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

I also want to note that due to a family emergency, I am currently at the hospital with my step dad and so any argument that I do not get to respond to should not be considered a concession, but rather I did not have time to respond to. Contention 1: Health Con has failed to respond to my argument on the scientific consensus. Why should we reject the majority view of science? Contrary to con’s arguments, independent scientists and researchers are allowed to use seeds from Monsanto and other biotechnology companies. Monsanto has worked with other GMO developers and the American Seed Trade Association to establish principles that enable the public-sector research community to independently conduct research. Further, independent researchers are allowed to publish findings without any review of approval by Monsanto and others. (Sachs, 2013) Contention 2: The Environment Con cites a case of super-weeds and pesticide resistance. This, however, would occur with or without genetic engineering. Keeping up with evolution has always been a challenging task. The Genetic Literacy Project notes: “Most scientists dislike the use of the word “superweeds” arguing that it polarizes the issue. Superweeds are not ‘super’ in any real sense of the word; they are weeds that have evolved to evade a particular weed management strategy. A dandelion that is so short that it has almost no stem could be considered a superweed. Its super power is crouching beneath the blades of lawnmowers. (Genetic Literacy Project, n. d. ) Andrew Kniss notes: "Almost any way you look at the data; it appears that GM crops are no greater contributor to the evolution of superweeds than other uses of herbicides. ” “If GM crops have contributed significantly to the development of herbicide resistant weeds, we would expect the number of unique instances of these superweeds to increase following adoption of GM crops. … In the eleven-year period before GM crops were widely grown, approximately 13 new cases of herbicide resistance were documented annually. After GM crop adoption began in earnest, the number of new herbicide resistant weeds DECREASED to 11.4 cases per year. ” (Kniss, 2013) Gilbert notes in her editorial for Nature: “On balance, herbicide-resistant GM crops are less damaging to the environment than conventional crops grown at industrial scale. A study by PG Economics, a consulting firm in Dorchester, UK, found that the introduction of herbicide-tolerant cotton saved 15.5 million kilograms of herbicide between 1996 and 2011, a 6.1% reduction from what would have been used on conventional cotton2. And GM crop technology delivered an 8.9% improvement to the environmental impact quotient — a measure that considers factors such as pesticide toxicity to wildlife — says Graham Brookes, co-director of PG Economics and a co-author of the industry-funded study, which many scientists consider to be among the field’s most extensive and authoritative assessments of environmental impacts. ” (Gilbert, 2013)Con has failed to respond to the article by Matin Qaim and Wilhelm Klumper. If he wishes to dismiss the entire article because of their “ties to the biotechnology industry” (citation needed), then by the same logic we should dismiss Charles M Benbrook’s article because he has financial ties to the organic industry. (Genetic Literacy Project, n. d. ) Many other scientists have criticized Benbrook’s work including Dr Alan McHughenof PG Economics: “The OC’s assessment of the impact of biotech herbicide tolerant traits (HT) is disappointingly inaccurate, misleading and fails to acknowledge several of the benefits US farmers and citizens have derived from use of the technology… Its conclusions are highly dependent upon the assumptions used, and perceptions of the author, as to how seed markets work and farmers behave. We consider that the mainstream US market evidence does not support the OC report conclusions. ” PG Economics briefing note 4 December 2009, “The Magnitude and impacts of the biotech and organic seed price premium: US Organic Center report assessment by PG Economics” & PG Economics Briefing note: 19 November 2009, “Impact of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use: US Organic Center report evaluation by PG Economics. (Genetic Literacy Project, n. d. ) Contention 3: Critical As noted in the opening, I will have to respond in the next round. I am out of time and need to be with my parents. Resolution affirmed. Bibliography Genetic Literacy Project. (n. d. ). Charles Benbrook: Former Washington State adjunct consultant for organic industry . Retrieved June 3, 2016, from Biotech Gallery: . https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org... Genetic Literacy Project. (n. d. ). Do GMOs cause “superweeds”? . Retrieved June 3, 2016, from Agricultural biotechnology frequently asked questions: . http://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org... Gilbert, N. (2013, May 01). Case studies: A hard look at GM crops. Nature, 479(7447), 24-26. Retrieved June 2016, 02, from Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science: . http://www.nature.com... Kniss, A. (2013, May 01). Where are the super weeds? Retrieved June 3, 2016, from Control Freaks: Wyoming Weed Science in (almost) Real Time: . http://weedcontrolfreaks.com... Sachs, E. (2013, August 8). Ask Us Anything About GMOs. Retrieved June 3, 2016, from GMO Answers: . https://gmoanswers.com...