Genetic Modified foods are Organic.

Thanks racketguy. ==Rebuttal== 1A) GM foods are natural By my opponent’s definition of “natural,” meaning essentially at some point derived from nature, then ANYTHING can be deemed “organic.” Does my opponent seriously expect you to believe that a tomato implanted with SALMON GENES is “natural”?! How about a fish with a tomato for a head, is that natural? How about a dog whose genes are altered so he grows 6 legs instead of 4, is that natural? Genetic medication is obviously not “natural” since it alters the makeup of DNA that is found un-tampered-with in nature. At some point my opponent says that DNA is derived from proteins, which are natural. Even artificially synthesized proteins are combinations of molecules or atoms that are found in nature. By my opponent definition, artificially synthesized pesticides are “organic” because they are derived from naturally occurring atoms. But synthetic pesticides being “organic” goes against every regulatory board’s definition of the term and renders it meaningless to consumers. Also, Princeton’s Wordnet defines “natural” as “occurring in a normal way.” [1] Plants that are produced through genetic medication, rather than normal plant reproductive processes, are by definition not produced in a “normal way.” 1B) The FDA My opponent provides a source which says, "The FDA's stance is that GM foods are substantially equivalent to unmodified, natural foods, and therefore not subject to FDA regulation.” First of all, my opponent concedes the debate by citing this source. HIS OWN SOURCE says that GM foods are not considered natural foods, i.e. organic foods. Secondly, this source is only saying that GM foods are not subject to FDA regulation, meaning they are not subject to higher testing standards than regular food. The FDA refuses to do studies on the health risks of GM crops, due to industry pressure. However, the USDA still refuses to certify GM crops as “organic” because they are not derived naturally, it would not be truth in labeling, and it would leave consumers with no method of avoiding potentially deadly allergic reactions. My opponent’s quote is why the FDA refuses to require that GM foods be specifically labeled “genetically modified,” but that does not mean they are organic. Remember, my source said that: “The US and Canadian governments do not allow manufacturers to label something 100% organic if that food has been genetically modified or been fed genetically modified feed.” Lastly the USDA (US Department of Agriculture) and not the FDA is in charge of certifying foods as organic, so any evidence about the FDA is entirely irrelevant. GM crops don’t need fertilizer Some GM crops are modified to need less fertilizer, but many GM crops are modified merely to grow more quickly. There is no guarantee that even if the FDA allowed GM crops to be labeled organic, that all of them would qualify based on the agricultural techniques used to grow them. The FDA DOES require the food producers to label exactly what has been used and done to the product they are selling [1] I hit control F and searched every instance of the word “label” in my opponent’s source and found nothing that said that the FDA requires GM foods be labeled as genetically modified. In fact, the article says the US has a “domestic food labeling dilemma” (namely whether to require GM foods be labeled) and that the EU requires GM food labeling but not the US. The rat study My opponent cites a study that seems to work for my side. It found that rats had digestive tract problems when ingesting GM crops. Then my opponent’s source goes on to indict that same study, which is fine since I don’t need to cite studies with flawed methodologies. However, one flawed study for my side does not prove that as my opponent says, “researchers will be careful not to expose human beings to harmful effects of GM through testing first on laboratory animals.” In fact, his own evidence from the FDA disagrees; the FDA refuses to require that GM crops be tested to see if they are fit for human consumption. Ronnie Cummins writes, “Genetically engineered foods have not been tested to determine whether they are safe for human consumption.” [3] In addition, more extensive studies done on hamsters found that GM foods can have extremely harmful effects. According to the Huffington Post, “The third generation of hamsters fed genetically engineered soy suffered slower growth, a high mortality rate, and a bizarre birth defect: fur growing in their mouths. Many also lost the ability to have pups.” [2] This study shows that GM foods may lead to hair growth in our mouths and infertility. If labeling of GM food is not going to be required, at the very least, GM foods should not be labeled as “organic.” Extend my study that people with Brazil nut allergies became allergic to soybeans implanted with Brazil nut genes. Extend the evidence that soybean allergies shot up 50% in the UK when GM soybeans were introduced from the US. Extend the study that found that GM soybeans contain 7 times the allergens as non-GM soybeans. “DNA is actually an organic compound and the modification of it is no cause for anything to be unnatural.” Then it is “natural” for radiation to alter our DNA and cause our cells to become cancerous. It is “natural” for toxic dumping in rivers to alter the DNA of frogs and cause them to grow 3 eyes instead of two. Cloning would then be “natural.” Altering human DNA to create someone with two heads would be “natural.” Obviously, my opponent’s definition of natural is absurd to the utmost degree. GM crops are unnatural and dangerous. Allow consumers to avoid them by buying USDA “certified organic” foods. Vote Con. [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com...