Non-GMO Food is more Beneficial to Society than GMO Food

My Final Refutations and Arguments GMOs are Unhealthy "Reliable organizations" affliation with Bio-tech companies Con states that reliable organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Royal Society of Medicine etc. support GMOs. Well, many of those organizations have affliations with Bio-tech companies. In Proposition 37, (law that required GMO labeling) the AAAS announced that "mandating such a label can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers." Interestingly enough, Nina Federoff was the board chair for the AAAS. She also had a board membership with the Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company. Therefore, many of these science organizations (AAAS) have an affliation with Bio-tech companies aren't actually working for science. [1] Going back to my opponent's statement: "While a few environmental advocacy groups have urged the discontiuation of GMO use, there is a broad concensus within the scientific community and other reliable organizations...An almost exclusive majority says that GMO foods are no more likely to cause ill effects to humans than non-GMO food, and that GMO fooods pose no greater risk to humans than non-GMO food." Not just environmental advocacy groups The WHO (World Health Organization) specifically stated that "GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." Therefore, we cannot say all GMOs are safe. By the way, it's not a few environmental advocacy groups. World-renowned scientists such as Arpad Puztai have stated the negative effects on GMO potatoes on animals. If you don't know him, he's abiochemist who spent 36 years at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. He's also a world expert in plant lectins authoring 270 papers and 3 books on the subject. David Schubert, who heads the cellular neurobiology laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, stated that there's no evidence that any GM plant is safe to eat herbicides used in GM technology are toxic. Only a few environmental advocacy groups, think again. [2][3][4] "All GMOs are is a small genetic mutation that makes the plant more hardy, nutritious, and delicious." A small genetic mutation that amplifies the risk of allerginicity, decreases nutrition in crops such as corn, and probably doesn't make it more delicious. My mouth is salivating thinking about all that fish DNA inside my food. [2][5]"After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops."There were actually multiple confirmed allergic reactions to soybean when a brazilian nut-gene was inserted into the soybean to try to "improve nutrition". Also, since genetically modified food was introduced in the 1990's, food allergies have become much more common. Since then, there has been a 265% increase in food-allergy related hospitalization. The CDC study from 2007 found food allergies had increased overall by 18% based on a figure of 3 million children, but the study from Pediactrics put that figure at 6 million children. Food allergies have also become much more common amonst westerners i.e. America, Canada. The majority of these countries store products contain at least one GMO ingredient. I say that there's some common correlation. We still don't know the long term effects of GMOs, but certainly 14 years isn't long-term for goodness sake. [5][6][7]Also Con contradicts himself by saying "no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops," and then stating "GMO crops are being produced that eliminate some of the ill-effects of GMOs." Even if we assume this, they'll likely never be on the market just like drought resistant crops.GMOs Negatively Impact Farmers"Actually, my opponent's assertions aren't really grounded in truth. Farmers in developed, semi-developed, and undeveloped countries have benefitted from GMOs"Actually they weren't assertions, they were legitimate facts backed up by sources. GMO seeds are much more expensive and have to be replanted every year. How are farmers in underdeveloped countries benefiting from GMOs if they're committing suicide from the amount of debt?[8]Con then goes on to state that many farmers are seeing good output. However, farmers aren't necessarily reliable sources. Farmers can easily be bribed by companies to tell them how good their product is. Many farmers actually say the opposite and get sued if a GM seed blows into their crop field.Con then mentions how well Indian farmers are doing with increased yields and living standards. What my opponent fails to see is the bigger picture: the increased yields in the early 2000's were due to better irragtion and favourable weather. For the past 6 years, the average yields per hectare have barely changed. The head of the Cental Institute for Cotton research stated that productivity in north India is likely to decline because of the declining potential of hybrids; the emerging problem of leaf curl virus on the new susceptible Bt-hybrids; a high level of susceptibility to sucking pests." Philosopher, environmentalist, trained physicist, and author of more tahn 20 books, Verdana Shiva stated this: "When Monsanto first introduced Bt Cotton in 2002, the farmers lost 1 billion rupees due to crop failure. Instead of 1,500 kilos per acre as promised by the company, the harvest was as low as 200 kilos per acre. Instead of incomes of 10,000 rupees an acre, farmers ran into losses of 6,400 rupees an acre. " In the Bihar state, corn farmers lost 4 billion in profits when they switched to Monsanto hybrid corn. [8][9]With farmers all across North America being sued for patent rights, and Indian Cotton farmers committing suicide because of their overwheming debt (caused by GMOs), GMOs certainly don't help farmers. Many crops with supposed benefits aren't even on the market yet.[10][11]ConclusionFor these conclusive reasons, we can certainly see that GMOs negatively impact society. Genetic engineering is highly risky and can have hazardous effects on humans and the environment. Why don't we stick with regular farming that has served us for thousands of years. GM crops don't have the supposed benefits that Bio-tech companies say they do, and instead lead to farmers committing suicide (India) because of debt, or farmers being sued because of patent rights. GM food is unhealthy and is likely the cause of increased allerginicity. They have no improved nutrition and only help Bio-tech corporations like Monsanto. The long-term health effects of GMOs are unknown, thus we should stick to regular farming instead of jeopardizing farmers, human health, and the environment. Furthermore, more than 60 countries around the world which includes Australia, Japan and all the European Union, have decleared significant restrictions and even outright bans on GMOs.[12] Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [1] http://www.who.int... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.reuters.com... [4]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;[5]http://www.nejm.org...;[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...;[7]http://www.theguardian.com...;[8]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;[9]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;[10]http://www.theguardian.com...;[11]http://www.nongmoproject.org...;[12]