Genetically Modified Organisms are unsafe for people and the environment.

Con stated that GMO's are necessary to cure disease. He has not provided any support for this claim. The hope is that they can cure diseases, but as of now there is no such proof. What has transpired is devastating effects on humans and their health. I will lay out this paradox. You are talking about how GMO's can crack the code to many diseases, when in fact many diseases stem from these altered foods, and pollution in the world that comes along with these uneconomical practices. 1: Con has compared genetic engineering to conventional breeding. This is like comparing an apple to a banana. There are huge differences between the two that I will discuss, which make them virtually incomparable. Put it this way: The most critical difference between natural and GM breeding is that natural breeding crosses organisms that are already closely related—whereas, GM breeding slaps together genes from up to 15 wildly different sources. [1] The mixing of genetic material across species is a dangerous and unnatural. [2] New amino acids and proteins are created that are not recognized by our bodies when ingested. [2] This means even if it looks like food, in reality the DNA is not and does not benefit our bodies in the same ways. Precise techniques do not equate success. It is possible to make an endless supply of Frankenfood that endangers our health, animals health, and contaminates our world. 2: What dangers does an organic strawberry, or lettuce head have? It is a fallacy in itself to say that I haven't provided any convincing argument that GMO's are unsafe. The corruption of Monsanto is not what makes GMO's unsafe. GMO's in their own right are dangerous. A powerful corrupt corporation spreading GMOs at an alarming rate and driving good small farms out of business makes it even worse. I laid out several arguments, such as the salmon, and the bees that show just two ramifications of GMOs. I have stated in many sources how it affects human health. Monsanto is not the reason to stop GMOs, it just justifies why it all the more important. 3. GMO foods have not done anything for world hunger, nor have the improve agriculture. Earlier this year, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a detailed report entitled "Failure to Yield". [4] The report's findings were straightforward and indisputable. [4] After 21 years of research, billions of dollars, GM crops have done nothing to significantly increase yield: so much for the "feeding the world's hungry" spin. [4] 4. Just because a potato may be toxic doesn't mean you can discount all the other healthful organic foods that are good for the body before their genes are modified. Your using the potato as a fallacy, "poisoning the well", when GMOs are the real culprits poisoning our bodies. Untested: When I cited my example, it was not meant to isolate the dangers of soybeans. Roundup on its own is an endocrine disruptor, and can cause cancers, and a myriad of health problems. . http://www.biosafety-info.net... My argument has been oversimplified by the CON. This is not only affecting humans. A lot of other organisms are feeling the affects, and even the bee population is suffering. Corruption/dangers: Many concerned doctors hypothesize that the disease-causing symptoms of GMOs being consumed today will take years to show up. [3] GMO's aren't going to make you drop dead. That is not the argument. The damage can take years, decades, generations. Each generation is weaker than the previous due to the damage. I recommend the book Pottenger' s Cats. It's great research that proves how successive generations fare far worse than the previous due to poor eating. You state that I am attacking Monsanto, GMO's. But I am not attacking Monsanto to make my case. I am simply stating the facts of Monsanto to support the reasons why GMOs need to be banned. Take for example, nuclear weapons. They are well known dangerous. On top of that fact, you put them in the wrong hands and they can threaten the world. This is my case for GMOs. On their on right, GMO's are proven to be harmful. Concurrently, they are in the wrong hands (Monsanto), which endangers people, our children, our children's children, and mother nature. Is it fair to say that just because I am okay that I will threaten my kids, or their kids? Is it fair to say that just because I can eat them for 5 years I will be fine, but how about 20, 40 years down the road. We need to think long term as a whole, not individual and selfishly. Massive Pesticide Pollution: Several natural plants are not themselves toxic, they are grown in soil that is contaminated, therefore some plants such as the coffee bean plant for example, soaks up the contamination more readily. GM plants only contain this pesticide, because GMO's have altered and inserted it. It is a siction that GMO plants don't require pesticides. As I have proven,many times they require more. Animals are not just inhaling these chemicals. We are having them for dinner. The whole case for GMO's was to improve agriculture, and provide benefits for humans. It has done no such thing, and caused bigger problems. I hope people don't walk away from this thinking that GMO food can prevent world hunger. The exact opposite is occurring. The same poor nations are where thousands of farmers routinely commit suicide after being completely bankrupt by Monsanto's overpriced and ineffective GM seeds. [5] This is well known as the GM genocide. Traditional seeds turned out providing much better. This may be the case because GMO plants require much more water than conventional, and many of these areas are prone to very dry and hot weather. All the more reasons to support the banning! Resources . http://www.mnn.com... [1] . http://conspiracyfactory.blogspot.com... [2] . http://www.naturalnews.com... [3] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [4] . http://www.activistpost.com... [5]