This house believes that GM crops are safe and GMOs should not be labeled

Contention 1: Health The Pro claims that the allergy risks do not exist, however, the Pro did concede that the research team in the case of the Brazillian nut even acknowledged that the concern exists. And according to an Article published by Harvard University: "Comprehensive evaluation for market approval, food safety surveillance, and adequate labeling could minimize the health risks of food allergies." (As a side note this article was published alongside the Pro's source on how GMOs are made) Becuase of this we can clearly see that GMO labeling is an effective way of minimizing the risks associated. In addition to this, the Pro continues to cite the "scientific consensus" on the safety of generic Genetically Modified Organisms, however, the pro has not challenged the fact that in the US there is no Precautionary rule which requires that individual GMOs be tested independently for safety (Note that this same rule applies to pesticides and dietary supplements). The pro has also not refuted the fact that Biotech firms like Monsanto and Syngenta make it nearly impossible for scientists to carry out experiments on specific GMOs, making claims of absolute safety nearly impossible to verify. The Pro cannot claim that GMOs are absolutely safe when no testing is even required for GMOs to be released onto the market and the firms which manufacture GMOs make it impossible for Scientists to test their products. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu...https://www.sciencenews.org...Contention 2: EnvironmentWhile the Pro claims that I have stated that GMOs increase pesticide use, however, this is a gross misrepresentation of my argument, which was that GMOs have been linked to an increase in pesticide resistant weeds and insects. This, in turn, increases the amount of pesticides being used and goes on to harm biodiversity. The Pro has instead tried to make an economic argument that has little to no bearing on this debate and also lacks validity.The Pros argument is that GMOs have increased yield, however, there are several problems with this claim. First, the source claims "NGO reports and other publications without scientific peer review seem to bias the impact estimates downward." However, the study itself which is cited by the Pro was written by Matin Qaim and Wilhelm Klumper. Both of these authors have been long-time defenders of the biotech industry, and hold ties with corporations including Monsanto, despite having been ruled that neither had a "conflict of interest", which usually can only be a reason for rejection if they would see financial gain as a result of their study. A member of the peer review board also has ties to the Biotech industry. Furthermore, of the more than 300 studies cited, only 147 were accepted by a peer review board, the other 157 were either rejected or published without a peer review. This alone should cast doubt on the argument that GMOs increase yield and reduces pesticide use, however, there is evidence to the contrary as well. A Study published in the peer-reviewed Environmental Sciences Europe noted that since the introduction of GMO seeds in the US, pesticide use increased by 7% between 1996 and 2011. Additionally, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that when compared side by side, GMO crops, and Organic crops saw similar increases in yield and concluded that GMOs were not necessary to increase crop yield. By making the argument I have just refuted and failing to respond to the argument about pesticide resistance, the Pro has conceded this argument. I, therefore, extend my original argument from the previous round.http://www.ucsusa.org...http://enveurope.springeropen.com...https://www.sciencenews.org...Contention 3: CriticalIn response to my critical argument, the Pro claims that voluntary labeling is sufficient. This is nothing more telling food companies to self-regulate, a strategy which has never succeeded as corporations will do whatever is necessary to maximize profits. Corporations require regulation because they cannot be trusted to do it themselves.The Pro has chosen not to actually respond to the argument that I have previously made which is we should label GMOs not because GMOs represent a significant health risk, but so consumers can make informed decisions about which agricultural products and practices they support. In the world of voluntary labeling that the Pro supports, corporations would never choose to label a product that they know people would then chose not to buy, thereby eliminating the ability of consumers to make the decision about the practices they support. The Pro also says that labeling GMOs does not convey enough information about the product, however, this argument falls flat, as already, food is required to be labeled with things including the country of origin. The fact that a product comes from one country over another does not mean the product is necessarily harmful because of that, nor does it acknowledge all the information about that country, yet the product is still labeled so that consumers can know where their food is coming from and if they want to support that country by buying that product.For these reasons, the resolution is therefore rejected.