The Instigator
sjghs
Con (against)
The Contender
Krueger515
Pro (for)

Does GMO food shouldn't be allowed in market?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
sjghs has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2017 Category: People
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 327 times Debate No: 103643
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

sjghs

Con

GMO(Genetically Motified Organism) food is a new concentrated aquatic product which is made by inserting it into another organism after taking only a strong gene such as cold, insect pests, herbicide and the like useful gene of a certain organism. As globalization is rapidly advancing, gmo foods are attracting attention because they can solve the global food shortage. However, it has the disadvantage of harmful to health.
I think gmo food should be utilized and developed in the world market by company for four reasons.
First, With desertification and climate change, the world's farmland is getting smaller, while the population is growing.
Second, Growing crops harboring insect-resistant and harvested genes can reduce the use of pesticides such as insecticides and herbicides, which can produce food at lower prices. It is also one of the only alternatives to address the global hunger problem, as crops can be cultivated in poor climatic conditions.
Third, Genetically modified organisms are no different from organisms expressed by breeding or evolution. An artificial breed It is ridiculous to object to GMO foods while eating improvised crops improvisedly. Food is digested when it is eaten, it is decomposed and then it is absorbed, so there is no reason to have a side effect on the body.
Fourth, Because it is eco-friendly agricultural products, all foods that do not use GMOs are sold at a high price. The use of genetically modified organisms enabled mass production and lowered the price of food. Therefore, GMO foods are very economical because they can be obtained cheaply.
Thank you
Krueger515

Pro

To start, I would like to thank sjghs for creating this debate. Thanks and good luck!

The argument of whether GMOs should be considered as a possible solution to the global hunger problem is a very contentious one indeed. There are good arguments on both sides, and each side has points that the other cannot refute. As I stated in my comment, I hastily accepted this debate thinking my opponent was taking the opposite stance on this issue, but I will do my best to argue my side.

Let's start from the beginning...


GMOs are created in a laboratory in which teams of scientists try to finagle with the genome of crops and other organisms in order to combat specific problems that are affecting the specimen's durability. This can include susceptibility to drought, plagues of insects, viruses, infections, heat, yield levels, etc. Unfortunately, this can have unforeseen consequences. There is this pesky thing called "gene escape", and yes, it has the potential to be as scary as it sounds. Imagine for a moment that scientists have created the "super crop", invulnerable from all types of ailments from drought to pests. Heck, maybe they figure out a way to keep it from freezing in the winter. They will pat themselves on the back, and perhaps win a Nobel Prize. There will be this big ceremony of the first planting of the super crop. However, it is possible that these genetic alterations may not stay put. "Gene escape" is a term used by scientists to describe the action of a gene being passed on to other organisms, even crossing between species. Imagine a weed with all of those wonderful qualities that you have infused in the super crop. Perhaps we could call this the super weed. According to scientists from the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, If such an event were to occur, removing these genes from the ecosystem would not be feasible. We would be stuck with strengthened pests, the very same pests we were attempting to neutralize.

On the subject of climate change, we actually run into a bit of a conundrum. The science is very inconclusive on whether climate change will hurt or benefit agricultural yields. While I will concede the point that existing farmland may become too hot and dry too dry, we cannot forget that land that is too cold at the moment may become suitable farmland. In fact, it is entirely possible that we will have more. Land masses in the non-tropical regions of the globe are substantially larger in size creating huge possibilities for agriculture. Even on top of all this, another benefit of climate change to the agricultural industry would be the increase in CO2 levels, which will help plants thrive. These points may also help in the price argument of natural crops. As CO2 levels rise and more land is available for farming, the cost of producing natural crops will be positively affected as well. Supply will increase, decreasing the price of the goods.

On my opponent's third point, I have to disagree completely. According to a Brown University study, GMOs can pose a serious allergy risk to humans. This is where GMOs differ substantially from naturally occurring crops. As millions of years past, plants and animals evolved on an even time table. If a change occurred in a plant that some organism depended on for food, evolutionary changes would occur in the dependent organism as well, eliminating the imbalance by either adapting to the change or enabling the organism to snack on other sources of food. This wouldn't be unlike the formation of a symbiotic relationship between two organisms as time progressed. With GMOs, we are basically throwing the time table away, an action that could have significant effects that can be unforeseeable. GMOs could also have a negative effect on the effectiveness of antibiotics taken by humans to fight off infections due to their own genetically modified qualities regarding bacteria.

Sources:

Brown University Study: https://biomed.brown.edu...

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: http://www.fao.org...

Debate Round No. 1
sjghs

Con

Thank you for your feedback on the GMO food.

First, you claims that genetically modified foods such as GMOs will bring " gene Escapse ". In the example, " Super Weed ", which is why the farmers and crops are being harmed by the Super Weeds. However, there is also a solution to the problem. Since the beginning of the year, the introduction of super weeds began to emerge in the middle of the 1990's in Japan. The United States, Europe, and Australia are coordinating the management of the government and the agricultural and fisheries industries, including the government and research institutes, to identify the cause of the disease and to promote the safety of the farmers. In certain regions, the " cocktail control system " is implemented immediately following the introduction of the super weak-day system and the best combination of pesticides in the next year.
Also, methods of avoiding super weeds are being studied by growing techniques. Professor Stanley Culpafer, Professor of Zoophilia at the University of Georgia explained, " If planting seeds grow far deeper than traditional ones, the roots of plants grow deeper than weeds, so they can grow better without losing them. " Professor Raymond Hager of the Agricultural Science and Technology Department said in an interview with local media, " We are developing weeds in the field of weeds, such as enhancing the resistance of the crops. "

The second reason is that global warming can bring more land that agriculture possible. However, global warming does not increase the amount of land that can enrich farmland and produce more agricultural produce. One of the biggest problems we face right now is desertification. What it means is that the land that used to farm the land gradually decreased, and it turned into a desert. According to UNEP ' global desertification, desertification accounts for 25 % in Africa, and the North American continent is accelerating rapidly with 14.2 %. Moreover, 400 million people in the world live in desertification place, and the economic losses are estimated to be around $ 65 billion. More than 1 billion people worldwide are suffer from famine, making it more important to provide food for cheaper food. Also, in the next decade, Africa is thought to be more serious because of the fact that the region of Africa has 43 percent of the continent, 40 percent of the population.

Finally, it was said that it was allergic to GMO food, which admits some. This is because genetic modification can occur in genetic variants and harmful substances can be produced in humans during experiments. However, if the administration manages to manage the GMO food thoroughly through international law, it can gradually decrease the side effects of adverse health effects. Strict guidelines on GMO food should be strictly regulated, strictly addressed to the vendor of the firm's GMO sales. If the development of GMO reduces the side effects of GMO, everyone will be able to eat and enjoy food safely.
Krueger515

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for continuing the debate!

Let's take a look at a few things.

1. "Since the beginning of the year, the introduction of super weeds began to emerge in the middle of the 1990's in Japan. The United States, Europe, and Australia are coordinating the management of the government and the agricultural and fisheries industries, including the government and research institutes, to identify the cause of the disease and to promote the safety of the farmers. In certain regions, the " cocktail control system " is implemented immediately following the introduction of the super weak-day system and the best combination of pesticides in the next year."

While it may be true that the problem of "super weeds" is being researched (And within the scope of the debate, I have no way of knowing whether or not that is true due to the lack of sources), I believe that my opponent has conceded that this problem has no real solution at this point in time. The proposed solution of the "cocktail control system" seems counterintuitive to me. Isn't the point of using GMOs on farms to escape the use of dangerous combinations of pesticides? If the use of GMOs was intended to limit the need for pesticides, and the use of those GMOs then requires the use of pesticides to control the unfortunate side effects, then what have we gained?

2. "Also, methods of avoiding super weeds are being studied by growing techniques. Professor Stanley Culpafer, Professor of Zoophilia at the University of Georgia explained, " If planting seeds grow far deeper than traditional ones, the roots of plants grow deeper than weeds, so they can grow better without losing them. " Professor Raymond Hager of the Agricultural Science and Technology Department said in an interview with local media, " We are developing weeds in the field of weeds, such as enhancing the resistance of the crops. ""

Once again, it would be nice to have the full source to check the context of the statement. However, this seems to be a rather small picture of the total issue. While it is true that if the crop's root system is deeper than that of the weeds the crops should suffer little ill effects, what about the surrounding environment? Think of the harm that could be done to the surrounding ecosystems if a genetically modified weed becomes an invasive species and begins to compete for resources with native plants.

3. "The second reason is that global warming can bring more land that agriculture possible. However, global warming does not increase the amount of land that can enrich farmland and produce more agricultural produce. One of the biggest problems we face right now is desertification. What it means is that the land that used to farm the land gradually decreased, and it turned into a desert. According to UNEP ' global desertification, desertification accounts for 25 % in Africa, and the North American continent is accelerating rapidly with 14.2 %. Moreover, 400 million people in the world live in desertification place, and the economic losses are estimated to be around $ 65 billion. More than 1 billion people worldwide are suffer from famine, making it more important to provide food for cheaper food. Also, in the next decade, Africa is thought to be more serious because of the fact that the region of Africa has 43 percent of the continent, 40 percent of the population."

First, I concede that desertification is taking place, but what I stated in my previous argument about the would actually gaining farm land due to global warming should still be true. Think of all of the land up north that would become suitable for farming. The two largest countries in the world, Russia and Canada, would both see a dramatic increase in the amount of farmable land. Second, the fact that Africa is 25% Dessert does not mean that all of that desert region was caused by desertification. The Sahara desert was there long before we began pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. With the following loss figures, my climate change argument remains the same. While some of the current farmland will become unsuitable for farming, more will become available up north as temperatures rise, increasing profits. There is nothing about the figure of 1 billion people are currently experiencing a famine that I challenge. What I argue is that we should take care of the problem without endangering our surroundings and health. I do not entirely understand my opponent's last sentence, but I take it to mean that projected desertification rates make up 43% of the continent. While I am not sure of the source that my opponent used, a source that I found claims that only about 13.9% live in areas that are at high risk of desertification.

On my opponent's last point, I completely agree. However, if the goal of using GMOs is to combat the Global food shortages, waiting for a new species of corn to be approved by a cluttered bureaucracy for years is hardly the way to go.

I'm out of space, and wish I could continue :(

Source: goo.gl/KqaQLS
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by brian.bors7 4 months ago
brian.bors7
Ha. Interesting. I wonder how well you will do against your natural standpoint Krueger. :)
Posted by Krueger515 4 months ago
Krueger515
I joined the debate thinking you were on the other side of the argument. I Should have read your entire argument first. With that being said, I will try my best to argue the pro side. Thanks and good luck!
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.