GMOs' should be illegal in all food

The majority of my opponent's argument reads like this: "We don't know much about GMO's, therefore it should be illegal."This would actually be a valid argument for a consumer if it were changed to "I don't know much about GMO's yet, therefore as of now I will not eat it." However, from a legal standpoint, "I don't know" is not a valid reason to ban something completely. Moreover, a lot of the stuff my opponent attacks is not GMO's in of itself but the politics surrounding the product. Unfortunately for him/her, the politics are a superficial factor, as making it more transparent would not effect the science at all. My opponent has also said something along the lines of "GMO companies do not want to label products as GMO's, therefore they must be hiding something, and whatever they are hiding must be bad." This is similar logic to what Senator McCarthy and Stalin used in their respective witch hunts, for example, when McCarthy found a suspected Communist, he would bring him in and ask him very personal questions. If the suspect refused to answer, McCarthy would say "What have you got to hide?" and then throw them in prison without a formal trial. This is the same case here, where my opponent fallaciously assumes that GMO companies like Monsanto have got something to hide and completely disregards other factors that may have slipped his mind such as the fact that GMO's are not very popular among the public and labeling foods as genetically modified would dramatically decrease sales, whether or not GMO's are actually harmful or not."No agency oversees or tests GMO's, and because of this, the “research” that supports GMO safety is not mandated by any agencies or US government, and the information that may be given is done so in a voluntary basis by the very companies that produce their own GM crops and foods, which has been described by critics as “meticulously designed to avoid finding problems”."Superficial problem, as this is an attack on the regulation, not the actual GMO. If we should put in a valid, well funded, and incorruptible agency to test GMO's, nothing in the product would change. Getting rid of the whole thing simply due to a relatively minute issue is hasty and reckless."What is most astonishing is the 44,000 FDA documents were only made public as a result of a lawsuit revealing problems with GMO's, and the engulfing consensus among the FDA's scientists was that GM foods were "substantively different", so divergent that their consumption might ramificate in unpredictable and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. "Key word here is "might". What is "might"? is there a 100% chance? 90% chance? 50%? 1%? My opponent has not specified, what "might" is, and therefore, we don't actually know how serious the threat is. Besides, his facts are incorrect, as GMO's have never been definitively linked to any such allergic reactions, new diseases, or nutritional problems. Toxins are a non-issue, as GMO's do not add chemicals and any naturally produced toxins would either be flushed out by the plant itself or kill the plant altogether. Moreover, if GMO's really did have a toxin problem, it would come crashing down so fast, we wouldn't even have this debate."Except for organic foods, the entire American food supply has been systematically hijacked by chemical companies, not bent on trying to feed the world; not providing healthy alternatives, but rather for profits that they reap from the chemicals that are used by thousands of farmers that grow GMO crops."I will use this chance to remind everybody that GMO's do not use chemicals. I have already explained in my previous argument how GMO's worked, that is, through DNA splicing and injection, which does not in any way involve chemicals. Remember, GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism, meaning the DNA has been modified in one way or another. GMO does not stand for Chemically Bombarded Animal Raped by Human Greed, which is what my opponent, with all due respect, seems to believe GMO's are.Another thing I don't understand is why my opponent is against big businesses making money. If the consumer, meaning you, benefits from what big businesses are doing, why do you care if their motives are not benefiting the world or other similarly warm and fuzzy goals? The fact remains that GMO's are in fact better than organic crops, simply because they can be designed to taste better, last longer, grow bigger, grow more efficiently, and resist weeds and bugs. In fact, GMO's have the potential to remove the need for chemicals mixed with food entirely, as a simple (well, not really simple) change in the DNA of the crop can do the pesticide's job for it."The answer to this question is found in probing the virtue of the corporation in question. As virtuous people, we expect corporations to act with a sense of fundamental human decency. We expect them to behave within the boundaries of respecting human life, honest business practices and reliable science. We (naively) wish that corporations would act like decent human beings but they simply do not. What they care most about is getting a better pay check. In order to get a decent profit, the violate the basic tenets of virtue. They betray humanity in itself and destroy life. They malign Mother Nature herself, and in doing so, they threaten the very future of sustainable life on our planet." So many logical fallacies mixed into one argument. The one that stands out first is the "Just Plain Folks" fallacy, where he essentially says we as virtuous people practice honest science, have fundamental human decency, and uphold honest business practices, but the big bad companies like Monsanto do no such thing because they want money. Well that's nice and all, but until my opponent can specify what exactly Monsanto is doing that is so malignant to the consumer, this argument is invalid. Hell, I want to make tons of money too, does that make me evil? Of course not. The next fallacy is the appeal to Nature fallacy, where he essentially says that GMO's are not natural and are violating Mother Nature and other similarly heroic arguments. However, by doing this, he completely ignores the fact that Nature does not always equal good. Sure, organic foods may be completely natural, but other stuff such as potato blight, E-coli, ring worms, tape worms, aphids, locusts, drought, water fungus, mold, etc. are also natural. If someone came up with a food, albeit artificially modified food, that could resist all these things, why would you choose the more natural kind where there is a better alternative?The final fallacy (I'm running out of space) is a slippery slope argument, where my opponent says that GMO's will destroy life, malign mother nature, and basically destroy our future and throw everything we've ever worked for to hell. Well, how does my opponent know this? How does he know that GMO's will, without a doubt, spark a disastrous chain of events that will be so catastrophic that it will end life on Earth as we know it? He/she certainly didn't put much evidence to support that either, and I am actually really curious as to how making relatively small changes in the DNA structure of food products is going to end all sustainable life on Earth. Would be an interesting read. https://classes.soe.ucsc.edu...http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org...