Label GMO foods in the US.

Thank you contender for your edification regarding GMOs for the layperson, expounding upon the issue of whether GMO foods or even Genetically Engineered foods ought to be labeled. This issue extends far beyond the layperson indeed. It's a global issue. What this debate is truly getting at from my perspective - is an informed public "Right to Know". A label on a product informs the public or at least creates questions about a labeled product, so that they may educate themselves and make their own decisions after doing their own research. Because this complex resolution regarding a right to know which foods have GMOs in them extends beyond a layperson, those laypersons may begin by understanding and researching for themselves on what Glyphosate is, or simply why de-regulation benefits the growth of a massive worldwide "systemic" agribusiness like Monsanto. Certainly any manufacturer, factory farmer, or other food product company would already be labeling their products with a GMO label within FDA regulation, if there were health benefits or environmental benefits to Factory Farming with GMOs to advertise. And with the massive amounts of profits companies such as Monsanto makes dominating the seed industry alone with patents on seeds, as well as creating a global dependence on RoundUp (a pesticide directly linked to Parkinson's Disease), they could afford labeling in order to educate the public on the potential benefits in health and to the environment with GMOs, if there are any. GMO mono-crop speed farming reduces biodiversity, depletes soils of minerals due to non-revolved crops (decay of natural matter back to the soils), enhancing soil erosion, not preventing it as my opponent suggests. The long term use of GMOs are not sustainable and causing CCD, Colony Collapse Disorder. Without biodiversity you have no pollination. GMOs make bees sick and they go lost. Monsanto has to transport bees on 18 wheeler trucks from Factory Farms for Bees in Florida to pollinate their crops. The GMOs Monsanto uses kills the bees and they have to re-populate them far away from their pesticide laden crops. It's no wonder why the only labels on foods related to GMOs in any way whatsoever are by many organic farmers with non-GMO labels on their products. Monsanto owns many supposed "natural" food companies as well. Regardless of all this, if people know there are GMOs in their food, they can vote on what sustainable farm they want to promote when they buy food in the store. I do not think that the United States government should regulate a labeling process. The FDA is already bought out by Monsanto, and are already providing loopholes and ways out of informing the public accurately by allowing food manufacturer's "trade secrets" or brand names in labeling. Aspartame labeled under different names such as NutraSweet is an example. In 1985, Monsanto Company bought G. D. Searle, and the aspartame business became a separate Monsanto subsidiary, the NutraSweet Company. Aspartame is now AminoSweet, owned by Ajinomoto. Sucralose is sweeter, more popular, and retains it's sweetness under heat. The only way to systematically guarantee that "all" foods with GMOs are labeled with accuracy would be with a privately funded internationally recognized NGO (non-government organization). This would be a market driven company voted on for the people and by the people. People would be informed of this company and simply decide themselves if they were to buy products with it's GMO labels or Non-GMO seal. That non-profit company would not be subsidized by Monsanto as our government currently is. In contention 1 my opponent stated labeling GMOs leads to a misinformed public. This would only be the case, as my opponent said, if there was conflicting interest between shareholders in a company like Monsanto and the organization informing the public. Currently shareholders of Monsanto, are within our current government. Adviser to the FDA, Michael Taylor is a former Monsanto lawyer, and is a most influential shareholder of Monsanto. Michael R. Taylor was named deputy commissioner for foods at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2010. Monsanto is integral to WHO, and future plans of the Codex Alimentarius. If you can control the food you can control the people and you can control the economy. You can specifically control population growth as well. There is in fact the potential benefit of a GMO that does not include herbicides known in systemic agriculture, such as with Golden Rice, which could solve hunger problems worldwide. The public should know about this. With a label they would be informed. In contention 1 you assume that GMO labels would associate "negative things". The only thing that a label would create is information about what is in a food. I eat Cheetos rarely but sometimes cave in, the new extra spicy jalepeno flavor is great, and I do minimize my intake of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) normally. Regardless of what this ingredient may or may not have as an effect on obesity and the diabetes it may lead to, at least I have been informed it is in Cheetos, which helps me consider a choice. And that choice ought to be my right. I am arguing that that labeling ought to be on there. It is for all foods with HFCS, because we voted on it. Prop 37, the "California Right to Know Act," would require labeling of many " but not all " foods containing genetically modified components and would prohibit marketing such foods as "natural. " It was narrowly defeated 53% to 47%. Agribusinesses and food corporations spent 45 million to defeat it. France was able to ban Monsanto's MON 810 "Yieldgaurd" maize amidst environmental and health concerns. People as well stopped buying products containing it due to labels on foods indicating that maize was Genetically Engineered. France's bee population after mysterious Colony Collapse Disorder, was restored naturally. I'm not disputing contention 2 in my opponents argument, because regulation or de-regulation, corruption or conflicts of interest are irrelevant to my "resolution". For my resolution government does not have a role in the labeling process, it would be market driven, by the people, and through an international NGO not subsidized by an international agribusiness such as Monsanto. Labeling GMOs in no way would create barriers to science or limitations to innovation, it would only create truth for the people to know which scientific innovation is in their food, which is humane. We already get a list of ingredients for our food, so why not GMOs. If they are good GMOs, there is nothing to hide, and why not promote them then. People can decide for themselves, and we have become the science experiment of Monsanto after all. 80% of our foods contain GMOs. People have the right to be informed. Regarding both Ron and Rand Paul, they endorsed Mitt Romney, and are associated with Monsanto. Ron Paul is anti-war which is good. He's been silent about Monsanto's war on farmers and telling the EPA to Ban Glyphosate. See the International Journal of Biological Sciences on how the Sub-chronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals at . http://www.ijbs.com... GMOs with fortified Iron should be labeled. Again, this is about the "Right to Know" since these are genetically altered crops. "Golden Rice" rich in beta-carotene genetically altered indeed may be a benefit to global starvation and increased Vitamin A in it could be a benefit to children suffering from blindness. Then again there are over 200 forms of carotenoids, some detrimental. We've become the experiment. Vote PRO in this debate - GMO foods ought to be labeled. The consumer should have a choice to make their own decision, and be informed of what they are buying. The "Right to Know" PRO vote is the most "holistic" and sustainable approach as well as the most responsible and humane decision.