This house believes that GM crops are safe and GMOs should not be labeled

Contention 1: Health My opponent cites an interesting case of the Brazilian soybean. This was a serious concern to the research team that was developing this particular variety. Allergies to nuts are one of the most common food allergens and allergies to the Brazilian nut are very well documented. We know that almost all food allergens are proteins, and that proteins are encoded by genes. Therefore, if a gene is taken from a plant to which people are allergic, one should be careful that an allergen has not been transferred. When the developers began this project, they selected a protein that was not known to be a potential allergen. However, they asked food allergist to evaluate the safety of their nutritionally-enhanced soybean. During development and testing, researchers found that there was indeed a cause to be concerned and the development was stopped. (Nordlee, 1996) Finally, no biotech proteins in food have been documented to cause allergic reactions. As Lehrer and Bannon note: “In order to mitigate the three categories of potential allergy risk associated with biotech crops, all genes introduced into food crops undergo a series of tests designed to determine if the biotech protein exhibits properties of known food allergens. The result of this risk assessment process to date is that no biotech proteins in foods have been documented to cause allergic reactions. These results indicate that the current assessment process is robust, although as science of allergy and allergens evolves, new information and new technology should help further the assessment process for potential allergenicity. ” (Lehrer & Bannon, 2005) The extensive testing and regulations made sure that the GM soybean would never make it to market. There has been extensive independent testing on biotechnology. Alessandro Nicolia, and others, completed a massive evaluation of over 1,783 research papers, reviews, relevant opinions, and reports between 2002 and 2012 and concluded: “We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops. The analysis of the record list shows that the Biodiversity topic dominated, followed by Traceability and GE food/feed consumption, which contributed equally in terms of the number of records. ” (Nicolia, 2013) As a sidebar note, biotechnology can be used to characterize and eliminate allergens naturally present in crops. Biotechnology has been used to remove major allergens in soybeans. (Herman, 2003) This would be a big achievement and could potentially be used to save lives. Contention 2: Environment Con stated that GM crops has resulted in an increase in chemical use and pesticide use. However, it really depends on the type of crop. Wilhelm Klümper notes: “On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries. ” “This meta-analysis confirms that – in spite of impact heterogeneity – the average agronomic and economic benefits of GM crops are large and significant. Impacts vary especially by modified crop trait and geographic region. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for IR crops than for HT crops. Yield and farmer profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries. Recent impact studies used better data and methods than earlier studies, but these improvements in study design did not reduce the estimates of GM crop advantages. Rather, NGO reports and other publications without scientific peer review seem to bias the impact estimates downward. But even with such biased estimates included, mean effects remain sizeable. ” (Klümper, 2014) On average, GM crops have improved the environment by increasing yields, using less pesticides and herbicides, and using less land. This is why farmers were so quick to adopt GM technology. Can GMOs Help the Environment? GM technology is responsible for helping to save the Hawaiian papaya. Gonsalves notes: "The Papaya ringspot virus was discovered and causing severe damage to the papaya. Within a few years, PRSV was widespread and causing severe damage to the papaya. Coincidentally, a field trial to test a PRSV-resistant transgenic papaya had started in 1992, and by 1995 the 'Rainbow' and 'SunUp' transgenic cultivars had been developed. These cultivars were commercialized in 1998. 'Rainbow' is now widely planted and has helped to save the papaya industry from devastation by PRSV. Transgenic papaya have also been developed for other countries, such as Thailand, Jamaica, Brazil, and Venezuela. " (Gonsalves, 2003) Contention 3: Critical Freedom of information and freedom of choice is important. However, should a consumer wish to avoid GMO foods, there are many companies that voluntarily label their products as GMO-free. As a sidebar note, a recent poll showed that 80% of Americans want mandatory labeling for food containing DNA. (Somin, 2015) Sadly, much of the public is simply ignorant of scientific facts and basic facts about government and public policy. We should not have mandatory labels for GMOs for the same reason we should not have mandatory labels for DNA. It simply does not convey enough information about the said product, is very costly for the producers, and unnecessarily alarms consumers about the product in which they are consuming. Conclusion 1. GMOs are extensively tested for safety and are tested independently. 2. The scientific community is in a consensus about their safety. 3. No GMOs have been found to cause allergens. 4. GMOs do not pose a risk to the environment. 5. Labeling GMOs is not the way to go forward. The resolution is affirmed. Bibliography Gonsalves, D. (2003, January). Transgenic Papaya in Hawaii and Beyond . Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics, 7(1-2). Herman, E. M. (2003, May). Genetically modified soybeans and food allergies. . Journal of Experimental Biology, 54(386), 1317-9. Klümper, W. (2014, November 3). A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops . (E. Albertini, Ed. ) PLOS One. Lehrer, S. B. , & Bannon, G. A. (2005). Risks of allergic reactions to biotech proteins in foods: perception and reality . Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology . Nicolia, A. (2013, September 13). An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 34(1), 1-12. Nordlee, J. A. (1996, March 14). Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans. New England Journal of Medicine, 688-92. Somin, l. (2015, January 17). Over 80 percent of Americans support “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA” . Retrieved June 1, 2016, from The Washington Post: . https://www.washingtonpost.com...