Pro Case

According to British politician and Nobel laureate, Winston Churchill, "Modern science is
standing on tiptoe, ready to open the doors of a golden age." In agreement with the great
man, we affirm the resolution that: On balance, the benefits of genetically modified
foods outweigh the harms. Now we would like to define some key terms for this
resolution. All of which, are from the Merriam Websters dictionary. (ACCEPT DEFINITIONS
IF SECOND)

On balance with all things considered.

Genetically Modified Foods foods produced from organisms that have had specific
changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering.

Outweigh be greater or more significant than.

1. Now onto our first contention; GMFs produce higher yields that help sustain our
growing population. As the number of people in the world grows, we will inevitably need
to feed them. By 2050, the global population is expected to rise above 9 billion and
according to many experts, some of those millions are going to starve. However, GM foods
are produced from organisms that have had specific changes introduced into their DNA
using the methods of genetic engineering. By using GM foods we gain many advantages
such as disease resistance, cold resistance, drought tolerance, herbicide resistance, and
nutrition availability. And by having such advantages we can meet the growing demand of
the population without having to worry about decreased yields. According to UC Berkeley
economist David Zilberman GM crops are one of if not the best way to increase yields
globally and feed the coming millions. According to one his studies, Bt corn has an
estimated yield of 34 percent more in the Philippines, 11 percent in South Africa, 9 percent
in Argentina and 5 to 6 percent each in the U.S. and Spain. Another example is the
aquaculture. Aquaculture is the fastest-growing food industry in the world, and salmon
farming is the fastest-growing sector in global aquaculture. GM salmon are engineered to
grow twice the size of a regular salmon and thus can feed many more people.
2. Our second contention is that GMFs increase the quality of produced food.
According to ABC News, McDonalds, the worlds largest fast food chain, are using USDA
approved genetically modified potatoes that are being commercially planted called the
"Innate" potato. The company altered the potato's DNA so it produces less acrylamide,
which is suspected to be a human carcinogen. Potatoes naturally produce the chemical
when they're cooked at high temperatures. According to the Guardian, Pioneer, a GMF
company owned by DuPont, is bringing to the market a brand of genetically engineered
soybean called Plenish that the company says will produce a healthier oil, free of trans fats.
Plenish oils have been designed to replace the unhealthy partially hydrogenated oils used
to fry food and to keep cookies and crackers, crackers and chips from going stale. Some of
the most commonly known gmfs health benefits:

gm tomatoes - (commonly known as the flavr savr tomato because of its longer shelf are
bred with a deactivated gene that kept the plant from producing polygalacturonase, an
enzyme that's the starting point for rot)
papayas - (The ringspot virus was a big problem for the Hawaiian papaya industry for
many years, until the 1980s, when they began to experiment with genetically modified
versions that were resistant to the virus. It was the addition of the "viral capsid" protein
that created the effect of an immune response. )
3. Our third contention is that GMFs decrease the use of harmful herbicides and
pesticides. Genetically modified foods are often altered in such a way to allow them to kill
insects such as the bollworm in the case of Bt cotton. Plants may also be engineered to
produce their own herbicides as well enabling them to resist certain weeds. The result of
this is less need for farmers to spray their own chemicals. According to the Centre for
Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, at Washington State University, Bt crops
have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds).
According to Dr. Jennifer Thompson, since 1996, the use of pesticides on crops has reduced
by 8.7 per cent, largely due to the planting of GM Bt cotton, a crop which, without GM, has
traditionally been an intensive user of insecticides Another study on smallholder farmers in
India shows that Bt cotton has reduced pesticide applications by 50 per cent, with the
largest reductions (70 per cent) occurring in the most toxic types of chemicals. This also
benefits the people as the reduction in pesticide use has reduced cases of poisoning by over
30%.

Rebuttals
1. GM crops are only planted in a monoculture fashion- The opposite of monoculture
is polyculture and it is entirely impractical for even minimally mechanized farming.
2. According to a study by Perugia University in Italy, on average, GM technology has
increased crop yields by 21% (Figure 2). These yield increases are not due to higher
genetic yield potential, but to more effective pest control and thus lower crop damage
[27]. At the same time, GM crops have reduced pesticide quantity by 37% and pesticide
cost by 39%. The effect on the cost of production is not significant.
3. GM seeds are more expensive than non-GM seeds, but the additional seed costs are
compensated through savings in chemical and mechanical pest control. Average profit
gains for GM-adopting farmers are 69%.
4. In trials from 1998 to 2001, Qaim and colleague David Zilberman, of the University of
California, Berkeley, found that Bt cotton produced an average yield advantage of 60
per cent over non-GM cotton.

Other Environmental Benefits

1. In addition GM crops are contributing to lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions by
two principle means. Firstly, there is a reduction in fuel use due to less frequent
herbicide and insecticide applications. Secondly, there is a contribution due to the
switch to no-till or conservation tilling. Under normal tilling farmers will plough the
soil, prior to planting seeds, in order to allow weeds to grow. They then spray with
herbicides, but before they can plant they have to allow the toxic chemicals to dissipate,
a process which can obviously contribute to the loss of topsoil. When planting GM
seeds, crops and weeds can grow together and the farmer can spray when he or she
sees fit.
2. Erosion has been credited as being the main cause of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
No-till farming reduces the amount of fossil fuels used and the amount of harmful
emissions. Most GMO growers have larger farms with newer equipment that meets
todays EPA emission and efficiency standards. Organic farms use conventional tillage
practices as a part of weed control and generally have older less efficient equipment
than GMO growers.
3. The cultivation of GM foods has also contributed to reduction in the amount of nitrogen
fertilizer applied on plants, a 58% decrease according to one study conducted by Louis
Potterman, head of the Department of Agricultural economics at Brown University.
Hypoxia is a serious problem in which oxygen level

Rebuttals
Health defects: There is no solid evidence that GMFs inherently cause detriment to human
beings who consume them. Many studies concerning GM detriment are not only funded by
extremely biased groups, but also done out of accordance with the scientific method, as
reported by the Genetic Literacy Project.
Rats: The study correlating GMOs and herbicides to rat tumors was a republish of a
retracted study. Not only was the sample size too small for significant results, but the strain
of rat used in the study was already prone to tumors regardless of its diet.
Cry1Ab: The researchers measurements were based on an experiment/assay
designed to detect Bts Cry1Ab in plants, not in humans. The pregnant women in the study
would have had to eat several kilos of corn in order to get the Bt measurements that were
detected in their blood. And even so, humans lack the receptor for the Cry1Ab protein,
meaning that it is not toxic to us.
DNA transfer from plants to people: There is no DNA transfer between GMO
plants and people. What happens with all plants, not just GMOs, is that genetic material
floats in the space between cells - they dont integrate into our own DNA.
Link to gluten allergies: The study supposedly linking GMFs to gluten allergies was
unreviewed one, performed and funded by the Institute for Responsible Technology, which

happens to contain only one man, Jeffrey Smith. The IRT is an NGO that advocates for the
complete removal of GMOs, not a reputable scientific institute.
Glyphosate/Breast Cancer: The study neglected to list controls, meaning that the
relationship between the Glyphosate-induced cell growth and normal growth was
uncertain. In addition, the in vitro conduction of the study meant that it was speculative
rather than applicable.
Glyphosate/Birth defects: There are no peer-reviewed or scientifically published
studies that support this claim. There is a publication by Earth Open Source, an anti-GMO
NGO with no scientific credibility.
Glyphosate/Autism/Parkinson's/Alzheimers: This is an unsupported
hypothesis published in a pay-for-play journal, where one pays to have work published
regardless of credibility.
Pig Inflammation: This study committed a neglected aspect fallacy several times
over. First, it stated that certain inflammation types were more common among GM-fed
pigs, but neglected to mention that as a total, both groups had similar rates of
inflammation. In addition, the GM-fed pigs actually had fewer heart abnormalities than
conventional-fed pigs. And lastly, the composition of the feed differed in more aspects than
just the presence of GM crops, making the results unreliable for its intended purpose.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/08/05/10-studies-proving-gmos-are-harmfu
l-not-if-science-matters/
Monarch butterflies: The monarch butterfly study did not take into consideration the
migration patterns of said butterflies.
Less nutrition: On the contrary, as we have stated, GMFs can help combat any number of
nutritional defects. According to University of California Santa Cruz, the genetic
engineering of plants has the potential to provide edible plant vaccines that could be used
to immunize individuals against a wide variety of infectious diseases ranging from cholera
to potentially AIDS. Already, transgenic potato plants that have been produced and tested
successfully by utilizing a genetically engineered food to deliver a pharmaceutical
immunization against diarrhea.
http://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/cmpe080e/Spring05/projects/gmo/benefits.htm
Decreases yield per farm: As we have stated before, GMO crops have been found to
increase yields, with a 10 percent change to a GM herbicide tolerant crop yielding a roughly
1.7 percent increase in productivity. That means a 100% change yields a 17% increase considerable yield, and considering the exponentially developing state of GM technology,
we can infer that this added productivity will only get higher.
Decreases total yield/Farm bankruptcy: Its a simple concept of economics that if the
total variable costs of a firm, in this case conventional crops, exceed demand, the firm
should exit the market for long-run equilibrium. If the introduction of GM crops makes
conventional crops unprofitable, it is because GM crops are inherently more valuable - they
have higher average yield per acre; they are more durable, and they require less
maintenance. The fact that firms are exiting the market and returning to long-run
equilibrium means that there is no shortage of supply, since the remaining firms will
produce where costs are equal to market price. Since this is pertaining to the farms
themselves rather than the GM suppliers, this concept is applicable to near-perfect
competition concepts.

Increases pesticide/herbicide use: Herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant plants

account for more than 95% of the GM crops at present; both contribute to a reduction in
farmers application of plant protection products. A recent large project made an inventory
of agrochemical use per hectare of GM crops compared with conventional crops by
collecting data from public sources, including scientific literature and reports published by
dedicated institutions. Several major studies in the US reported lower herbicide use (up to
25-33%) in herbicide-resistant crops (oilseed rape, cotton, maize, soybean) compared to
their conventional counterparts.
http://www.europabio.org/do-gm-crops-help-reduce-pesticide-and-herbicide-application
s
Creates resistance: In any situation where artificial selection is employed on a natural
environment, there will be resistance created. This is especially true with conventional
crops; since they start with no inherent advantage over weeds and insects, increased use of
pesticides and herbicides means more concentration of the resistant genes across
generations. Since tolerant GM crops do have an inherent advantage, they will out-compete
weeds and insects with less outside intervention; hence, they are less likely to induce
resistance among pest species.
Monoculture: It is true that monoculture agricultural methods are harmful, but they are
not inherently caused by GM crops. Farmers have employed monoculture since the popular
emergence of the staple-crop system several centuries ago - the fact that they are doing so
now is not really impacted by the introduction of GM crops.
Reduces biodiversity: In a strictly agricultural environment, biodiversity is not the main
concern, but rather quantity. Biodiversity in the form of crop rotation was important with
conventional crops since over time they would salinate and toxify the soil. Since GM crops
require less fertilizer and chemical treatment, they have little negative effect on the soil en
masse - especially since their no-till system makes crop rotation relatively unnecessary,
since soil disturbance is at a minimum.
Invasive species: GM crops are only an invasive species if they are placed in a
natural-selection ecosystem. Since their primary use is as crops, and agriculture is an
artificial-selection system, their genetic advantage over other species only facilitates and
streamlines this system, promoting the favored crop over the weeds and competing
species.
Compete with native species: GM crops are engineered to compete with native species so
that farmers do not have to spray more insecticides and herbicides than necessary. Within
an agricultural environment, this is strictly a benefit.
Escape containment: If GM organisms escape agricultural containment, that is at the fault
of the farmer, not the organism itself. GMFs should not be held accountable for the
irresponsible containment methods of their handlers.
Higher seed prices: Currently, seed prices may be higher than usual due to the emerging
nature of the industry. However, we are seeing the GM seed and patent industry currently
shifting from monopoly to more widespread competition as more and more firms and
governments are entering the industry. Already, golden rice is subsidized by the Philippine
government, while many American firms are producing and licensing their own seeds.
Increased competition drives down prices.

Higher food prices: The idea of GMFs driving up food prices is fueled by the
misconception that GM seeds and GM foods share the same market. However, the seed
industry is between the seed developers and the farmers, while the food industry is
between farmers and distributors, and then eventually consumers. The GM food industry
consists of more buyers and sellers, meaning that one firms actions in raising or lowering
the price will not have much effect on the total market price. If seeds are considered an
input, the returns are still relatively higher than those of conventional crops, and therefore
any potential increase in seed price will not affect market food price either.
Doesnt support developing countries: This idea is based on the misconception that GM
foods are only profitable in relatively large amounts, and therefore poor farmers in
developing countries cannot afford enough seeds to prosper economically from GM foods.
However, much of the current GM seed distribution in developing countries is through
either foreign aid projects, such as Greenpeace, or government subsidies. Developing
governments have much invested in their agricultural sector, since it consists of up to 75%
of the GDP in certain countries. Through mass distribution rather than private individual
commerce, farmers in developing countries can turn a greater profit from GMFs.
Economic gap: GMFs do not widen the existing economic gaps between groups, but rather
improve the status of certain groups without harming others. As we have stated, GMFs
benefit farmers, who make up a large proportion of the global economy. This includes both
prosperous and poor farmers. It also makes food much more accessible to developing
populations, increasing their purchasing power and therefore their real income. This effect
actually helps to close the economic gap.
Creates a monopoly: Considering the exponentially increasing accessibility to genetic
modification technology and its consequent facilitation of entry into the GMF industry, this
notion has quickly become antiquated over recent years. Monsanto is no longer the
monolith of the GMF market, though it is true that many of the new producers are publicly
funded. This only serves to increase accountability and transparency, two qualities that the
public seems to favor with respect to GMFs.
Patents: We are not here to debate the ethics of organic patents. They have existed since
before GMFs, and while they are applicable to GMFs, they are neither a discernible harm
nor a discernible benefit. In short, theyre irrelevant to the resolution.
Privatizes foreign aid: Foreign aid is largely private regardless of GMFs, and their private
status only serves to increase efficiency and reduce red tape. GMFs mean more accessible
food, and therefore more effective foreign aid, regardless of whether its public or private.
BT harms soil: Bacillus thuringiensis secretes specific endotoxins to target certain insects,
such as European corn borer caterpillars. According to the University of Kentucky, these
toxins do not harm soil and aquatic environments to any tangible extent, and they have
been deemed safe by the FDA for mammal, fish and bird consumption. BT is a microbial
insecticide, and nothing more or less.
http://www2.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef130.asp
Wasting food: It is true that Americans waste food, but that is a product of American
culture, not of GMFs specifically. The idea is not really relevant to the resolution

Final Focus:
History has succeeded in proving that over time, technology significantly improves. We
must find the balance between caution and our sense of urgency to meet the demands of a
changing world. We must also look ahead and see that very soon, under the pressure of so
many changes, a steady decline in food security is likely. Science can help us solve the
upcoming problems. As the great Einstein once said To raise new questions, and to regard
old problems from a new angle is a true advance in science.
(most important argument, answer losing argument, argument that the community judge
will most likely vote on)