Be it resolved that Genetically Modified (GM) agriculture is beneficial to society.*

For the sake of humoring my opponent, I will ask him to define genetic engineering. Please cite a source supporting your definition, too. ... My opponent also claimed in his second argument that the Federal Government of the US and the US Administration of Health and Food Safety, whose entire purpose of existence is to protect it's citizens from exposure to harmful products, does not have a solid understanding of the risks of Genetically Modified food. I would like him to explain, then, why there are 723,000 results on google when I search up the "US genetically modified agricultural research".[1] I would like my opponent to browse through these sites, and click on any one of the links and state again that there has not been enough research done and that we don't know enough about the potential risks of GM foods. My opponent has also claimed that even though millions of US citizens have been exposed to GM foods, including my opponent himself, and are still alive and healthy, we still have no idea of the risks. However, I would like to ask my opponent whether he believes that possible exposure to GM agriculture for decades with no direct fatalities proves that there are NO SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES AFTER 2 DECADES OF EXPOSURE. ... My opponent asked me to cite a source for my statement- "Additionally, what my opponent also must realize is that GM foods are tested extensively before they arrive onto the commerical market." I find this ironic, because as you can note from the above arguments so far, my opponent bases his arguments on unsupported claims and has never cited one source in any of his arguments at all. However, I would be perfectly happy to cite multiple sources- www.eusem.com/files/read-gfy.doc http://www.geneticallymodifiedfoods.co.uk... http://hubpages.com... ... My opponent also stated "Such a thing (Golden rice) is dangerous... The rice could spread to other fields... allow the chemical company owning "golden rice" to sue the farmers for growing their product..." I believe this is an unfair statement. I would like to ask my opponent why he believes that Golden rice has a higher chance than any other breed of rice in contaminating other fields. Under this absurd logic, would it follow that any other breed/strain of rice is an "Unnecessary risk"? Additionally, my opponent must realize that the inventors of golden rice has signed an agreement allowing third world farmers free access to their rice.[2] This move maintains some equality when it comes to the intellectual property of such a product. ... My opponent claims that a genetically modified tomato is "in essence artificial". However, I would like to question the relevance of such a statement. What advantage does organic products have over artificial products? He also stated that "By suppressing natural processes, you may affect things you don't know you're affecting.". However, I have already cited multiple sources detailing on the testing process that GM foods go through. If this leads to an unhealthy side effect, we would be able to detect and treat this problem through testing. Additionally, he stated "no, it (genetic modification) doesn't benefit the flavor, it only benefits the shelf life." But isn't it true that a tomato with a longer shelf life retains it's desired flavor and texture? By benefiting the shelf life, you also benefit the flavor and texture. ... My opponents last claim is "An even better third idea is to buy organic corn that is not genetically modified...For a small, even negligible price increase, you get natural produce that has not been modified as yours has." However, this statement does not make any sense. Why would you take an unnecessary price increase? Why do you believe that natural products are somehow innately superior to modified products? Would the testing not already pick up any hazardous side effects? Additionally, he fails to refute the nutritional benefits I mentioned above. ... I conclusion, I have refuted every one of my opponents arguments, except for the ongoing flavor one, leaving my opponent with his UNSUPPORTED, completely SUBJECTIVE claim about the POTENTIAL risks. However, I do not even need to address that, because under our definition- "Beneficial to society: Achieving greater greater tangible positive consequences than negative ones." I have produced several examples of TANGIBLE positive consequences, and you have produced none, except for an abstract, potential risk, which is being addressed by the extensive testing my SOURCES report. And honestly, we did not have a clear grasp on the consequences of space exploration, yet here we are, with satellites and moon landings. Why let the POTENTIAL consequences stop us from genetically modifying food, either? So, until my opponent brings up ACTUAL and TANGIBLE examples of negative consequences, vote PRO. --- [1]http://www.google.ca... [2]http://cls.casa.colostate.edu...