On balance, the benefits of GMO's outweigh the harms.

Ill begin by attacking con's case, and I will move on to rebuild my own.Con's CaseEnvironmental impact of GMO's and longterm repercussions.Con brings up that outcrossing results in the hybridization of ecosystems, eliminating the plant in it's original form as well as eliminating members of the ecosystem. I'll attack this as a whole, and then move on to con's individual examples. First, con has provided very few statistics to back up the idea of ecosystem collapse, nor has con provided reasons to fear the elimination of an original plant species. Secondly, even if you buy his arguments, observe that pesticides and strong herbicides have a similar effect to the one con has mapped out for GM foods.gm corn used for livestock feed is now used for human feedCon brings up literally no statistics to support this claims, other than the mere suggestion that such gm feed *could* hurt humans or that such gm feed *could* result in the degradation of testing. I'll get more into rebutting the claim that gm foods hurt humans later, but right now I'll focus on the claim that gm foods are inadequately tested. To quote ASSA, "Our collective experience to date shows that the strict allergenicity tests of GM products has been very successful: not one allergenic GM product has been introduced to the market." Moreover, inadequate testing exists in the world of conventional breeding as well. For example, the kiwi was introduced with little to no testing, resulting in several allergenic reactions. The existence of inadequate testing exists in conventional farming makes con arguments nonunique at the very least. ASSA supports this, "In conventional breeding... such tests are not legally required. For this reason the risk of gm plants causing allergies can be regarded as substantially lower than the products from conventional breeding. (1)" monarch butterfliesI'd like to cross apply what I said earlier about pesticides causing the same problem due to their high toxicity levels. Even if GM crops contribute to this issue, it cannot be considered to be an issue unique to GM foods. Con has provided almost no statistics pertaining to butterfly populations before and after the implementation of GM foods, and con has provided no other types of plant besides bt corn that have this potential effect.salmonCon brings up the idea of gm salmon replacing regular salmon. However, con never explains *why* this is a problem. Also, con's evidence is entirely theoretical, and no examples are given of the implementation of GM salmon causing such problems in the past.Health RisksThe EU commission funded 500 studies independently which all came to the same conclusion: gm foods have no health risk (2). This meta study is the first piece of evidence that brings to light the safety of gm crops. Thus, con's claims pertaining to limited meta analysis are completely invalid.The first thing con brings up is problems with glyphosate, a herbicide. Look to the fact that this herbicide is 1/3 less toxic than herbicides used on GM crops as noted by my USDA evidence in my constructive. Con's evidence shouldn't factor in to whether or not the benefits of GM crops outweigh the harms because his evidence doesn't compare glyphosate to other currently used herbicides in conventional farming. Glyphosate is safer than things used on crops today, and is a viable option through the implementation of GM crops, thus should be looked to as a benefit. Con needs to do significantly more to prove that the use of dangerous pesticides are directly tied to GMO's for his Elsevier study to be considered valid because the study was not pertaining to the exposure of GM crops, rather it was exposure to the pesticides and herbicides. Moreover, as shown by a well sourced comment on my opponent's very own source, the study was done incorrectly due to Elsevier's incorrect method and standard. Essentially, the kit used to test and detect such proteins was not meant for mammals, and had potential to show a false positive. I don't have time to address the flaws of this study in depth, but I will elaborate in later rounds if necessary.Con has not sufficiently shown that GM crops can cause legitimate harm to humans. Look to the fact that absolutely no one has died from eating GM foods, nor has anyone experienced sickness. GM crops have been prevalent enough in the past 10 years that if they were to actually cause harm to humans, it would be apparent.GM crops actually have potential to positively impact health health in the area of herbicide and pesticide use, as I have shown with my India evidence. 1 million cases of pesticide poisoning were prevented through the implementation of bt cotton. The dramatic reduction in pesticide use applies to all sects of GM farming and is a huge benefit since pesticides are significantly more toxic to humans than GM crops, which is exemplified by the sharp reduction of poisoning rates in India.Genetically Modified Organisms and Bio tech CompaniesCon has provided no examples of higher prices, small farms legitimately going out of business, or any other harms derived from the use of these patents. Con does not have enough empirical evidence for this point to go through. I'll first talk about the use of patents specifically. Patents are not something new. Thompson explains, "For centuries millions of intellectual property rights have been granted throughout the world... thereby promoting the progress of science. This provides incentives for innovators to develop new technologies for society (3)." Beyond that, the potential harms of patenting gm foods are vastly outweighed by the economic benefits of GM foods. Firstly, farmers initially save a good deal of money because they don't have to buy as many pesticides, as I talked about in my constructive. Secondly, due to increased crop yields, farmers globally save close to 158 billion dollars, invalidating any potential expenses. Finally, observe that in many cases an "anti farm agenda" is not exclusive to GM crops. Thus, con's argument could potentially be seen as nonunique. My CaseIncreased Crop Yield and Economic GainCon labels world hunger as a food distribution problem, rather than a food production problem, which is (in part) true. However there are several things to remember. Firstly, increased crop yields and other GM benefits can still help decrease world hunger. Con attributes world hunger to a bad economy consistently in his rebuttal; I'll go ahead and put this in a syllogism.P1: Economic problems within the developing world contribute to world hunger.P2: GM crops help the economy within the developing world.C: Gm crops can positively impact world hunger.So, think of my argument like this. Increasing crop yields will help the economic state of the developing world, thus positively impacting world hunger by decreasing poverty. GM crops save money, not only due to crop yields, but due to money saved on pesticides. Moreover, con never directly attacks crop yields, rather con asserts that increased yields don't matter. However, look to the vast array of economic benefits that come through increased food production, exemplified by burkina faso. GM crops can help the economy, and the economic benefit goes towards potentially decreasing hunger. Look to my Ogodo evidence which notes that GM crops give Africa to become a key player within the world economy. Looking towards the environment: even if other things besides increased yields have potential to help the environment, we should still consider decreased pressure to clear forested areas to be a net benefit. Just because one thing can decrease deforestation doesn't me we shouldn't look to other ways of reducing deforestation. Deforestation can largely be attributed to clearing areas for farmland, thus higher yields should be considered significantly more desirable, even if food production itself is not the problem.HealthUnderstand the distinction between pesticides and herbicides (and their relation to GMO's). Pesticide use is reduced, and herbicide used on GM crops is safer. I would like to cross apply most of the things I said in my rebuttal against his health contention to start off. However, I will make some notes. Firstly, there are two types of GM crops, bt and ht. Ht crops are the ones which are bred to be tolerant to herbicides. The herbicide used on them, as I noted in both my case and my rebuttal, is significantly safer. Con even concedes to this; the fact that glyphosate is a safer herbicide cannot be dismissed as a benefit because it proves: chemicals used on GM crops are safer than chemicals used in conventional farming. Bt (insect tolerant) crops have vast potential to decrease pesticide use as pesticides are only other way of reducing problems derived from insects. Thus, I affirm.(1) http://aatf-africa.org...(2) David H. Freedman, 2013, August 20, Scientific American, The Truth About Genetically Modified Food(3) Dr. Jennifer Thompson, 2013, Food for Africa: The Life and Work of a Scientist in GM Crops