Genetic Engineering in Agriculture

Con's first rebuttal seems to state that we are not using less pesticide, only that they've changed. Both statements are however true. Plant's have been engineered to produce their own insecticide, and applied pesticides and herbicides have become considerably safer. The most popular of these is Glyphosate, which has been shown to be as safe as table salt, it leaches minimally in soil and is classified as being not very mobile in soil. (Source: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov... ,http://www.biofortified.org...) Con then goes on to make the claim that GMO's (or glyphosate?) cause cancer, allergies, and Parkinson's disease. Though if this were verified by study, then as stated in round 2 the USDA and FDA regulations would require that it be immediately be removed from the market. Autism has been linked to most likely being a genetic disease, though it's been correlated with several things (GMO's, Vaccines, and just for fun one with the sales of organic foods) however that does not mean that those are the cause of them. Cancer is a very broad term, there are over 200 types of cancers, if Con cannot say specifically which cancers it causes and how than I will dismiss this claim, but since I cannot prove that GMO's don't prove cancer I will not debate that further. Allergies arise in all sorts of foods, the kiwi is one of my favorite examples, as when it came to the US it had not been tested for safety, as with many exotic foods, and turned out to be an allergen to several people. Not too mention the jarred death for some, and crunchy or creamy good to others peanut butter. Allergens should be a concern, if the product contains any the costumer should be warned, but I've yet to see any study showing GM foods to cause an allergen in a person where there was not one already present. Parkinson's, like autism has been linked mostly to genetics, however some environmental factors may also have their affects. In any event none of the links con posted seem to have any evidence that supports his conclusions. Mercola has a reputation not just for being virulently against GM foods, but also for selling products with big promise and no science to support them. There is a lot for me to review in just these first few links so I didn't follow every consequent link. The first link for the Mercola article was from an open source journal known as Entropy, the authors of this study did not have any credentials, no criteria for the study were reported, and no data was reported. Since this study also provides no evidence I will dismiss it without any further evidence (Hitchen's Razor). After that I reviewed some of the links from the Collective Evolution. Several of the articles were only suggestive, as they vaguely stated that "Studies show" but in several of there study examples (not all) they do not mention the source of the study, nor do the mention the name of the researchers. These will be dismissed as hearsay until a source can be established. The first study on the article is a real study, and was published in a reputable journal known as PubMed. The study is as stated in the article the first of it's kind, a preliminary study and a sloppy one as well. It has been criticized for both methodological and interpretative limitations. The assay for the study was improper for what they were testing and there methods were based on assumptions. Further, they do mention the finding of the Cry1Ab protein found in the Bt corn, however they never mention the implications of this finding. The other study that unsurprisingly is still making lists is the Guile Seralini's Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. This study was retracted for many reasons, first on the grounds that their sample sizes were insufficient; 20 rats per group. The study was a two year study and employed the use of the Sprague dawley rat, which had been shown in the 1973 study Spontaneous Tumors in Sprague dawley Rats and Swiss Mice, to spontaneously form tumors (as the title of the study implies), and have a life span of about two years. This study was not only unscientific, but it was unethical as Seralini let the rats live 'til 25% of their body mass was tumor, took pictures and posted them in the media before his study was even released. This is not in the name of science, there is nothing scientific about torturing an animal and then showing it off, it was strictly for an emotional response. (Sources:http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org..., http://www.snopes.com...) Con's second stance is that GM do not increase yield, unfortunately the first link is again vague, not stating who did the studies they mention, and the one link on the page was 404. The second article may have some truth value, however there are also many myths spread throughout, such as the increase in India farmer suicide http://www.nature.com.... It may be true that as stated in their article that in Argentina GM soy beans are not producing as much. Not all GM plants are made to yield higher, and whether or not a plant is GM is one of many factors when considering yield. Con finishes this rebuttal with two statements, since no evidence or reasoning is given to his conclusion I am unsure what to assess as I addressed this in round 2. I will agree that CO2 is largely responsible for our current situation, however I would not say that this is just a method to avoid the real problem. I realize that the problem lies beyond GM technology, and that this topic would deserve a debate all to itself. Last Con asserts extreme energy use by Ge tech. yet apply's no evidence or reasoning. Con is confusing substantial equivalence with being tested under the same standards. The foods are looked at to see if new metabolites or proteins are introduced with the gene, if no new allergens or toxins are present in the analysis then they move forward, if anything is detected then further testing is needed to evaluate the risk value of an item. There is no more an avenue to affect safety in this than there is when we introduce an exotic food. Everything in life has some risk factor to it, there is no such thing as absolute safety. Thank you very much for getting in to round two, look forward to the next one.