon now face the difficult moral decision about whether they are prepared to open their wallets and help pay for Steve Marsh’s likely costs.
There is still the possibility that this case might be appealed to the High Court, but it appears this would simply be inflicting more stress and uncertainty on the two protagonists and further fattening the pockets of lawyers. The reality is that neighbouring farmers have dealt with these sorts of problems in a practical and cooperative manner for generations, and resorting to the courts every time a sheep strays or weeds appear will never be a solution.
My opponent blatantly is lying through their teeth.
My opponent then cites the statistic that The Top 10 Percent Own 70 Percent of U.S. Wealth. While this is true this is completely irrelevent and actually strengthens mine. If there's positive economic benefit for farmers then that bolsters my case.
PESTS
DAMAGES TO HUMANS
My opponent cites the GMO project: "engineered to resist weedkillers and produce its own insecticide." but fails to actually prove why this is bad or what the harms could be. This is an unproven point.
ESCAPES
My opponent cites horizontal gene transfer but doesn't explain what that is, how it works, or the connection on GMOS.
Some guy off redit - sounds quite reliable (not).
Pesticide
A 2019 paper noted that the decline of the butterflies far predated the use of GMOs:
The recent decline of the monarch butterfly has attracted a great deal of attention. One of the leading hypotheses blames genetically modified (GM) crops, ostensibly because of the impact of GM-related herbicide use on the monarch’s food plants, milkweeds. Here, we use museum specimen records to chart monarch and milkweed occurrence over the past century (1900 to 2016), dating well before previous datasets begin (in 1993). We show that monarch and milkweed declines begin around 1950 and continue until the present day. Whatever factors caused milkweed and monarch declines prior to the introduction of GM crops may still be at play, and, hence, laying the blame so heavily on GM crops is neither parsimonious nor well supported by data.
Herbicide-resistant crops, therefore, are clearly not the only culprit and, likely, not even the primary culprit
Conclusion
I'm low on time and space so whatever I didn't address in this round I will try to addrss in the next round. My opponent's case is weak. They've repeatedly misrepresented their own sources.
GMOs have exhibited and possess potential for a great deal of harm
Nutrition, Organics, GMOs
Among how organic foods are defined, is by their 'not being GMOs.
"The use of genetic engineering, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is prohibited in organic products. This means an organic farmer can’t plant GMO seeds, an organic cow can’t eat GMO alfalfa or corn, and an organic soup producer can’t use any GMO ingredients. To meet the USDA organic regulations, farmers and processors must show they aren’t using GMOs and that they are protecting their products from contact with prohibited substances, such as GMOs, from farm to table."
https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-organic-products
Organic farmers don't use:
human-made pesticides, with a few exceptions
fertilizer prepared with human-made ingredients or sewage sludge
genetically engineered plants and animals
https://npic.orst.edu/faq/organic.html
Food in general, whether GMO or organic is an 'incredibly wide umbrella.
Empty of near anything Rice cakes could be GMO or organic.
What matters is what selective breeding or genetic manipulations have been employed.
Either method can increase or decrease the nutrition.
Monsanto
"Since the mid‑1990s, Monsanto has filed suit against 145 individual U.S. farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases
Do poor working class farmers have the same resources or lawyers as big time corporations?
All a company needs to do is 'threaten them with the stick of legal fees.
I would not say the Monsanto was 'dissolved, so much as under new management.
"In September 2016, Monsanto agreed to be acquired by Bayer for US$66 billion.[98][99] In an effort to receive regulatory clearance for the deal, Bayer announced the sale of significant portions of its current agriculture businesses, including its seed and herbicide businesses, to BASF."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
"In 1954, Monsanto partnered with German chemical giant Bayer to form Mobay and market polyurethanes in the United States.
Monsanto began manufacturing DDT in 1944, along with some 15 other companies. This insecticide was used to kill malaria-transmitting mosquitoes, but it was banned in the United States in 1972 due to its harmful environmental impacts."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
Of course, Monsanto has a long history with Bayer, all seems to stay in the family, so to speak. New clothes, new name, same person.
Glyphosate
Questioning the origins of Covid is not a questionable activity.
"Common weed killer glyphosate increases cancer risk by 41%, study says"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/health/us-glyphosate-cancer-study-scli-intl/index.html
"Glyphosate and GBHs at exposure levels corresponding to the EU ADI and the EU NOAEL caused dose-related increases in incidence of multiple benign and malignant tumors in SD rats of both sexes. Early-life onset and mortality were observed for multiple tumors. These results provide robust evidence supporting IARC's conclusion that there is "sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity [of glyphosate] in experimental animals". Furthermore, our data are consistent with epidemiological evidence on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and GBHs."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40490737/
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is failing to put warnings on pesticides linked to cancer — even when the agency itself determined a product’s ingredients are carcinogenic, according to two new analyses of federal data."
https://truthout.org/articles/the-epa-is-routinely-failing-to-require-warnings-on-cancer-linked-pesticides/
THE EPA
Has often failed to update the public, or been slow to oppose corporations.
"In 1998, EPA officials were first notified by 3M that PFAS were toxic. In 2001 the agency received internal company studies documenting PFAS’ health risks, and two years later received more animal studies.
But under pressure from industry, in 2006, EPA said the agency was “not aware of any studies specifically relating current levels of [the PFAS chemical] PFOA exposure to human health effects.” The EPA made the ludicrous claim, even though in 2005 the agency had fined DuPont for failing to report PFOA’s health effects, and in 2006, EPA’s own Science Advisory Board found that PFOA was a likely human carcinogen.
Not until 2009 did the EPA issue its first PFAS Action Plan and establish a non-enforceable provisional health advisory for PFOA and its close chemical cousin PFOS – more than a decade after 3M shared studies showing PFAS chemicals were toxic. "
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/its-time-end-epas-long-history-failing-act-forever-chemicals
Companies
Companies are allowed to make money, but it's not 'ideal or 'good to give them a monopoly on power or to expect them to have motives other than money.
The Top 10 Percent Own 70 Percent of U.S. Wealth,
If the rich are made richer, and they convolute methods to patent general goods such as crop seeds. I don't see how this is good for The People.
Lying Claim
I don't see how my having a different interpretation of the source than Pro, is lying through my teeth.
If those seeds 'hadn't been a corporations patented GMO crops, then his farm 'wouldn't have been decertified.
Companies, unbothered by GMOs, are free to spread them as much as they like, while independent farmers crops can be contaminated and lose their GMO status.
Consider what happens when a farmer attempts to replant crop infected by GMOs.
They get sued by the companies, which have patented life itself.
If a quarter of one's crop is contaminated, is that then a quarter of their crop they can't replant? A quarter lost in profit?
Why 'shouldn't they be able to plant something that was forced onto their property, that puts on the individual farmer the onus of dealing with the problem.
"As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997.[4] He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola.
At the time, Roundup Ready canola was in use by several farmers in the area. Schmeiser claimed that he did not plant the initial Roundup Ready canola in 1997, and that his field of custom-bred canola had been accidentally contaminated."
https://web.archive.org/web/20150201052457/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser
"produce its own insecticide." - the GMO project
"but fails to actually prove why this is bad or what the harms could be" - Pro
Well, who wants to eat insecticide, ya know?
If I offered to spray a can of DMT on someone's food to keep bugs away from it, who would take me up on that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
"Horizontal gene transfer
(HGT) is the transfer of genetic material between distinct species, a process that plays a major role in the evolution of a genome."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/gb-spotlight-20030710-01
"Horizontal gene transfer of pesticide, herbicide, or antibiotic resistance to other organisms would not only put humans at risk, but it would also cause ecological imbalances, allowing previously innocuous plants to grow uncontrolled, thus promoting the spread of disease among both plants and animals."
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetically-modified-organisms-gmos-transgenic-crops-and-732/
Monarchs,
Well, I have a newer study. While pesticides may not be the 'only reason, it seems hard to deny that they have a large effect.
"In 2024, a mass die-off of western monarchs occurred at an overwintering site in Pacific Grove, California. When researchers visited the site, they found pesticides in all of the dead butterflies they studied. Every single one."
https://environmentamerica.org/articles/study-documents-monarch-butterflies-exposure-to-deadly-pesticides/
https://www.ecowatch.com/monarch-butterflies-deaths-pesticides.html
Pesticide Groundwater
"it has been estimated that less than 0.1% of the pesticide applied to crops actually reaches the target pest and the remaining enters the environment unreasonably and thus contaminates soil, water, and air, in which it can poison or adversely affect nontarget organisms."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4300446/
Population,
More people means more pollution.
Even if GMOs 'did feed more people, why would that be good?
To Gain, To Lose,
Think of Midgley, with the knowledge we currently have of GMOs, we have a lot we could lose, possible health risks, company monopolies, environmental hazards.
It would be foolish to go all in on GMOs currently before we have ascertained risk.
Be like speeding a car at night with no headlights.
Seeking Clarifications
Is everything a GMO?
Are laws on GMOs and pesticides internationally followed?
What do GMOs give us that we cannot already acquire with non GMOs? Sure they may increase vitamins some in a crop, but those vitamins are accessible through other sources.
Pesticides upsetting ecosystems by killing too many of a pest type. Think of China and the sparrows.
What if GMOs escape, such as the Oregon grass?
Nutrition, Organics, GMOs
My opponent is correct that by definition organic is not GMO. However, my opponent has failed to prove their central hypothesis that organic is inherently healthier than GMO. Con's own source proved that
"most of the comparative analyses (275; 41.9%) showed no significant difference between organic and conventional foods. "
As a reminder: Conventional foods =/= GMO.
My opponent needs to do more than say "Organics don't use GMOs, pesticides, herbicides, etc." If my opponent wishes to win on this point then my opponent needs to prove that organic foods are significantly healther than conventional foods which they have not done. All what con did in this section was assert a fact but failed to tie this to the resolution of the debate.
Monsanto
As a company Monsanto leaglly does not exist any more. Moreover, my opponent failed to tie this to the resolution as a whole. If I conceded this entire point all what con managed to prove is that the corporatoins themselves are bad and need reformed - not that GMO themselves are bad. This is, yet again, another point that my opponent failed to tie to the resolution.
Again, why are corporations not allowed to make contracts and enforce those contracts in court? Why are corporations not allowed to make profit? Why is it bad when conventional companeis make a dollar but good when organic companies do? I asked this central question in the last round which they failed to reply to.
Glyphosate
Questioning the origins of COVID and spewing well-known debunked conspiracy theories seriously damages the credibility of the source.
My opponent's first source from CNN was reporting on this source. A few things to note:
The paper says:
"Using the highest exposure groups when available in each study, we report the overall meta-relative risk (meta-RR) of NHL in GBH-exposed individuals was increased by 41% (meta-RR = 1.41, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.13–1.75).
In other words, this paper was comparing those with the absolute highest exposure groups and not to the general public as a whole.
When reporting on the known limitations, the paper notes:
There are several possible mechanistic explanations for the increased NHL risk in humans and lymphomas in animals. The etiology of NHL remains largely unknown; however, potential risk factors include autoimmune diseases, infection with viruses and/or bacteria, immunosuppressant medications, and exposures to some pesticides [83,84]. Although not a formally recognized risk factor for NHL, endocrine disruptors have been associated recently with risk of B-cell neoplasms [85], most of which are NHL
Finally, the 41% figure isn't as terrifying as the claim appears. 41% does not mean that 41% of the highest exposed individuals would get cancer. Essentially this is like going from 2 in 100 people vs 2.8 in 100 people.
THE EPA
Once again their source had nothing to do with the resolution. The article was about PFAS. Glyphosate is NOT as PFAS.
Companies
I agree that monopolies are bad. But once again, I fail to see how my opponent's case connects to the resolution of the debate. How do the profits made by corporations make GMOs inherently dangerous?
In the previous round I emphasized that organics and non GMO is also a big busniess and makes profits. By my opponent's own standard they woud be forced to reject organic / non GMO. As I mentioned in the last round organic / non GMO is a $1 billion + business. Why is one bad but the other good? Why should we believe organic / non GMO business has our own interest at heart?
Lying Claim
It is lying when your soures claim the opposite of what you are claiming.
Again, let's look critically at the Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser case cited by my opponent. In their own source:
Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on patent rights for biotechnology, between a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, and the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto. The court heard the question of whether Schmeiser's intentionally growing genetically modified plants constituted "use" of Monsanto's patented genetically modified plant cells. By a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that it did.[1] The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However by the time the case went to trial, all claims had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination.[2]
At the time, Roundup Ready canola was in use by several farmers in the area. Schmeiser claimed that he did not plant the initial Roundup Ready canola in 1997, and that his field of custom-bred canola had been accidentally contaminated. While the origin of the plants on Schmeiser's farm in 1997 remains unclear, the trial judge found that with respect to the 1998 crop, "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's 1998 crop.[5]
The issues of patent infringement and "farmer's rights" were settled, in Monsanto's favour, at the trial before the Federal Court of Canada[4] and upheld at the appeal level before the Federal Court of Appeal. Both courts found that a key element in Mr. Schmeiser's patent infringement in his 1998 crop was that he knew or ought to have known the nature of the gylphosate-resistant seed he saved and planted.
... on the balance of probabilities, the defendants infringed a number of the claims under the plaintiffs’ Canadian patent number 1,313,830 by planting, in 1998, without leave or licence by the plaintiffs, canola fields with seed saved from the 1997 crop which seed was known, or ought to have been known by the defendants to be Roundup tolerant and when tested was found to contain the gene and cells claimed under the plaintiffs’ patent. By selling the seed harvested in 1998 the defendants further infringed the plaintiffs’ patent."[4]
The courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser's action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category. The appellate court also discussed a possible intermediate scenario, in which a farmer is aware of contamination of his crop by genetically modified seed, but tolerates its presence and takes no action to increase its abundance in his crop. The court held that whether such a case would constitute patent infringement remains an open question but that it was a question that did not need to be decided in the Schmeiser case
This case was a pretty blatant violation and infringement of Monsanot's IP. Monsanto actually had a real case. This is not a case of corporate lawfare to inflict pain on a small town farmer. Monsanto had a real legal case and the court decided the case correctly.
"Horizontal gene transfer
I'll let my opponent's source speak for itself:
GMOs benefit mankind when used for purposes such as increasing the availability and quality of food and medical care, and contributing to a cleaner environment. If used wisely, they could result in an improved economy without doing more harm than good, and they could also make the most of their potential to alleviate hunger and disease worldwide. However, the full potential of GMOs cannot be realized without due diligence and thorough attention to the risks associated with each new GMO on a case-by-case basis.
Monarchs,
First my opponent completely ignored the key finding of my main source that the monarch's decline started long before GMOs and glyphosate. Again, let's look critically at my con's sources. Their source states:
In the last three decades, monarch butterfly populations have declined by 80- 95% due to drought, loss of milkweed and native habitat, loss of breeding grounds and climate change.
In other words, the source verifies my other source that the monarch's decline started long before GMOs and glyphosate, and it ackowledges other contributing factors. But if we follow the source my opponent's source cited this paper. A few things to note: This paper was about pesticicdes. Glyphosate is a herbicide.Interesting, the paper does not mention glyhposate but does mention two other herbicides: dacthal (DCPA) and diuron as potential contributing factors. Glyphosate was not found in any of them.
None of the chemicals listed are directly related to GMOs as a whole because they are used in both GMO and non-GMO conventional practices.
Pesticide Groundwater
The debate resolution is "On balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms. Per the BOP note: "Both sides are tasked with weighing the benefits and harms of GMO foods against one another"
The biggest weakness with my opponent's case is that they did not actually tie their arguments to the resolution. How would removing GMOs from the food supply be better than the status quo? Even more damaging to their case is that every single criticism is not unique to GMOs. If my opponent wants to win on the pesticides and herbicides claim then they need to show how they are unique to GMOs and how removing them is better than status quo.
Nutrition, Organics, GMOs
My source stated
"The organic food production system avoids using synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically modified organisms"
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10987935/
Therefore GMO food was included with the conventional foods.
Which my source argues has little nutritional differences with organics.
And 'again, organic 'or GMO, either one can be cultivated for more or less nutrition.
Monsanto
The company that 'bought Monsanto was already heavily involved 'with them and many of their earlier controversies.
Even after Disney bought Star Wars, Star Wars still produces Star Wars content.
Who is expected to 'hold an item, effects how we rate that items danger.
The perception of items depends on expected context. And currently the expectation of context.
What worries me and what my opponent has not denied, is the extreme amount and degree of control private corporations would have.
Glyphosate
Covid, that governments lie at times, is as true as water being wet.
Various lies come out often decades after being covered up for the time being.
"2 in 100 people vs 2.8 in 100 people."
Is nearly a one percent increase. What if it builds up like lead does, or consider other factors adding to the danger.
Ah it's just one percent more you might say, but then you have percent here there so on, could get higher than 10%,
Heck even 1% isn't something I'd 'want.
Pesticide resistant crops encourages people to use 'more insecticide.
That 'matters for the farming communities and communities 'near farms. It matters for the groundwater and rivers.
THE EPA
Link matters, as I am circling back around to the amount of trust that many companies have broken.
And how wary we should be of them over using pesticides when out of oversight. Or perhaps when they 'fund politicians to effect laws.
Companies
GMOs become dangerous, due to the copyright.
Something that 'was everyone's, simple crops such as corn, suddenly become illegal to possess if GMO.
And as GMO crops can have more pesticides in and upon them, costs are cut, making the unhealthy GMOs economically more feasible. Further decreasing the free use corn on the market. Further eliminating individual private farmers and replacing them with corporations.
Companies are happy to box up chickens and fatten them up, no exercise, bad living conditions.
Companies are happy to hire sweat shops.
Companies have high chance of unethical practices.
Just because a company makes money, does not mean the people are making money.
Lying Claim
The sources 'interpretation of events is different from mine.
The decisions of the 'courts is in alignment with the money grubbing company.
That doesn't mean I need share the same interpretation of events, or think the court decisions were just.
Horizontal gene transfer
What Pro cites is an IF and opinion. What matters to me in that source is the chance of pesticide resistance or worse characteristics spreading to unwanted wild plants or animals.
Hydrogen 'seemed a great lifter until the Hindenburg tragedy.
GMOs could be a worldwide disaster, consider diseases spread from animal to animal, once they're 'there, they're hard to get out.
Monarchs,
Just because a decline 'starts, doesn't mean the decline cannot be greatly decreased by new factors.
" the herbicide glyphosate used to grow GMOs kills milkweed"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies
The chemicals are directly related to GMOs because of GMO resistance to various pesticides, herbicides, and the effect on the nearby ecosystems.
I already had an earlier sources showing a high use of pesticides,
I've brought up we shouldn't trust companies with too much power,
I've brought up the worry of laws not being enforced equally in all countries.
Area 1: Health
GMOs are not inherently healthier.
Like organics they can be selected for health or instead size.
Companies should be distrusted to prioritize health for the people.
Pesticides and Herbicides are a health concern.
Area 2: Economic
Companies making money does not mean the people will.
Companies copyright their GMOs.
Companies corner the market.
Area 3: Ecological
Pesticides and Herbicides have high chance of over use.
GMOs can and 'have escaped.
GMO characteristics can transfer to non GMO plants and animals.
Pesticides and Herbicides have damaged certain ecosystems.
No counter-arguments have been posted yet.
