Label GMO foods in the US.

For the purpose of this debate, it is important to define "GMO" as "genetically modified organism," and "GMO foods" as "genetically modified organisms that have had new genes from other organisms added to their existing genes," according to Brown University. These definitions are important for the layperson to understand what this debate is truly getting at. As I am in the CON or negation of the resolution as it stands: "All foods with GMOs ought to be labeled," I will outline why all foods with GMOs needn't be labeled as such. I interpret the resolution to refer to government regulation of the labeling process, as the only way to systematically guarantee that 'all' foods with GMOs have labels is to federally regulate said process. Contention 1: Labeling GMOs leads to misinformation and a misinformed public. Contrary to what the pro has argued, these labels would misinform the public rather than inform them. What we have here is a simple cause-and-effect relationship: people would see these labels and then associate GMOs with negative things. Compare it with, say, the labels on packs of tobacco products. While tobacco does indeed have negative effects on the body, GMOs have little to no proven negative effects on the body. So, why create a negative public stigma towards something that doesn't harm the public? What's more, these GMOs have multiple proven positive effects, including (but not limited to) increased nutritional value and less environmental impact. According to the The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, some GMO foods have been created that are notably more nutritious in vitamin and mineral content. The United Nations goes on to note that not only would these foods be healthier for the public, but also would be very useful for feeding malnourished countries. In addition, there have been leads in the GMO field that show that there's ways to create foods that have less environmental impact. According to Oklahoma State University, these GMO foods often require less chemicals, time and tools, and can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, environmental pollution, and soil erosion. Therefore, GMO foods can indirectly help improve the environment. When looking at the benefits and weighing them against the (nigh non-existent) cons, it's quite apparent that placing negative sentiment on GMOs will only lead to a misinformed public and ultimately cause more harm than good. Contention 2: Overbearing government regulation on GMOs will only cause corruption and ultimately untruthful policies. By putting the regulation in the hands of the government (as I discussed above), you're only opening the doors to corruption and multiple conflicts of interest. Ron Paul on February 26, 2008, "The federal government lacks constitutional authority to mandate labeling of products containing genetically-modified food. Furthermore, those who do not wish to consume genetically-modified products should be leery of federally-mandated labeling because history shows that federal regulatory agencies are susceptible to 'capture,' where the regulators end up serving the interest of the business they are supposed to control. In the case of labeling, federal agencies could redefine the meaning of 'modified' to allow genetically-engineered food on the market without fully-informing consumers of the presence of genetically- engineered ingredients. Instead of federal regulation, consumers should demand that manufactures provide full information and refuse to buy those products that are not fully labeled. Once producers see there is a demand for non-genetically-engineered products they will act to fulfill that demand. Of course, makers of genetically-engineered food should be held legally responsible if they fraudulently market their products or harm anyone." The result of government regulation of this GMO labeling, as Ron Paul detailed, is the harm of the public. In summation, it is important to take a holistic approach to the issue at hand. Creating barriers against an ultimately helpful science is counter-intuitive and goes against the foundation of which humanity has been built upon: innovation. Should you go with the pro on this resolution, you're preventing the growth of a science that promises to generate billions, nurture millions, and help our environment. Therefore, the only logical choice in this debate is the CON, and I urge you to vote as such.