Genetically-modified plants should continue to be used in agriculture.

I will start with my opening case and then cllarify something about genetically modified foods. I will refute my opponent's arguments in my first rebuttal. Case: The framework of this debate will be a cost-benefit analysis in which real-world impacts are weighed more heavily than theoretical ones and sustainability of impacts possesses high relevance. Contention 1: Honey bees Subpoint A: Honey Bees play a vital role in agriculture The White House reports on June 24th, 2014: "Globally, 87 of the leading 115 food crops evaluated are dependent on animal pollinators, contributing 35% of global food production. Pollinators contribute more than 24 billion dollars to the United States economy, of which honey bees account for more than 15 billion dollars through their vital role in keeping fruits, nuts, and vegetables in our diets." Subpoint B: Honey Bees are at risk because of GMFs. Joseph Mercola from the Center for Research on Globalization, reports on May 7th, 2013, about the risks stemming from neonicotinoids - an insecticide used on GM crops. "These insecticides are highly toxic to bees because they are systemic, water soluble, and pervasive." He continued, "In the US, virtually all genetically engineered Bt corn crops are treated with neonicotinoids." The Environmental Protection Agency reports in October of 2014, confirming that "[this] popular class of insecticide used to treat soybean seeds provides little or no benefit to the farmers " the pesticide, however, is the prime suspect for the deaths of 30 million honeybees" Contention 2: Health Risks Subpoint A: GMFs Increase Pesticide Use Environmental Sciences Europe reports in 2012, explaining how GM crops have increased pesticide use, "Overall, since the introduction of GE crops, the six major GE technologies have increased pesticide use by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%." Subpoint B: Increased Pesticide Use Leads to Health Risks The Examiner reports in April of 2013, explaining the health risks linked to this increase in pesticide use "Research at Johns Hopkins University shows that women with thyroid disease are at a high risk of delivering infants with birth defects. Strong correlation was shown between cancer of the thyroid and glyphosate use on corn and soy crops," They continued, "in the soy-producing regions of Argentina, [birth defects] (they) have been skyrocketing. In 2010 the University of Cordoba released a report showing that the incidence rate of birth defects in South America has increased by 347% from 1997 to 2008, which they claim is linked to aerial spraying of glyphosate on soy crops." The National Center for Biotechnology Information continues in March of 2009, "The world-wide deaths and chronic diseases due to pesticide poisoning number about 1 million per year". There"s a clear relationship between GMFs and real health risks. Contention 3: GMFs Devastate Small Farmers Subpoint A: GM crops drive poor farmers out of business On May 18, 2007, Professor Carmen Gonzalez of the Seattle University School of Law wrote, "The introduction of GM crops in developing countries threatens to exacerbate poverty and inequality by reproducing the anti-poor bias of the Green Revolution. First, GM crops will disproportionately benefit wealthy farmers because most poor farmers will be unable to obtain the cash or credit to purchase the patented seeds and the expensive chemical inputs necessary to cultivate GM crops." Subpoint B: GMFs Decrease Yields The Institute for Responsible Technology explains in 2009 that GMFs decrease yields, "Sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all," They continued, "The report determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability. Subpoint C: Super Weeds The National Research Council explains in 2010 that "Because glyphosate was so effective, many farmers solely planted glyphosate-resistant crops and applied glyphosate season after season." They continued, "Today, almost all corn, soybean, and cotton fields are sprayed with glyphosate (95%). Ubiquitous Roundup (Made for GMFs) application has spawned glyphosate-resistant weeds, driving farmers to apply more-toxic herbicides and to reduce conservation tilling." Food and Water Watch reports in 2013: "Farmers face significant costs from herbicide-resistant weeds from reduced yields and increased production costs to combat weed infestations. These costs can range from $12 to $50 an acre, or as much as $12,000 for an average sized corn or soybean farm." This translates to a global impact of $5 - $19 billion dollars per year. [Net impact = 5 to 19 billion dollars. EuropaBio says in 2012, 170.3 million hectares (420,000,000 acres), use $12 - $50 dollars an acre, times 92% infested with superweeds] Clarification: Genetic modification is unique from selective breeding. I have given a sample quote to show my point. For more information, click the link following the quote. "I first published this article after visiting a teacher"s resource site and came across a lesson plan aimed at children basically alluding to transgenic, or GMO (Genetically Modified Organism), crops being similar, but better than the crops we have today that have resulted from thousands of years of traditional selective breeding techniques./This really bothered me as GMO crops are not the same at all." http://www.greenlivingtips.com... The reason this needs to be pointed out is that my opponent has accessed impacts of selective breeding. These impacts will be unable to be weighed because selective breeding is not genetic modification.