This house would ban genetically modified foods

” – Yes, genetically modified foods are safe for consumption. A popular claim is that there is little to no research regarding the safety of genetically modified foods but contrary to what a lot of people think there have been more that 2,000 studies that prove that GM foods are safe. (1) Pro gave an example with modified corn that was found in stores, which were never intended for human consumption, but were designed specifically for pig feed. In my opinion that’s just bad regulations. It’s the store’s fault for selling food not suitable for humans, and the governments fault for not having strict enough regulations, but the fact that the food was genetically modified has nothing to do with it. Most countries have a strict control over foods and would not allow something like that to happen. He also gave an example with BT toxin which causes allergies and other responses,but people are allergic to all sorts of things and that doesn’t mean we should stop selling them. You can be allergic to chocolate, nuts, etc. but we don’t label chocolate and nuts as “harmful” and “dangerous” just because some people are allergic to it. If foods are labeled properly and it’s clearly stated that they have been genetically modified there will be no problem for people allergic to them to avoid them. Pro’s second argument is that GM foods have negative examples on the environment. He says that genetically modified foods will increase the use of pesticide herbicides but in the 2nd round I actually proved that GM foods can help reduce the use of pesticides. Pro’s third argument was that genetically modified food is bad for the economy. He gave an example with Flavr Savr which invested $200 million and weren’t able to reclaim the investment. I think that just because some companies made some bad investments it doesn’t mean that there’s no potential in genetically modified foods. In the previous round I explained why genetically modified foods are easier and cheaper to produce. Pro also stated that genetic engineering is a new field, and long term results are unclear. But does he mean to say that we shouldn’t explore any new fields because they may have some harmful sides? It’s only natural that there will be some failures in the beginning of the GMO industry, but I think that with some testing and experimenting genetically modified foods will become the future way of feeding the evergrowing human population and in the long run there will definitely be much more benefits than risks. In response to my first argument Pro said that genetically modified foods may cause unintended harm to other organisms. He gave example with a study about monarch caterpillars, yet he stated that “This study is being reexamined by the USDA, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other non-government research groups, and preliminary data from new studies suggests that the original study have been flawed. Currently, there is no agreement about the results of these studies, and the potential risk of harm to non-target organisms will need to be evaluated further. ” With that Pro questions the reliability of his own argument by suggesting that the study he has presented as proof may be flawed. Because of the fact that the study is not reliable I will not put any effort in trying to rebutt it. I advise Pro to proofread his speech better next time – maybe he will notice details like this and not contradict himself. In his rebuttal of my second argument pro suggests that there may be unknown effects on human health caused by genetically modified foods. He gives example with a study on the digestive tract in rats that claimes that there were appreciable differences in the intestines of rats fed GM potatoes and rats fed unmodified potatoes. However, then he says “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. ” with which he again rebutts his own argument, so I do not feel the need to say anything more about it. He also raises the matter of allergies again, but I already explained why I think allergies aren’t a good reason to ban genetically modified foods. In Pro’s rebuttal of my third argument he says that bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process, however he doesn’t explain it, nor does he give any evidence supporting it. He also expresses a concern that because many new plant genetic engineering technologies and GM plants have been patented, genetically modified seeds will become too costly and small farmers will not be able to afford them. I think that if they can’t afford them small farmers can just choose to just continue producing non-GM plants and the big companies are at no fault for wanting to patent their inventions. I look forward to Pro’s conclusive speech.