On Balance, GM Foods are Beneficial for Humans to Use.

Voters should remember to give conduct points to me due to Pro breaking the rules. Pro later posted his arguments in the comments section, which I'll just post right here in order to ensure that we're all on the same page: "DAMMIT I WAS ABOUT TO POST MY SORRY EXCUSE OF AN ARGUMENT T_T Thank you, Arcanas. I wish you luck as well. I also apologize to my opponent for having put this debate off until the very last minute. I will make certain that I post a much longer argument in the next round. C1: Higher Rate of Food Production In the current world, population increase is a problem in that it grows at an *exponential* rate, while food production can only grow at a *linear* rate. While today, the food production rate is higher than the global population increase rate, the removal of GMO foods can be devastating to the former"s growth. Therefore, to prevent and reduce global malnutrition, and to maintain and continually increase food production, a means of obtaining a higher rate of food production than basic commercial and subsistence agriculture. PG Economics Ltd Directors Peter Barfoot and Graham Brookes have observed that in the years 1996-2007, an additional 67.8 million tons of soybeans, 62.42 million tons of corn, 6.85 million tons of cotton, and 4.44 million tons of canola were produced with the help of biotech crops. [1] Again, I apologize to my opponent for the severe lack of content. I now turn to his arguments. [1] www. pgeconomics. co. uk/pdf/2009globalimpactstudy. pdf" I'll go into my arguments first then rebut the ones made by my opponent. Arguments: Health Risks GMO's and Autism: Studies have been conducted that draw direct links to autism and glyphosate, a chemical used on plants. This study notes that: "Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable. In this report, we examine the industry studies and regulatory documents that led to the approval of glyphosate. We show that industry and regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s and 1990s that glyphosate causes malformation " but that this information was not made public. We demonstrate how EU regulators reasoned their way from clear evidence of glyphosate"s teratogenicity in industry"s own studies to a conclusion that minimized these findings in the EU" [1] This study essentially proves that autism is sometimes caused by chemicals interfering with the child's development as a fetus, causing them to experience malformations. Again, this is caused by GMO's. In order to fortify this argument, I'd like to add that a separate study found that: "Essentially what happens is during pregnancy" there are certain sensitive periods where the fetus is very vulnerable to a range of small molecules " from things like plasticisers, prescription drugs, environmental pesticides and other things. Some of these small molecules essentially alter normal development. Autism appears to be strongly correlated with rate of congenital malformations of the genitals in males across the country, this gives an indicator of environmental load and the effect is surprisingly strong. The strongest predictors for autism were associated with the environment; congenital malformations on the reproductive system in males. " " Andrey Rzhetsky, professor of genetic medicine and human genetics at the University of Chicago [2] Again, these are two viable sources of information that essentially prove the link autism and GMO's have. By using GMO's, we run the risk of giving future generations this disadvantage. In addition to the harm to our children, GMO's can also lead to many harmful effects to people who currently consume them, such as breast cancer, gluten disorders, and the countless downsides to consuming the toxins used in GMO's. [4] Harm to The Environment: GMO's harm our environment in a terrible way. ResponsibleTechnology. org notes that: "[GM crops] and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds" [3] The use of genetically modified foods destroys the environment and hurts animals. If we keep this up, the earth and it's inhabitants will suffer greatly from it. I urge readers to notice the incredibly harmful effects GMO's cause to our environment, our bodies, and our children. Rebuttals: Higher Rate of Food Production Pro argues that genetically modified foods provide a higher food production rate which our world requires in order to function. However, upon observing the evidence the opposite seems to be true, in that GMO's tend to harm food production rather than help it. In an article arguing against GMO's, responsibletechnology. org notes that: "The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined. " The report noted, "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable. " They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability. On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies" [3] This is essentially more proof that GMO's harm our health, but it also shows how they heavily decrease the food production rate. My opponent's claim is simply false. Even if my opponent's claims were true, would it be enough to justify the huge health risks we take? What about interruption of children's development? Clearly, there is not enough evidence to support GMO's, while I have provided a plethora of quality sources against it. Readers, thank you for reading and considering my arguments. Pro, I'd like to thank you for your arguments and I wish you good luck. Have a nice day everyone! [1] . http://www.collective-evolution.com... [2] . http://journals.plos.org... [3] . http://www.responsibletechnology.org... [4] . http://www.collective-evolution.com...