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

Contention 1: HealthWhile it would be a stretch to say that GMOs are severely harmful, it would also be a stretch to say they pose no risks. While the crops themselves may be no more dangerous than an organic equivalent, adverse health effects have been seen, mostly in the form of allergic reactions.In Brazil, soybeans which were modified with a nut gene produced an allergic reaction when consumed by people with nut allergies. This phenomenon has been cited by the World Health Organization as a potential concernIt must also be accepted that not much is known about the health impacts of Genetically Modified Ingredients. While some studies have been conducted, not enough studies have been conducted. The Pro attacks the study done on mice showing a link to cancer which was retracted, however this retraction was, as noted by the pro, because of procedural problems, not because of further evidence disproving it. This experiment has yet to be replicated with corrections suggested by the peer review board.Furthermore, the biotechnology industry has been attacked by the scientific community for thwarting research and making experiments nearly impossible. Companies such as Monsanto and Syngenta have been notorious for refusing to provide scientists with seeds for independent research, citing the patents on the seeds. While the Pro contends that GMOs are " rigorously tested for safety" this is simply not the case. To quote Sheldon Krimsky, professor of urban and environmental policy and planning at Tufts University, as well as an adjunct professor in the Department of Public Health and Family Medicine at Tufts School of Medicine." In America, we made a decision that genetically modified foods are safe before you even have to test it. So the government never required tests for GMOs in the United States."No actual testing is done in the US on GMOs which is independent of the producers (Monsanto, Syngenta, etc). Until further research can be done, the claims that GMOs are 100% safe are simply a gross exaggeration. This being said, I will not challenge the contention that GMOs pose a major risk to Human health because simply no evidence exists which links GMOs to Cancer, mutations or other major issues or complications.http://www.nytimes.com...http://articles.latimes.com...http://www.nytimes.com...Contention 3: Genetically Modified Crops are Harmful to the EnvironmentGenetically Modified Crops can be damaging to the environment both directly and indirectly. The most notable of these is Pesticide Resistance.Genetic Modification has been linked to an increase in the number of pesticide resistant weeds and insects. This is because the added genes in GMOs can be transferred to other plants via pollen, allowing the weeds to adopt the same pesticide resistance found in the genetically modified crops. The most notable example is the increase if weeds resistant to the herbicide Glyphosate, commonly known as Round-up. The transfer of these genes to the weeds that the herbicide is meant to kill has resulted in farmers being forced to use more of the herbicide, and to use older, more toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D and dicamba, as well as using more soil tilling which causes erosion.Insects are prone to microevolution and quickly develop resistance to insecticides and toxins which are genetically coded into the crops, most notably BT toxin. This makes these insects harder for farmers to kill and threatens other native plant species as well.There is also research which links Genetic Modification to the Bee die off, and other impacts to biodiversity, which harms greater ecosystems.Another impact is the fact that Genetically modified crops increase Herbicide use, which harms other native plants. This causes a greater loss of biodiversity and only increases the need for more insecticides. Biotechnology is effectively a self promoting industry. These insecticides are also linked to cancer, and include Roundup and 24D.It is for all of these reasons that the Union of Concerned Scientists have said that GMOs cannot be considered a sustainable solution to agricultural problems.http://www.gainesvilletimes.com...http://abcnews.go.com...http://www.usnews.com...http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu...https://www.organic-center.org...http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu...http://www.iatp.org...http://www.nsf.gov...http://www.pnas.org...http://www.ucsusa.org...Contention 3: CriticalThe freedom of information is fundamental to a free society and to a society that prides itself of the freedom of choice. Because of this, Foods which contain Genetically Modified Ingredients should therefore be labeled. Our policies should be based on facts rather than fears, this is true, but our policies should also be based on values. If we want to value the freedom of information and the right to chose, we should label Genetically Modified Foodstuffs not because GMOs represent a significant health risk, but so consumers can make informed decisions about which agricultural products and practices they support.Conclusion GMOs are not adequately and independently tested for safety GMOs are detrimental to the environment and therefore cannot be considered sustainable In a free society, consumers ought to have the right to know what is in their food and be able to make informed decisions about the practices they support. Genetically Modified ingredients should therefore be labeled. Thus the resolution is rejected.