A2: GMOs can cure Deadly Diseases GMOs Can Be Used as Ethanol A2: GMOs Can Be Used as Ethanol Precautionary Principle A2: Precautionary Principle Regulations A2: Regulations Scientific Concensus A2: Scientific Concensus Immune Reaction A2: Immune Reaction Consumer Willingness A2: Consumer Willingness 122 125 128 131 135 140 146 149 153 157 160 164 168 Con Arguments with Pro Responses GMOs Hurt Farmers A2: GMOs Hurt Farmers Loss Of Biodiversity A2: Loss Of Biodiversity Alternatives are Preferable A2: Alternatives are Preferable Dependence A2: Dependence Industrial Agriculture A2: Industrial Agriculture Unknown Risks A2: Unknown Risks Genetically Modifying Humans A2: Genetically Modfying Humans Human Health Risks A2: Human Health Risks GMO Industry Drives Out Competition 172 173 176 179 184 187 195 199 205 209 215 220 227 231 238 243 247 250
US. While debaters should note the potential promise of GMOs, they should also discuss benefits in the status quo. For example, debaters can cite to the people presently fed by access to GMO food. This may humanize the impact, and make it clear that real people have avoided a horrible death by gaining access to food. On these sorts of topics, it is easy to get lost in the numbers. Judges will appreciate sensitive and thoughtful arguments. Debaters should structure cases around food insecurity, but simultaneously maintain diversity of arguments in the rest of the case. For example, debaters can discuss economic and social arguments into the case (e.g. GMOs allow smaller farmer to grow more food and compete with the bigger corporations). This brief is a great resource for brainstorming arguments! Negative Strategy In order to preempt common affirmative offense, debaters may want to make the argument that GMOs do not actually increase food output levels. Debaters should also argue that GMOs ultimately harming agricultural ability to produce for the population. The Institute for Responsible Technologies breaks this down well: GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world. Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed
PRO – Increased Agricultural Capacity Argument: GMOs resistant to drought and high salinity can help mitigate malnutrition due to overpopulation by making previously infertile land fertile and increasing the capacity for agriculture, especially in third world countries. Warrant: Increasing global population and draining agricultural resources present a necessity for crops that can increase agricultural capacity. Wallace, J.S.. “Increasing agricultural water use efficiency to meet future food production.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 82.3 (2004). Web. October 2 2014. t “With the population set to increase by 65% (3.7 billion) by ∼2050, the additional food required to feed future generations will put further enormous pressure on freshwater resources. This is because agriculture is the largest single user of fresh water, accounting for ∼75% of current human water use. At present ∼7% of the world’s population live in areas where water is scarce. This is predicted to rise to a staggering 67% of the population by 2050. Because of this water scarcity and because new arable land is also limited, future increases in production will have to come mainly by growing more food on existing land and water.” Warrant: Africa is in a unique position to be hit hard by drought, and their farmers are increasingly forced to grow crops in unsuitable locations. Paarlberg, Robert. “GMO foods and crops: Africa’s choice.” New Biotechnology. 27. 5 (2010). Web. October 2 2014. t
A2 – GMOs Create Economic Benefits Answer: GMO crops are too expensive to create economic gains and can offset any of their own benefits. Warrant: Any benefits in terms of herbicide use could be offset by new weeds Walsh, Jennifer. "National-Academies.org | Newsroom." National-Academies.org | Newsroom. National Research Council, 13 Apr. 2010. Web. 05 Oct. 2014. t >. “However, GE crops resistant to the herbicide glyphosate -- a main component in Roundup and other commercial weed killers -- could develop more weed problems as weeds evolve their own resistance to glyphosate. GE crops could lose their effectiveness unless farmers also use other proven weed and insect management practices.” Warrant: GMO seed prices too high, benefits do not offset costs Walsh, Jennifer. "National-Academies.org | Newsroom." National-Academies.org | Newsroom. National Research Council, 13 Apr. 2010. Web. 05 Oct. 2014. t >. “The higher costs associated with GE seeds are not always offset financially by lower production costs or higher yields, the report notes. For example, farmers in areas with fewer weed and pest problems may not have as much improvement in terms of reducing crop losses.” Warrant: Consolidation of seed industry could cause problems in the future
literature” category of studies largely reveals the differences between the US, EU and other countries when it comes to regulating GM crops. Due to lack of uniform regulatory practices and the rise of non-scientific rhetoric, Nicolia and his colleagues report, concern about GMOs has been greatly exaggerated.” Impact: No evidence of environmental harm at any level – crop level, farm-level or landscape level. This evidence outweighs on scope. Entine, Jon. “2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable”. October 14, 2013. Forbes. “Environmental impact studies are predominant in the body of GM research, making up 68% of the 1,783 studies. studies investigated environmental impact on the crop-level, farm-level and landscape-level. Nicolia and his team found “little to no evidence” that GM crops have a negative environmental impact on their surroundings.” Impact: No DNA harms from consuming GMO foods. Entine, Jon. “2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable”. October 14, 2013. Forbes. “The researchers also address the safety of transcribed RNA from transgenic DNA. Are scientists fiddling with the ‘natural order’ of life? In fact, humans consume between and 1 gram of DNA per day, from both GM and non-GM ingredients. This DNA is generally degraded by food processing, and any surviving DNA is then subsequently degraded in the digestive system. No evidence was found that DNA absorbed through the GI tract could be integrated into human cells—a popular anti-GMO criticism.”
CON – Loss of Biodiversity Argument: Genetically modified cause the rapid erosion of plant varieties from farmers’ fields all over the world, varieties that have been developed over hundreds and thousands of years and are now forever extinct. Warrant: Genetic diversity has been decreasing significantly in recent as farmers choose only the highest yielding species of crops. “What is Happening to Biodiversity?” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Web. Oct 7 2014. t> “Since the 1900s, some 75 percent of plant genetic diversity has been lost as farmers worldwide have left their multiple local varieties and landraces for genetically uniform, high-yielding varieties. 30 percent of livestock breeds are at risk of extinction; six breeds are lost each month. Today, 75 percent of the world’s food is generated from only 12 plants and five animal species. Of the 4 percent of the 250 000 to 300 000 known edible plant species, only 150 to 200 are used by humans. Only three - rice, maize and wheat - contribute nearly 60 percent of calories and proteins obtained by humans from plants.” Warrant: The pesticide resistant genetically modified crops discourage the use of pest management methods that benefit biodiversity. Garcia, Maria Alice. “Transgenic Crops: Implications for Biodiversity and Sustainable Agriculture.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 25, No. 4, August 2005. t> “GM crops available so far encourage agricultural intensification, and as long as the use of these crops follows closely the high-input, pesticide paradigm, such
biotechnological products will reinforce the “pesticide treadmill” usually associated with genetic uniformity and reduction of biodiversity in agro- ecosystems. To the extent that transgenic further entrench the current clean crop monoculture system, they discourage farmers from using other ecologically based pest management methods (Altieri, 1996), including simple ecological approaches like bio- diversity islands, field margins, and corridors. Monocultures also limit the extent to which farm lands— which cover large areas of the world (e.g., 70% on the United Kingdom; Hails, 2003)—can contribute to conservation of wildlife.” Warrant: The GMO-induced decrease in genetic diversity has harmful economic impacts. Garcia, Maria Alice. “Transgenic Crops: Implications for Biodiversity and Sustainable Agriculture.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 25, No. 4, August 2005. t> “Since the onset of agricultural modernization, farmers and researchers have been faced with an ecological dilemma arising from the homogenization of agricultural systems: an increased vulnerability of crops to unpredictable arthropod pests and diseases, which can be devastating when infesting genetically uniform, large-scale monocultures (R. A. Robinson, 1996). Examples of disease epidemics associated with homo- geneous crops abound in the literature, including the $1 billion disease-induced loss of maize in the United States in 1970 and the 18 million citrus trees destroyed by pathogens in Florida in 1984 (Thrupp, 1998).” Warrant: Herbicides also decrease biodiversity by completely removing all types of weeds. Garcia, Alice. “Transgenic Crops: Implications for Biodiversity and Sustainable Agriculture.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 25, No. 4, August 2005. t>
Analysis: The way to use this argument is to do a comparative analysis; talk about how farmers in the past were self1sufficient and could generally afford to feed themselves and earn money. This argument is most powerful when weighing against the benefits to first world consumers and farmers. Essentially, you can argue that most of the benefits of GMO crops flow to first world consumers that can afford the greater varieties of food that GMOs provide, and that farmers in the first world can afford to buy pesticide and herbicide each year. On the other hand, it traps third world farmers in a system where they have to use GMO’s to compete and have to choose between being forced into debt to finance GMO’s or go out of business because they can’t compete with first world farmers. GMO’s coerce farmers, and force them into a cycle of dependency on large corporations, and the harm that perpetuates outweighs the marginal benefits to first world consumers.
A2 Z Genetically modifying humans Answer: Insofar as genetically modifying humans prevents harm, it is justifiable. Warrant: Mitochondrial disease causes lifelong diseases. Katnelson, Alla. “Freeing human eggs of mutant mitochondria.” Nature. 14 April 2010. Web. 5 Oct 2014. t>. “Proof of principle As many as 1 in 250 people a potentially disease-causing mitochondrial mutation. Mutations in mitochondrial DNA, when passed down from a mother to her offspring, are linked to diseases causing neurological, muscle and heart problems, as well as deafness and type 2 diabetes. Many people carry a mixture of normal and mutated mitochondrial DNA — a proportion of more than 50% or so of mutant mitochondria is needed to cause disease — but the percentage of mutated mitochondrial DNA that will be transmitted from mother to child is almost impossible to predict, says Thorburn.” Warrant: Genetic modification at can solve these diseases; experiments have shown success. Katnelson, Alla. “Freeing human eggs of mutant mitochondria.” Nature. 14 April 2010. Web. 5 Oct 2014. t>. “Porting the nuclear DNA of an affected egg into an unaffected one could provide a solution for women at high risk of bearing severely affected children, says Douglass Turnbull at Newcastle University, one of the lead authors of the new study. Working with abnormally fertilized eggs unsuitable for IVF — for example, those fertilized by two
Warrant: The insertion of new genes leads to an increase in health risks Dona, Artemis. "Health Risks of Genetically Modified Food." Taylor and Francis Group. University of Athens, Medical School. Web. 4 Oct. 2014. t _Risks_GMOs.pdf>. “The insertion of a new gene can sometimes lead to increase in existing levels of anti-nutrients, some of which cannot be reduced with heat treatment (Bakke- McKellep et al., 2007). One of the most widely available commercial GM products nowadays glyphosate-resistant Roundup Ready soybean may display an increase in anti- nutrients. Heat-stable anti-nutrients such as phytoestrogens, glucinins, and phytic acid were also found to cause infertility problems in sheep and cattle, allergenic reations and binding to phosphorus and zinc thereby making them unavailable to the animal respectively.” Impact: GMO’s have been shown to have health risks to consumers. Dona, Artemis. "Health Risks of Genetically Modified Food." Taylor and Francis Group. University of Athens, Medical School. Web. 4 Oct. 2014. t _Risks_GMOs.pdf>. “Possible hazards of GM food for animals and populations exposed to a diet containing GM products include the potential for pleiotropic and insertional effects, effects on animal and human health resulting from the increase of anti-nutrients, potential effects on human health resulting from the use of viral DNA in plants, possible transfer of antibiotic resistant genes to bacteria in gastrointestinal tract, and possible effects of GM foods on allergic responses.” Body weight might be significantly altered as it has been shown with the consumption of Mon863 corn (Seralini et al.,2007) and GM rice on rats (Li et al., 2004).”