Genetically Modified Organisms are unsafe for people and the environment.

In the previous round I mentioned I would only be providing rebuttals in that round since the character limit prevented me from making any additional arguments. This round I will heavily state my case and the positives of genetic engineering and I will explain how genetic modification is a necessary tool in order to improve agriculture, cure diseases, and to prevent deaths of millions of people throughout the world. I will also be explaining why genetically modified organisms could be considered safer than organisms cultivated and produced under traditional breeding techniques. Contention 1: Genetic engineering is more precise and produces desirable results faster than conventional breeding. Let's consider what genetic engineering actually does verses conventional breeding. In a tomato plant with 10,000 genes coding for different characteristics of the tomato, genetic engineering would allow for the precise insertion of 1 gene from another organism into the DNA of the tomato plant [12. . http://bit.ly...;]. Wheras with conventional breeding techniques, half of the genes from one plant and half of the genes from another plant of the same species are combined together and a desirable product is much harder to produce. For example, it took 6000 years for the puny teosinte grain to be conventionally bred into modern grain that Americans call corn [13. . http://accessscience.com...]. Genetic engineering could have made this process much faster because corn is only different from teosinte by 3 genes [14. . http://www.koshland-science-museum.org...]. Modification of only 3 genes out of 32,000 genes is what made corn a much more desirable grain than the worthless teosinte [15. . http://www.sciencedaily.com...]. This is what makes genetic engineering all the more preferable than conventional breeding. All types of plants could be modified to produce desirable traits much faster than traditional breeding methods and it would also become possible to induce new traits in plants that wouldn't have been possible with conventional breeding methods. These would include increased drought tolerance, increased frost tolerance, disease resistance, bigger yields, sweeter fruit, more nutrition and basically any other quality that would provide some kind of benefit. The possibilities are virtually endless with genetic engineering, while they are severely limitated by conventional breeding. Contention 2: All forms of crop breeding can produce unsafe crops. Ever since genetic engineering became possible in the early '70s, GM crops have been much more scrutinized and tested than their conventionally bred counterparts because of the unknown effects these new plants would have on the environment and in people. But traditionally bred crops are often tested less often than GM bred crops because the traditionally bred crops don't provoke any reason for testing because they are considered as safe. But some traditionally bred crops such as potato and celery produce their own toxins naturally. Traditional breeding has and could produce just the right combination of genes from two relatively non-poisonous plants to produce a plant that produces highly toxic potatoes and cause a very severe case of human poisoning. There was a case in California where a new variety of celery was bred from conventional techniques, grown in fields, and harvested. It was only until it was harvested that it was found to contain very high levels of toxin. This was evident when the celery harvesters developed very bad skin rashes [16. . http://bit.ly...].What this illustrates is that no matter how plants are bred, conventionally or genetically engineered, there exists risk of producing something that is harmful. All of these risks though could be mitigated through adequate testing for both traditional breeding and genetic engineering. Contention 3: Genetically modified crops save lives. Earlier in the debate I mentioned that genetic engineering was able to produce human insulin much more efficiently than before. My opponent agreed that it did. I also mentioned the case of spreading banana diseases in South America and Asia and that genetically modified bananas have saved the lives of millions of people because no longer were their plantations being wiped out due to these cruel diseases. They now have food to feed their children who were dying. This is one of the greatest advantages of GMO technology. Contention 4: Organic crops are not necessarily natural nor safe. Organic food is a food that "is produced using methods that do not involve modern synthetic inputs such as synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers, do not contain genetically modified organisms, and are not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or chemical food additives" [17. . http://en.wikipedia.org...]. But when you look at the word natural, many of our food crops sold in stores are not natural because they have been grown and altered by humans [16. (Above)]. Tomatoes, Corn, Grapes, and Apples have all been transformed from their natural states in nature to produce something that is desirable for humans to eat. My opponent wishes to eat something that is organic, and not genetically modified, but in reality these food items I have listed above are technically genetically modified through conventional breeding techniques. Is it still safe to assume that anything organic is safe? An organic potato could have high levels of toxins harmful to humans. It's organic, but it's not really safe. All food is potentially harmful, not just GMOs. Rebuttals:Untested: My opponent has claimed that round-up ready soybeans have inert ingredients that kill human cells and disrupt the synthesis and action of human sex hormones. But this is also true of regular soybeans and organic soybeans. "Raw soybeans, including the immature green form, are toxic to humans, swine, chickens, and in fact, all monogastric animals. " [18. . http://en.wikipedia.org...]. So I really don't see the argument here. Corruption: My opponent keeps using the Corruption of Monsanto and other biochemical companies to try to say that GMOs are unsafe. But that's a logical fallacy, an ad hominem. Just because a company is corrupt doesn't mean what they produce is unsafe for human consumption. In fact, I'm still here, alive, and I have eaten GMO products. My opponent's arguments here have no backing for the banning of GMOs. Research/Hidden Dangers: As I have pointed out above, all crops have hidden dangers, even the ones not genetically engineered. My opponent keeps using the corruption of Monsanto to say that GMOs are unsafe, but has yet to provide any convincing truth to that argument. Massive Pesticide Pollution: Several natural plants are toxic, such as arsenic. The fact that plants now contain their own pesticide doesn't mean pesticide pollution will go up. If crops are engineered with their own pesticide, it will eliminate the harmful pesticide spraying that occurs over agricultural fields. This will eliminate the pesticides that could be inhaled by animals such as humans, providing a much safer alternative than spraying.