Label GMO foods in the US.

For the purpose of this debate, I find it important to outline my opponent's main contentions and respond to them individually. First, I will address my opponent's argument about the "right to know." Secondly, I'll analyze my opponent's protest against the environmental impact of these GMO foods. Finally, I'll argue against my opponent's belief that government regulation wouldn't be needed for a labeling process. The "right to know" is indeed a valid argument, and many would tend to agree. However, it's important to look deeper into our current food labels, and what they really tell us. Our ingredients lists do not tell us everything; often times (even on the back of Cheetos packaging, as my opponent used for an analogy) things are generalized, or even omitted. The most common culprits are "Natural and Artificial Flavors," "Spices," and "Coloring." Even many of the preservatives in foods are generalized. This is because these additives have little to no impact on the human body, after thousands of tests for every possible circumstance. A common argument against this is that the omission of ingredients is simply the result of government cover-ups, corruption, and conflicts of interest. However, many respected scientific groups and labs support the notion that these kinds of additives have no impact on the human body. In the case of GMOs, the story is much the same. A report in Food and Chemical Toxicology reviewed 24 long-term/multigenerational studies which all concluded that "genetically modified corn, soy, potato, rice and wheat had no ill effects on the rats, cows, mice, quails, chickens, pigs and sheep that ate them. Growth, development, blood, tissue structure, urine chemistry and organ and body weights were normal." Regarding your protest against GMOs and their so-called negative environmental impact, it is crucial to separate the impact of GMOs themselves and the irresponsible actions of Monsanto. You see, the environmental collapse that resulted from the GMO crops was not because of GMOs, but rather because Monsanto (and other major corporations) abuse harvesting techniques such as speed farming. These negative environmental impacts are nothing more than the result of irresponsibility; if we wish to fix this problem, then it's important to tackle the problem at its source: foolish farming techniques. GMO crops, should they be raised in an environmentally responsible way, do not harm the environment at all, and have many benefits as well. This is supported by a 250-page analysis from the National Academies in 2010, which states: "About 90% of the corn, soy and cotton now grown in the U.S. is genetically modified, and that has led to less use of pesticides, more targeted insect control, a shift to fewer toxic chemicals and less soil erosion compared with conventional farms." Finally, we all must realize that the government must take part if a nationwide forced labeling policy would come into effect. If we truly wish to "let the public know" about any instance of GMOs in any food product, the only way to guarantee that evasion doesn't happen on a massive scale is through government involvement. This would put this policy into the hands of, as my opponent has conceded, agencies with questionable ethics and notable conflicts of interest. May I suggest a better solution to a public truly worried about GMOs: companies looking to capitalize on the stir regarding GMOs should start labeling products as "GMO free." This would take the exact opposite approach of my opponent's, and would benefit both parties: those who fear GMOs, and those who don't. Compare it to the "Gluten Free" fad, and things start lining up - gluten, although having almost no effects on 99% of the population, became "dangerous" to many. The government didn't force gluten labels on everything, and the consumer had a choice. When you give the consumer the final choice, everybody wins. It is vital for everyone to consider the entire picture with this situation. Consider the evidence, the multiple lab studies and highly respected scientists that support my position. Consider the price of voting pro: a major loss in economic freedom. Consider the side that will benefit all - the CON.