Genetic Engineering in Agriculture

For this specific debate - I believe my work schedule should receive the 'assist' in keeping me from responding. No excuses, I'll do what I can with the time remaining for R2 - I am very sorry that you've had to wait this long for a response. Pro's R1 Argument Ideal - Genetic engineering in agriculture are a safe and effective method to address many problems R1(a) - Reduces the amount of pesticides R1(b) - Increased yield and Decrease cost R1(c) - Combats global warming R1(d) - Combats diseases that attack crops Pro's R2 Argument follows Con's Outline of it's Defense C1 - Detrimental to Health of Human Body C2 - Scientific-Political practices not promoting civil liberties C3 - Cost of yield not affected - Food wasting practices are root cause of this specific problem C4 - GMO's lead to the evolution of new diseases that attack crops C5 - There is no real affect on Global Warming Con will begin... R1(a) - Con would like to point out that this statement may be a little 'misleading.' Though seeing the words "reducing the amount of pesticides" looks very prosperous, pesticides are a part of a broad range of substances used to mitigate pests. Though you can say, "the amount of weight of pesticides used will decline" - what is really happening is the TYPE of pesticide is being changed. For GMO's the most popular change of pesticide lies with "Glyphosate." Already, Glyphosate has been proven to cause: autism, cancer, allergies, and parkinson's disease. Con would like to say - "GMO's still require pesticides to be used." In studies already taken, there was a decrease in the overall volume of pesticides declined 6.2% in 1997 (before GMO crops were introduced) - However, a 2009 survey of USDA data by the advocacy group the Organic Center countered that HT crops were causing a significant increase in pesticide use, particularly in the last few years. (http://articles.mercola.com...) (http://www.collective-evolution.com...) (http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org...) R1(b) - This is being debunked as more "myth" than "fact" through independent research. The idea that less land mass will be needed, grocers will hold on to GE foods longer due to a longer shelf life, and simply that the yield potential increases...well, GM Education is taking the stance of Con as well (http://www.gmeducation.org...) The idea of the many prosperous things can happen is not what is being practices in actuality (http://responsibletechnology.org...) and the USDA itself have made it public that the data gathered through the current practices are more mixed than concise to even take a stance (http://www.reuters.com...). The cost will not be decreased as well. You are replacing manual labor in the field to manual labor in the laboratory. R1(c) - The IPCC has come to find out the gas most responsible for global warming is CO2 (http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...) The practice of altering the destination of CO2 release avoids the REAL problematic emissions of CO2. The EPA has release an incredible amount of information, and suggestions on ways to reduce the CO2 emissions...the only problem is - our current culture is addicted to the daily usage of technology which is mindlessly emitting CO2 gasses. (http://www.epa.gov...) In fact, the very practice of CREATING GMO's contributes to Global Warming - just as harvesting them does as well. The main emission of CO2 are coming from Electricity itself...and GMO's heavily depend on electricity, and Con could argue the amount of electricity used could increase to mass produce GMO's. R1(d) - GE food's that are altered to fight diseases are only fighting pre-existing diseases within that specific food (http://www.gmo-compass.org...). Con will not argue this as a "bad thing." Only by altering the genome of the plant is helping the plant - not the human (http://www.academia.edu...) *running out of time, so I have to scurry through!!!* Con's Defense C1 - Information suggesting (and proving) the health risks of GMO's are incredibly prevalent. (http://www.rense.com...) (http://www.responsibletechnology.org...) (http://www.responsibletechnology.org...) Pro's argument that a compliance with the FDA's Substantial Equivalance overlooks an important variable within that diagram itself - from point 4 to point 6. Since there is an alternative route, you CAN produce GE foods with the FDA approval if "the new characteristics affect safety or effectiveness." The alternate route leads to pt 6, and pt 6 CAN make its way into production. This is showing that not all products follow the SAME regulations the entire time down the Substantial Equivilance chart. Con is arguing that simply - there exists an avenue for a product TO affect safety, in the eyes of the FDA, and still be cleared for production through an alternate route. C2 - Sci-Political Practices not promoting civil liberties...This is actually a dangerous issue with the increase of genome modification and study...in order to avoid 'mis-direction' - we will go ahead and throw out this point so we don't "clutter" the 4 main points being debated (for the prosperity of Debate - Con will omit it's original C2 - however I suggest you investigate the potentialities of civil liberties being damaged. C3 - Cost of Yield...Food wasting practices C4 - Lead to evolution of diseases C5 - No real affect on Global Warming ...............I have 2 minutes left to turn in...I understand I will lose this debate...I blame my work (haha) - The Con is prepared to be "shredded" by not utilizing their time in a manner that will allow elaboration on it's defense. If acceptable - I will cover these points in R3, but if not - I understand...time is running out! Have to submit before forfeit!!!