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

This has been my first debate in over a year so I hope I did not make too many mistakes. Contention 1: Health Con has accepted that it is a stretch to say that GMOs are severely harmful. Con claims that there is no precautionary rule (often called the precautionary principle). However, as Giovanni Tagliabue points out in his editorial in Nature Biotechnology: “As formulated in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the precautionary principle (PP) states: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. ” Originally created with the aim of protecting the environment, the PP has subsequently been broadened by the European Union to cover also policies or safeguarding consumers, and human, animal and plant health. However, the PP has sometimes been invoked inappropriately, for example, in situations of generic, undefined alarm. For this reason, the European Commission (Brussels) recommends: “A decision to invoke the PP does not mean that the measures will be adopted on an arbitrary or discriminatory basis”; instead, a decision to apply the PP should be based on “detailed scientific and other objective information. ” That is not the case for GMOs. Any attempt to apply the PP to this fake container as a supposed coherent object is meaningless. ” (Tagliabue, 2015) Con also claims “the FDA does not require GM seeds to be tested before they are released onto the market. ” This is demonstrably untrue as the FDA requires GE plants and food to meet the same food safety requirements as other foods derived from traditionally bred plants. (Food and Drug Administration, 2015) Contention 2: The Environment My opponent once again criticizes the source for the funding and fails to respond to the actual argument that is being presented. Unless con is able to cite flaws within Andrew Kniss’ study, then his argument is simply an argumentum ad hominem. Sourcewatch, a source that con presents, is not neutral and does not present a balanced point of view. I also noticed that their articles on genetic modification, Monsanto, and others contained outright lies, fallacies, and other anti-science positions. Con has failed to respond to the article from Nature and so I extend those arguments. Next, con argues against the genetic literacy project, but yet fails to defend Charles M. Benbrook’s article that he cited in the previous round, and so I extend those arguments. The GLP does not take any funding from corporations, but is rather funded by individuals and several foundations. (Genetic Literacy Project, n. d. ) Once again, his argument is nothing more than ad hominem. Con also cites the issue of monoculture. However, has Giovanni Tagliabue further points out in his editorial: “Extensively cultivated single crops can exist without being genetically modified (e. g. , oil palms in Indonesia); they can be pre-existing, and only subsequently be DNA-spliced to add a trait (e. g. , alfalfa, a grass for fodder, which has been made tolerant to herbicides in the United States; flax, similarly, in Canada). Also every trait is crossed into tens to hundreds of landraces that perform best in a certain environmental and regional context—hardly “monoculture. ” Do these pre-existing crops perhaps change their nature, becoming ready to “spread uncontrollably,” when we add a useful trait through a slight readjustment to their DNA? And in addition, there are numerous small local and typical crops (above all fruit and vegetables), for which genetic engineering solutions are available to protect or improve them in various ways; many are still not applied due to the excessive costs linked to the regulatory nightmare that retards development of GMOs. The claimed link between genetic engineering and extensive monocultivation is not at all necessary, and where there is such a link, it is banal. Consequently, the grounds for the alleged “systemic impact” of GMOs does not exist. ” Dr. Steve Savage also notes that GMO crops do not foster monoculture; rather the issue is about limited crop rotation; history and economics, and not biotechnology. To solve this issue, Savage argues that the solution is education: “Probably the best way to facilitate more rotational diversity would be through education of the absentee landlord community. Much of the land in the Midwest is held in trusts for the families who have long since migrated to the cities. Typically, all they do is collect the rent checks through a farm management company. If those families could be educated about sustainable cropping practices, they might be willing to engage in re-designed leases designed around medium to long-term economics rather than the typical annual, cash lease. What is needed is a way to give the grower/renters the incentive to implement the practices that might not optimize income for each year, but which lead to improved soil quality over time which in turn leads to higher income potential and more protection from drought (e. g. no-till, cover cropping, controlled wheel traffic and more diverse rotations). The very real benefits of such a system would flow to the land-owner - increasing the value of the asset. It would be far more constructive to find creative ways to share that value between farmers and landowners rather than to worry about ‘monocultures. ’"(Savage, 2014) Contention 3: Critical I wish to thank con for giving me respect and courtesy to deal with my family emergency. Con argues “Pro claims that voluntary labeling is sufficient. This is nothing more telling food companies to self-regulate, a strategy which has never succeeded as corporations will do whatever is necessary to maximize profits. ” Con needs to substantiate this claim. Has self-regulation never succeeded? Con needs to prove this point. As a counter-point, the non-GMO project, kosher certifications, halal certification, and free trade certification are all examples of self-regulating labels that work. Con also claims “Pro also says that labeling GMOs does not convey enough information about the product, however, this argument falls flat, as already, food is required to be labeled with things including the country of origin. The fact that a product comes from one country over another does not mean the product is necessarily harmful because of that, nor does it acknowledge all the information about that country, yet the product is still labeled so that consumers can know where their food is coming from and if they want to support that country by buying that product. ” This is first and foremost issue with the citing the COOL label as an example is that it is a complete straw-man of my argument. My argument simply was that GM crops are too diverse and not homogenous enough to properly inform consumers. I compared this in round 2 to requiring labeling food that contains DNA. It could also be compared to requiring food to be labeled that has been artificially selected. Once more, genetic modification is not an ingredient, rather it is a process. Why should we signal out a single process above others and unnecessarily alarm consumers? Con has failed to respond to that argument. Con has failed to prove that GM crops are more harmful than conventional crops and has also failed to provide a sound reason to label GM foods. I soundly affirm the resolution. I hereby turn this debate over to the voters. Bibliography Food and Drug Administration. (2015, October 19). Consumer Info About Food from Genetically Engineered Plants . Retrieved June 5, 2016, from Food and Drug Administration: . http://www.fda.gov... Genetic Literacy Project. (n. d. ). Mission, Financial Transparency, Governorship . Retrieved June 5, 2016, from . https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org... Savage, D. S. (2014, August 7). Do GMO Crops Foster Monoculture? . Retrieved June 5, 2016, from Applied Mythology: . http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com... Tagliabue, G. (2015, October). The nonsensical GMO pseudo- category and a precautionary rabbit hole. Nature Biotechnology , 33(9), 907-908.