Without evidence or explanation my opponent has essentially made a random assertion without any base in fact. The FDA found that all of the transgenic events that they evaluated to be substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, as have Japanese regulators for submissions including combined-trait products.
But more than that, supporters see the knee-jerk GM opposition of many environmentalists as fundamentally anti-science, no different than the deniers on the other side of the political spectrum who question the basics of man-made climate change.
Genetically modified crops can easily contaminate other crops. So while there might be a tomato that is insect resistant, five times an organic tomato"s size, and tastes better, does not mean that it will be good for anyone for long term consumption.
He is expressing despair at the relentless need to confront what he sees as bogus fears over the health risks of genetically modified GM crops. Yet opponents maintain that because the wholesale swapping or alteration of entire packages of genes is a natural process that has been happening in plants for half a billion years, it tends to produce few scary surprises today.
The authors determined that, "the studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.
If it were more widely adopted around the world, the price [of food] would go lower, and fewer people would die of hunger.
National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: However, the people want the best bargains and food that will withstand harsh conditions and survive will give it to them.
The public has been worried about the safety of GM foods since scientists at the University of Washington developed the first genetically modified tobacco plants in the s. So anything that can increase farming efficiency—the amount of crops we can produce per acre of land—will be extremely useful.
The human insulin used to treat diabetes, for example, is genetically engineered: Rather than zero risk, what they demanded was a more realistic assessment of risks by regulatory authorities and GMO producers.
It also increases pesticide use. We have been human guinea pigs for years.
Who benefits from their use? We really believe that the federal government is the best place to manage our labeling laws and labeling guidance.
Monsanto had field tested the strain between andbut terminated the project due to fears that the wheat would be banned abroad. It just means that they are exploring the facts before passing the law. However, it has been shown that this is not necessarily the case. These cases have been used as evidence that genetic modification can produce unexpected and dangerous changes in foods, and as evidence that safety tests effectively protect the food supply.
Then, the supply goes down, causing the demand and the price to go up. Both are legal and are not considered "genetic modification".
Con All of Europe banned genetically modified food. Rather it relies on the biotech companies themselves to voluntarily test their products, which they do. True, the number of genes affected in a GM plant most likely will be far, far smaller than in conventional breeding techniques. Domingo and Bordonaba reviewed the literature again in and said that, although there had been a substantial increase in the number of studies sincemost were conducted by biotechnology companies "responsible of commercializing these GM plants.
Furthermore, the design of the studies profiled by Snell et al. BASF And scientists are currently developing seeds that can resist various diseases, drought, salinity, and cold, which will help farmers deal with the effects of climate change. GMO opponents are also concerned that GM seeds could contaminate conventionally grown crops, related wild species, and organically grown crops.
The review concluded that "More scientific effort and investigation is needed to ensure that consumption of GM foods is not likely to provoke any form of health problem".
Report this Argument Pro Just because it has not been approved does not mean that it is not safe. All of these issues must also be addressed as we evaluate the risks and potential benefits of this technology.I thank my opponent for instigating this debate. I would like to put forth some definitions to guide this debate.
Genetically Modified Food (GMO) - foods that have had genes foreign genes inserted into the genetic code of the food. Genetically modified food controversies are disputes over the use of foods and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production.
The genetically modified food debate: Where do we begin? at the fringes of the debate over genetically modified foods since the ’90s. May 14, · Modifying the Endless Debate Over Genetically Modified Crops.
GM crops have become a symbol: either you're for agribusiness or you're against science. But for all the heat, GM crops are something much simpler: one of many tools we need to explore to meet the farming challenges of tomorrow. (LIST: 6 Genetically Modified.
Jul 29, · We moderate a debate over a bill that would bar states from forcing food manufacturers to label genetically modified foods. No evidence shows that genetically modified foods Probably the most controversial set of iss ues sur Although the debate over GMOs is taking place mainly in the United States and Europe, developing cow1rries have an important stake in the outcome (Nuffield Coun.Download