Resolved: On Balance, the benefits of Genetically Modified Foods Outweigh the Harms

In this speech I will simply attack my opponent. So, in his first contention my opponent claims claims that GM foods are harmful to health. I have two responses. First off, his sources of information are sketchy at best. A.) He never cited where he got either of his two statistics from. B.) According to Andrew Marshall of Nature Biotechnology, the study which he cites about fertility is "yet to appear in a peer-reviewed journal and... reports 10% mortality on conventional soy" Besides the fact that his article isn't scientific, it just doesn't make sense. Obviously, the "researchers" conducting it were doing something wrong (improper handling etc.) if 1 in ten rats in the CONTROL group died. And C.) His other ambiguous reference to "British Scientists" findings' is nowhere to be found on the internet and doesn't even make sense. He claims, "Researchers were astonished by the fact that 16 vital hormones were dead." However, hormones don't die. They are chemical signalers in the body. His quote is akin to saying "GM Foods kill glucose or hemoglobin." He then goes on to say, "Researchers found that there were pesticides found inside those hormones causing infertility." Again, this is nonsensical. pesticides cannot be INSIDE hormones as both are molecules... Moreover, he neglects the fact that, as I say in my case, GM foods reduce the impact of pesticides by almost 20%. At this point, even if you buy his study, it flows PRO because while pesticides are admittedly not the best thing, less of them are used when GM crops are grown. Second, the empirics clearly flow PRO. Instead of my opponent's two shady sources, prefer my peer-reviewed 10 year analysis of almost 1800 studies that found no harms associated with GM foods. Moreover, couple it with a 31 year 1 trillion animal feed study by Alison Van Eenennaam of the journal of animal science. The study looked at animal health before and after the introduction of GM foods, which are commonly fed to livestock, and found no change in health. This analysis is especially important because it is long-term. Finally, look to a literature review by Gary Williams of the New York Medical College which finds that under present or expected conditions, the use of pesticides on GM foods poses no threat to human health. In his second contention, my opponent argues that monopolies are bad. I have two responses First, he never shows the link between GM foods existing and monopolies. The fact of the matter is that a government being inept and unable to regulate and break up monopolies like it should is hardly the fault of the existence of GM seed. Until he can definitively show otherwise, it doesn't really mater how bad GM food companies are, especially considering the fact that GM foods can be accessed through non-profit organization like Drought Resistant Maize for Africa. Second, the harms he touts are non-existent. Even if it is assumed that Monsanto and other companies indiscriminately suing these farmers, that has little to do with innovation. At this point in agricultural development innovation originates from technological advancement not small individual farmers. However, even assuming that these farmers are being sued for contamination is false. According to Dan Charles of NPR, "Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination. The company asserts, in fact, that it will pay to remove any of its GMOs from fields where they don't belong." In fact, Monsanto has only ever brought 9 cases of copyright infringement where farmers illegally used their seeds before a court. Moreover, those cases involved farmers practically stealing seeds, and even if they didn't, any harms from them are a drop in the bucket when compared to the $100 billion dollars in economic gains to farmers all over the world. In his third contention, he talks about bans and labels. I have two key responses First, his arguments here are largely non-topical. We are supposed to be debating about whether or not GM foods are beneficial on a global scale. Whether or not GM foods are labeled or legal in a few countries or states doesn't really prove anything in terms of whether or not GM foods are good or bad, especially considering that governmental acts are both fallible and often motivated by means other than a pure cost-benefit analysis (the topic of this debate). Second, even assuming that a country's legal position on GM foods somehow decides whether or not they are good or bad, the trend has been towards more legalization recently. According to BBC, the EU is moving towards implementing more types of GM foods, while GMO Compass clearly documents that the trend over the past years has been towards more nations adopting GM crops with 18 using them today. Because I believe that technological innovation is paramount to improving the world we live in, I strongly urge a PRO ballot and look forward to hearing from my opponent.