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

I would like to begin this round by wishing the best to the Pro and his family as they go through this emergency and wish his stepfather a speedy recovery. Contention: 1 Health The Pro makes the claim I have rejected the scientific consensus, however, no where in my argument did I state this. In fact, if you go to my original argument in Round 2, I said the following:"While 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..."As to the argument about independent testing, there are several problems with the Pros response. Thr first problem is the source. The Source is from Sachs, 2013. In his citations this links to gmoanswers.com, a website, which is funded by the biotech industry. Organizations which are listed as partners include the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade Association, American Soybean Association, The American Sugarbeet Growers Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, and The U.S. Beet Sugar Association. All of the organizations listed are either funded by, associated with or represent the Biotech industry (Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, etc). This source has a clear conflict of interest is clearly meant to promote the technology. This alone should cast doubt upon the claims made by the website. Furthermore, Sachs himself is an employee of Monsanto, therefore, he cannot be trusted to speak impartially about criticisms levied against his company.The second problem is the claim that is made here. The website rebuts the following argument. "I learned from practical experience that, in order to get a job with Monsanto, or do any research that is supported by Monsanto, or even to publish research on Monsanto seeds, that all of my work would have to be approved by Monsanto. This makes it very difficult to have legitimate third party research to rely on. How can I trust any research done on GMOs that has the imprimatur of Monsanto?" This, however, was not the argument that I made. If we again look back to my original argument I said:"...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."The issue at hand is not that Monsanto has to review any studies on their seeds, it is that they do not allow their seeds to be given to independent researchers that they do not trust. Because the seeds are patented, Biotech firms are able to deny scientists access to their products. The other issue I noted was the right now there is no precautionary rule and that the FDA does not require GM seeds to be tested before they are released onto the market. Scientific consensus about the safety of GMOs, in general, is irrelevant when the individual products released to the public are not tested individually and independently.Contention 2: EnvironmentThere are several issues with the response made to my argument that GM crops harm the environment. He criticizes the word "superweed", yet nowhere in my arguments had I used the phrase he criticizes. I agree with the premise that use of the term polarizes the issue, just as the use of the term "frankenfood" polarizes the GMO debate. His argument does not anywhere critique my actual claims about gene contamination and resistance to Glyphosate. Because the Gene which allows the crops to be resistant to Glyphosate can be transferred through cross-pollination, the weeds then adopt this same trait makes Glyphosate ineffective. While this is not the sole reason for the development of this, GM technology has exacerbated other factors including: Monoculture. Growing the same crop on the same land year after year helps weeds to flourish. Overreliance on a single herbicide. When farmers use Roundup exclusively, resistance develops more quickly. Neglect of other weed controls measures. The convenience of the Roundup Ready system encouraged farmers to abandon a range of practices that had been part of their weed control strategy. This is from the Union of Concerned Scientists.The Kniss article should also be taken with a grain of salt, as a) he too has ties to the Biotech industry (even if they are indirect) and b) his work is a blog post. When comparing the sources, the Union of Concerned Scientists vs Dr. Kniss, the scale should weigh in favor of the UCS, as while Dr. Kniss does have his credentials, the UCS represents a number of qualified scientists and is independently funded by its members.There are sustainable alternatives to GM technology that address the issues creating pesticide resistance, along with other issues. While pesticide resistance may not be increasing at the same rate, GM technology is only continuing this increase.As to the final response made by the Pro, the source he uses to defend his initial source is a cure worse than the disease. The Genetic Literacy Project, cited by the Pro, is a pro-GMO advocacy group and a sister organization to the Statistical Assessment Service and the Center for Media and Public Affairs, both front groups for corporate special interest groups. The Founder of the project is Jon Entine, a visiting fellow at the pro-Business, Conservative think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute, and his clients have included Monsanto, Dupont, and Syngenta. This group does not stand so much to educate on facts, as it does to oppose any potential and costly new regulations on the Biotech industry. This should not be considered a credible source by any stretch of the imagination and should be disregarded as such.http://www.ucsusa.org...http://www.sourcewatch.org...;http://www.motherjones.com...;Contention 3: CriticalOut of respect fo the Pro, I shall not elaborate further on this argument and shall await his response in the next round.