BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Genetically modified food is no different from any other scientific advance, thus should be legal to use.

Genetic modification is entirely natural. The process of crop cultivation by selective breeding, which has been performed by farmers for thousands of years, leads to exactly the same kind of changes in DNA as modern modification techniques do. Current techniques are just faster and more selective. In fact, given two strands of DNA, created from the same original strand, one by selective breeding and one by modern modification techniques it is impossible to tell which is which. The changes caused by selective breeding have been just as radical as current modifications. Wheat, for example, was cultivated, through selective breeding, from an almost no-yield rice-type crop into the super-crop it is today.[1] [1]Trewas A. and Leaver C., How Nature itself uses genetic modification,Published January 6 2000, Nature,   http://www.biotech-info.net/how_nature.html, accessed 09/05/2011
Genetically modified organisms can solve the problem of food supply in the developing world.

The possible benefits from GM food are enormous. Modifications which render plants less vulnerable from pests lead to less pesticide use, which is better for the environment. Other modifications lead to higher crop yield, which leads to lower food prices for all. However, This technology really comes into its own in developing countries. Here where water is at a shortage, modifications (which lead crops to needing less water), are of vital importance. The World Health Organization predicts that vitamin A deficiency, with the use of GMOs, could be wiped out rapidly in the modern world. The scientists developed the strain of rice, called “golden rice”, which produces more beta-carotene and this way produces 20 times more vitamins than other strains, creating a cure for childhood blindness in developing countries.[1] The fact that it has not is illustrative of the lack of political and economic will to solve these problems. GM food provides a solution that does not rely on charity from Western governments. As the world population increases and the environment deteriorates further this technology will become not just useful but necessary. [1]Black R., GM “golden rice” boosts vitamin A, published 03/25/2005,   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4386933.stm, accessed 09/02/2011
Genetically modified food is too new and little researched to be allowed for public use.

This debate should be decided on the basis of hard facts, not woolly assertions and environmental sentiment. Until scientific tests show there to be some real risk of harm from farming and eating GM food there is no case for a ban or a moratorium.   Not only is genetically modification well understood but extensive testing is applied to every new GM foodstuff before it is placed on the market. The European Food Safety Authority explains that tests of GMOs include a comparative assessment between the GMO and its non-GMO counterpart and there is a case by case evaluation of every single GMO entering the market – however, because products are so different there is no “by the book” procedure for testing.[1] Researcher Nina Fedoroff from the Penn State University explains: “Genetically modified foods are as safe to eat as foods made from plants modified by more traditional methods of plant breeding. In fact, they are very probably safer, simply because they undergo testing that has never been required for food plants modified either by traditional breeding techniques or by mutagenesis, both of which can alter a plant's chemical composition.”[2] [1] European Food Safety Agency, FAQ on genetically modified organisms, http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/faqs/faqgmo.htm, accessed 09/05/2011 [2] Pacchioli D., Are genetically modified foods safe to eat ?,  http://www.rps.psu.edu/probing/modified.html, accessed 08/28/2011
Genetically modified food is a danger to eco-systems.

The fears about GM food have been nothing more than a media spin. The media have created a story about nothing due to headlines such as 'Frankenfood'. Simply because people are scared they assert that there are not enough testing of the benefits of GM foods.   The proposition is mainly falling into a media trap because at the moment all reasonable precautions are being taken for ensured safety. There is no reason why many different strains of GM crops cannot be produced and planted - where this is not happening at present, it should be. However, the need for many different strains is not an argument against some or all of those being GM. Adding or removing genes from natural varieties does not make the rest of their DNA identical. Furthermore, there is no concrete scientific evidence of what harm is done by the spreading of GM pollen.[1] All these effects are considered when a genetically modified crop is to be approved for agricultural use, if a product would cause any of the above mentioned effects, it would not be approved.[2] [1]Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa, Biotechnology FAQ, Would the spread of GMO traits into traditional maize be a serious problem ?, http://www.ofabafrica.org/faqs.php, accessed 09/07/2011 [2]Bionetonline.org, Is it safe to grow genetically modified foods ?,  http://www.bionetonline.org/english/content/ff_cont7.htm, accessed 09/02/2011
GMOs would create too much dependency on biotechnology companies

The immoral behavior of some people towards this technology is not a reason to ban it unless it can be shown that more harm than good is caused. This research is important to deal with global climate change which is reducing the landmass of the earth that can grow food, whilst the global population is rising. Regulation may be better than outright banning, as we do with many aspects of business. For example gene patenting and the discovery of new genes is an area very similar to genetically modified foods. In the US gene patenting is allowed and when the company Myriad Genetics found the gene BRCA1 and BRCA2 (connected with breast cancer) and made too many restrictions on the use of it (so it hurt people in general), the court stepped in and allowed others to use it, gave them more rights over the “patented product”.[1] With this we see, that there can always be regulation of products if a company attempts to profit out of the misery of others. The same can be done with GMOs. If the company is demanding too high prices, preventing farmers from doing their work, the courts and legal system can always step in. Just because one company acts unethically, this does not mean that all must. There is a market for ethical consumerism, so the actions of a few corporations are not a reason to ban GMOs entirely. [1] Nature.com, Testing time for gene patents, published 04/15/2010, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7291/full/464957a.html, accessed 09/02/2011
Genetically modified food is no different from any other scientific advance, thus should be legal to use.

Genetic modification is unnatural. There is a fundamental difference between modification via selective breeding and genetic engineering techniques. The former occurs over thousands of years and so the genes are changed much more gradually. Genetic modification will supposedly deliver much but we have not had the time to assess the long-term consequences.[1]  A recent study by the Soil Association actually proves that many of the promises companies gave were false. GM crops did not increase yield. Another example is a frost-resistant cotton plant that ended up not ripening. [2] GMOs do not reliably produce the benefits desired because we do not know the long term effects of utilizing them. Given the risks, we should seek to ban them. [1] Pusztai A., Genetically modified foods: Are they a risk to Human/Animal Health ?, published June 2001, http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html, accessed 09/02/2011 [2] University of Alberta, Genetic Ethics Lecture, published Fall 2008,  http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/courses.hp/bio207.hp/locke/DebateCON-07.pdf, accessed 09/02/2011
Genetically modified organisms can solve the problem of food supply in the developing world.

GM food will do nothing to help solve the problems in developing countries. The problem there is not one of food production but of an inability to distribute the food (due to wars, for example), the growing and selling of cash crops rather than staple crops to pay off the national debt and desertification leading to completely infertile land. Bob Watson, the chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), has stated that GM technology is oversold. The problem is not that there is not enough food, but that the food that is available is not being distributed. “Today the amount of food available per capita has never been higher, how costs are still low, and yet still around 900m people go to bed hungry every night”[1].  Instead of money being invested into genetic modification, what should be looked at is which areas allow food to go to waste and which areas need food, and then a redistribution needs to occur. Better transport and roads is where money should be invested. Not with potentially hazardous GM crops. In addition, the terminator gene prevents the farmer from re-growing the same crop year after year and instead must buy it annually from the producer. Abolishing the terminator gene leads to the other problem of cross-pollination and companies demanding reparations for the “re-use” of their crops. [1] Sample I, Nearly a billion people go hungry every day – can GM crops help feed them?, published 01/23/2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jan/23/gm-crops-genetically-modified-food-crisis, accessed 09/05/2011
Genetically modified organisms will prevent starvation due to global climate changes.

The temperature of the earth is rising, and the rate of increase is itself increasing. As this continues, foods that grow now will not be acclimatized to the hotter conditions. Evolution takes many years and we simply do not have the time to starve while we wait for this to occur. Whilst there may be a vast supply of food now, we need to look to the future and how our current crops will withstand our changing environment. We can improve our food supply for the future if we invest in GM crops now. These crops can be made specifically to deal with the hotter conditions. Moreover, Rodomiro Ortiz, director of resource mobilization at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico, is currently conducting trials with GM crops to get them to grow is drought conditions.[1] This has already in 2007 been implemented by Monsanto in South Africa and has shown that genetically modified maize can be grown in South Africa and so prevent starvation.[2]    In other countries, this would also mean that foods could be cultured where organic foods would not be able to. This would mean those in third world countries could grow their own crops on their low nutrient content soil. This has the additional benefit of not impacting on the environment as no transport would be needed to take the food to the places where it is needed; this would have to occur with organic foods grown in areas of good soil and weather conditions.[3] [1]Ortiz R., Overview on Crop Genetic Engineering for Drought-prone Environments, published  December 2007, http://www.icrisat.org/journal/SpecialProject/sp3.pdf, accessed 09/05/2011 [2] African Center for Biosafety, Monsanto’s genetically modified drought tolerant maize in South Africa,  http://www.biosafety-info.net/file_dir/4871488837158955b.pdf, accessed 09/02/2011 [3] Rosenthal E., Environmental Costs of Shipping Groceries around the World, published 04/26/2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/business/worldbusiness/26food.html, accessed 09/02/2011
When developing countries employ poor labour standards, other countries follow the example in order to be competitive

This is similar to the debate of imposing uniform carbon emission caps on all nations. This would be unfair as the developing world would be at a disadvantage as it takes away one of the ways in which poorer countries compete effectively in the global market; through having lower prices as a result of those lower standards.  That is why keeping lower standards that are more easily met is better than having an unachievable and unfair standard.
There is nothing wrong with individualised standards. It is the question on implementing them better and not raising standards

Individualised standards can be dangerous. International standards could be set at a minimum level on which every country could add measures tailored to its needs as is the case with the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Countries tend to ignore the importance on long term development and concentrate on plans for relatively short term success. By neglecting important issues countries suffer because they wake up when the issue at hand is too large to handle. For example, China’s economy has grown tenfold since 1978 but at the cost of great environmental damage. China now hosts 16 of the 20 most polluted cities of the world. The country has also landed itself with over 70% of its natural water sources polluted and is now the largest emitter of greenhouse gases.[1] Encouraging greener development earlier would have helped prevent this problem. [1] Bajoria, Jayshree, and Zissis, Carin, ‘China’s Environmental Crisis’, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 August 2008, http://www.cfr.org/china/chinas-environmental-crisis/p12608
There is uneven implementation of labour standards even in western countries

It is irrelevant that some western countries do not always meet the highest labour standards; does it matter that Germany does not have a national minimum wage when there are minimum wages for each sector? These are countries where one labour standard can be sacrificed because the pay and standards elsewhere are much higher. Of course consumers should be supporting attempts to increase labour and business standards but this is hardly exclusive; there is little reason for aid donors not to be demanding high standards at the same time as consumers are.
Labour standards are necessary to protect basic human rights

Labour and business standards are a cornerstone of agreement on universal human rights between various international actors and so it is right that they should be linked to aid. In 1998 the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work were adopted and are considered binding on all members regardless of whether they have ratified the conventions.[1] The business and labour regulations protect the basic worker rights and improve job security through demanding the elimination of discrimination and empower workers through the recognition of “freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining”[2] like in those in developed western countries. This then provides a minimum standard and aid should only be given to those that ensure those minimum standards they have signed up. It would also help compliance to prioritise those who go further in their protections of labour when it comes to receiving aid. It should be remembered that there has been general acceptance of international labour standards not just for human rights reasons but also because having minimum standards is beneficial economically – for example a 40 hour working week is more productive per hour than a 60 hour week.[3] [1] the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, ‘About the Declaration’, International Labour Organisation, http://www.ilo.org/declaration/thedeclaration/lang--en/index.htm [2] ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, Adopted by the International Labour Conference at its Eighty-sixth Session, Geneva, 18 June 1998 (Annex revised 15 June 2010), http://www.ilo.org/declaration/thedeclaration/textdeclaration/lang--en/index.htm [3] Robinson, Sara, ‘Bring back the 40-hour work week’, Salon, 14 March 2012, http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/bring_back_the_40_hour_work_week/
Increasing a standard, even if not as high as the donor would want, increases the standard of the present situation

Increasing the required standard of business and labour will result in increases to the current standard labour and business standards even before aid is entirely tied as countries implement changes to ensure they get the most possible aid.  Simply setting an expected level of labour and business standards will therefore create improvement in those standards. In the case of the Decent Work Country Programme for Bangladesh 2006-2009 Bangladesh has been implementing the program due to its positive benefit towards achieving the millennium development goals. This is despite challenges such as the lack of employment opportunities in the country. The programme has been successful in improving social protection, working conditions and rights for female, male, and children workers in a few sectors and areas[1]. [1] International Labour Organization, Bangladesh: Decent Work Country Programme 2012-2015, 2012 http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/program/dwcp/download/bangladesh.pdf
When developing countries employ poor labour standards, other countries follow the example in order to be competitive

As long as developing nations constantly keep employing poor labour standards, it will keep putting a strain on the global economy. This is because other countries will be pressured to do the same just to remain competitive. This creates a race to the bottom effect and would create “poor conditions and loss of freedom in the global South, and causes workers in the global North to lose their jobs to cheap outsourced labour”.[1] Higher labour standards in developing countries therefore also benefits developed countries. However the converse is also true; labels like ‘fair trade’ provide a guarantee of ethical quality and show that consumers are willing to pay more to ensure good labour standards. [1] ‘Changing Global Trade Rules’, International Labor Rights Forum, http://www.laborrights.org/creating-a-sweatfree-world/changing-global-trade-rules
There is nothing wrong with individualised standards. It is the question on implementing them better and not raising standards

The chances that these international labour standards are even relevant to these developing nations are low. For example, India need not ratify the two core conventions on protecting trade union rights because these are rights that pertain to workers in formal employment. A majority of India’s workforce is not in formal employment, and hence not covered by any legal provisions. Similarly in many developing economies a large portion of the workforce is engaged in subsistence farming, something that labour standards are never going to apply to as those involved will do whatever they need to in order to get by. Therefore, there needs to be a different standard applied to the situation specific problems. What needs to be recognised is how no to low labour standards in developing countries can be a significant improvement over the only alternative that was previously available; subsistence farming. One size fits all does not work in such a diverse global economy and donors should recognise the benefits of helping development to bring people out of subsistence farming.
There is uneven implementation of labour standards even in western countries

Western countries often do embrace high levels of labour standards or do not follow their labour regulations. Germany for example has no minimum wage[1] while the USA has no legal or contractual requirement to provide minimum amounts of leave.[2] Moreover it is the demand for the cheapest possible products that drives down labour standards worldwide. If western nations truly want to change labour standards then the way to do it is with the consumer’s wallet not the aid chequebook. British clothing retailers such as Primark are often shown to be buying their products from sweatshops that use illegal workers, and exploit their labour[3]. If there is to be real lasting change in labour standards western firms need to be the ones pushing high labour standards and consumers would need to not automatically go for the cheapest product available. [1] Schuseil, Philine, ‘A review on Germany’s minimum wage debate’, bruegel, 7 March 2013, http://www.bruegel.org/nc/blog/detail/article/1036-a-review-on-germanys-minimum-wage-debate/#.UW_QlrWG18E [2] Stephenson, Wesley, ‘Who works the longest hours?’, BBC News, 23 May 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18144319 [3] Dhariwal, Navdip. "Primark Linked to UK Sweatshops." BBC News. BBC, 01 Dec. 2009. Web. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7824291.stm
International labour and business standards go hand in hand with development standards and will de facto increase implementation levels

Developing nations are plagued with corruption as well as desperate economic situations and are often in competition with each other in exporting whether that is manufacturing for slightly richer countries of South East Asia or natural resources in Africa.  In the context of such an economic rat race, it would be unfair to impose a western standard on these countries. An increase in standard is not a cheap process as it increases the costs of labour and will stretch resources resulting in cutting back the number of jobs and hence will increase unemployment and poverty just as happened in many Latin American countries[1]. It is better to employ many and provide some means of sustenance to all, as will happen with very low wages and standards,  rather than employ less and give (relative) luxury to a few. Developing nations that have lower labour standards can gain a comparative advantage in trade: the lower the cost of the industry, greater the turnover of the industry. [2] [1] Stern, R. and Katherine Terrell, ‘Labor Standards and the World Trade Organization’, Discussion Paper N 499,2003 http://www.fordschool.umich.edu/rsie/workingpapers/wp.html [2] ‘The benefits of International Labour Standards’, International Labour Organisation, http://www.ilo.org/global/standards/introduction-to-international-labour-standards/the-benefits-of-international-labour-standards/lang--en/index.htm
Historically the donor of Foreign Aid has always set down pre-requisites

Strategic interests can be put to risk by such pre-requisites. Donor nations have strategic interests when awarding aid, which ensure that future trade relations are well secured (such as United States and the Middle Eastern oil states). This is why aid goes to countries that often have links with the donor. If there are too many conditions attached and when the developing countries cannot meet them these countries will go elsewhere. China is increasingly a competitor in giving aid and overtly at least ties in far fewer conditions into the aid they give. Sudan was cut off from aid programmes due to its internal conflict, but China invested in development projects without asking for any conditions[1]. [1] Zafar, A. "The Growing Relationship Between China and Sub-Saharan Africa: Macroeconomic, Trade, Investment, and Aid Links." The World Bank Research Observer 22.1 (2007): 103-30. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/4406
Development has many facets of which pure economic growth is a priority, especially in the context of a developing nation

The concept of a nation’s sovereignty is losing weight against the rights of a global citizen. Citizens everywhere in the world should be able to enjoy equal standards of employment and not suffer at the hands of a nation’s neglect. The rights of a nebulous entity such as the state should not be equated with the much more vital rights of individual workers to humane standards of treatment and good working conditions.