Genetic Modified foods are Organic.

Looking forward to a good one. You used for your definition of "organic" [Organic means "relating to natural products" and "often certified by a regulatory body. " [1]] 1A. There are two problems with this. One is your use of the term "relation" to natural products. I see no reason why GM foods are not natural. As I used in my above argument, a tomato plant implanted with genes from a salmon maybe provide health benefits you would normally get when consuming a salmon, however these benefits are not derived from unnatural products. Can it not be argued that GM with genes from bacteria and fungi is natural? After all, these examples that you used in your argument "The DNA is usually from another species, often a bacteria or animal species. " are all specimens that come from nature. 1B. Foods that are certified by a regulatory body are often regulated to their standards correct? Well, I would like to use a part of an article now: "The FDA's stance is that GM foods are substantially equivalent to unmodified, "natural" foods, and therefore not subject to FDA regulation. [1] GM foods are NOT subject to FDA regulation are ARE considered equivalent to unmodified foods. Therefore my opponent is false when he states "My opponent is wrong – the FDA does not certify GM foods as "100% organic. ". My opponent states: "GM crops are often grown with non-organic pesticides and thus, not all GM crops are organically grown. My opponent should have written the resolution as: "GM crops CAN BE organic. "". Isn't the whole point of genetic modification to provide resistances WITHOUT the use of inorganic pesticides? Why would food developers produce a food through GM just to have it eaten by disease and insects that would normally be harmful to the organism. Lastly, I will address the problem of Antibiotic resistance and Allergies into one. Just as I said before the FDA does not regulate GM foods and they consider GM foods the equivalent of organic foods as long as they are grown without the use of pesticides. However, the FDA DOES require the food producers to label exactly what has been used and done to the product they are selling [1]. To better inform on the problem of potential dangers to the human body and health I quote again from the article: "This study claimed that there were appreciable differences in the intestines of rats fed GM potatoes and rats fed unmodified potatoes. Yet critics say that this paper, like the monarch butterfly data, is flawed and does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Moreover, the gene introduced into the potatoes was a snowdrop flower lectin, a substance known to be toxic to mammals. The scientists who created this variety of potato chose to use the lectin gene simply to test the methodology, and these potatoes were never intended for human or animal consumption. " This article supports my point that researchers will be careful not to expose human beings to harmful effects of GM through testing first on laboratory animals(a whole ethical issue that I will leave alone for now! ). The probability also for something harmful to occur is also extremely slim. Scientific research can be flawed as well. Much of your argument is based off of the definition of organic and the standards used to specify whether a product deserves the label of organic. I say that organic products are those that are derived from natural substances. DNA is actually an organic compound and the modification of it is no cause for anything to be unnatural. Therefore vote Pro. [1]. http://www.csa.com...