The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

GMO foods should not be required to be labeled

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,605 times Debate No: 60415
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I will be arguing from the position that foods containing genetically modified organisms should not be required by law to be labeled.

1st round is acceptance
2nd round main argument
3rd round rebuttal and argument
4th round rebuttal and summery
Debate Round No. 1


Hello and thank you for accepting. im very, very new to this site and look forward to this debate.

currently in Vermont,america there is a legal battle underway between the state of Vermont and, The Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Snack Food Association, International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers, over a recently approved labeling law.The labeling law, which was approved earlier this year, requires labeling of GM foods sold in Vermont retail outlets as "produced with genetic engineering." The bill also stipulates that GM foods may not be labeled as "natural," "naturally grown," "all natural" or other similar phrases.[1]

the plaintiff organisations complain, "that the law is misguided, exceeds the state's authority and confuses consumers by suggesting that GMOs are unsafe with no evidence to support that. The lawsuit alleges the law violates food manufacturers' First Amendment rights by forcing them to label a product in a way they find unnecessary and misleading while also prohibiting them from using the word "natural" on genetically modified foods." [2]

"The state argued," the state may make labeling restrictions to promote "informed decision-making on matters of public health and the environment."The state also argues that the law steers clear of violating interstate commerce, as the labeling adds no burden that outweighs the benefits.Pointing to two court cases, Sorrell argues that federal courts have upheld New York City's law requiring the posting of calories on menus and a federal law requiring country-of-origin labels on meat on the premise that the laws allow consumers to make more informed choices."[2]

firstly lets look at what kind of information is included in the nutritional information or labeling of a packet and why.
1. Things that causes common allergies such as nuts,seeds,diary etc. These are labeled because a large percentage of people suffer allergies to these products that can causes mild to severe reactions and even death.

2.Things such as vitamin content,saturated fat content, calories,sodium,carbohydrates etc. all these and the other items listed in the nutritional information can have either positive or negative effects on one's health relative to the dietary requirements of the consumer. things such as saturated fat are food which are converted into energy and although they can be unhealthy, they can be consumed within a healthy range. so they are allowed to be included in food, providing the content amount is included in the labeling so that consumers can ensure they are eating them and anything else in amounts which are healthy.

3. Things like "gluten free:,"organic",all natural", are included in labeling as sales pitches. they target a certain demographic of shopper and are making that shopper aware that this product is designed with them in mind. It implies that the quality advertised makes them better then other products out there.

Other forms of labeling exist to but the main reasons are for dietary reasons,allergen information,or to target particular demographics. So to justify the labeling of GMO or genetically modified organisms it must be proven that there is a significant need to. such as that the amount consumed has an effect on diet. or that people suffer allergic reactions to it.

i argue that the right to make informed choices in it's self is not a valid argument. There are many different cultures,beliefs, and religions with their own dietary requirements based around their own philosophy. It is up the individual to fulfill the requirements or desires of their lifestyle and belief system and is not the responsibility of private business, who have the right to cater or not cater to anyone they please.

Probably the biggest reasons proponents of the law want labeling is the belief that GMO's have a negative impact on health and therefore need to avoid GMO's for the sake of their health. And the second biggest reason is the belief that GMO's have or will have a negative effect on the environment,world food supply, the well being of farmers and the larger population and therefore opponents of GMO foods wish for labeling so that they can more easily boycott GMO's

i propose that if i can prove that GMO's are not harmful to humans, or the environment then it is unjust to label GMO's. because if they are safe and their consumption does not effect diet differently than organic products, then the choice not to eat them is only based on personal ideology of which a private organisation has no responsibility to cater to. And also it is unjust to use the government to help a particular group boycott a particular company or product which is essentially what the labeling law would encourage or aid.





We need to label them because, hey, it's just a label, why the fuckk, not? Assuming Gimos are good they freak a lot of people the fvuck out. Some people think there bad and even if they are wrong they should still have a choice in eating them or not.

Furthreless, GMOS have harmed people. I know a guy at my church who gets really irradable when he eats an gmo. One time he accidently had an gmo and went to the police station and started yelling at everyone. He was tased in his grown and had to go to the hospitel where he almost died!

I one time was eating the cookie and noticed it was an gmo. I freaked out. Later I had really bad diherra and it caused permement damage to my butt. I had to spend a week in this iron butt and have surgery. It also ruined my apartment and I had to move.

SO yes GMOs do cause damage.

Other reported harsm

For one antibotic resistence

"By attaching the desired gene to an antibiotic resistance gene the new GM plant can be tested by growing it in a solution containing the corresponding antibiotic. If the plant survives scientists know that it has taken up the antibiotic resistance gene along with the desired gene. There is concern that bacteria living in the guts of humans and animals could pick up an antibiotic resistance gene from a GM plant before the DNA becomes completely digested (GEO-PIE website). "

An GMO can also decrease the nutiritanl value of the foods. We don't know how much nature wants us to have, modifieing the O will screw with the nutrients

Geneticliy M'ing the O has also caused the autisms.

We see when you're geneticly m'ing the o the A goes up.

This is what GMOS cause.

its horribalbe. Check the video for more proof.

This sh1t needs to be labeled.!

Case is the rest.
Debate Round No. 2


"even if they're wrong they still have a right to know"

-people have the right to choose what they eat. But it's no ones responsibility to help them make that choice.
That is like a group of right wing Christians requiring any food made by homosexuals to be labeled because they think if they eat it they will go to hell.

The reality is that people who want GMO foods labeled think GMO's are dangerous. They want GMO foods labeled so that they can boycott those products and so that they can plant the seed in peoples head that GMO's are dangerous and therefore need to be avoided. This is the only reason for it. why should a company have to label it's food so that a small (because it is small comparatively) group of people can therefore boycott it. Again this isn't just a case of labeling for the sake of making informed choices. This is just one small part of the anti GMO crusade. This is an attempt to create the image of GMO foods causing harm to turn public opinion against them. If such a law was passed then people will ask,"well why do they need to be labeled?. If GMO foods are required to be labeled people will think there is a reason why they need to be labeled. however there is no reason. GMO foods are not bad for your health or the environment and there is little to no difference in nutritional value.

Simply put. IF people want GMO foods labeled then they have to give a reason as to why they need to be labeled. the burden of proof is on them. simply wanting them labeled because they want them labeled is not reason enough. otherwise it's exactly the same as my homosexuality analogy.

GMO's cause autism?

correlation does not equal causation. also your first hand accounts are not indicators that GMO foods cause harm. anything could have caused you to become ill.

Now onto the safety of GMO foods. GMO foods are one of the most researched things in the world. no medicine,food stuff,electronic device,engine,safety device, nothing has gone through as much rigorous testing as GMO's. Some claim that we cannot know the long term health effects so therefore we shouldn't be using them so freely as we are now. If we applied that kind of logic to every new technology them microwave ovens and washing machines would only just be starting to become available to the public now. vaccines,basic medicines and x-rays would only now be starting to be used to treat people. The internet would still be another 100 years away. And plus, we do already know the long term health effects. you might not. The anti GMO protester might not. but the scientists do. people claim we cannot absolutely know if GMO's are safe. but once again. the scientists can.

here's an example to my points. i could claim that you cannot ABSOLUTELY prove that oranges don't cause cancer. but you can. The same way that a chemist can. A chemist knows the exact chemical make up of an orange. Here it is
He can also know the exact nutritional value. Now that chemist knows that none of those chemicals will react or amalgamate in any way shape or form with the chemicals or make up of your body that will have a cancer causing outcome. why? because he knows exactly how chemicals react. what will and what wont react with the body to cause health problems. It's from this information that he can prove absolutely that oranges will never cause cancer not now nor in 20,50 or 100 years. It's not guess work for scientists working on GMO's. They know exactly how they will or wont react with the human body or with the environment. Your average layman doesn't know this though. so he assumes that the scientific community doesn't either.

The following link is to a paper which reviewed over 1000 scientific papers written on gmo foods from 2002 to 20012, which only represents a third of the research done over the lifetime of GMO's.
In actuality there are over 2000 independent peer reviewed studies attesting to the safety of GMO's. Now i think it would be ignorant to expect you or anyone else to read through these studies and check the methods etc. People don't want to spend their precious free time having to read through scientific journals to find out if what they are using/consuming is safe. nor would i think it wise to blindy just believe anything you are told. It's good to be critical of things. but when you apply critical thinking to GMO crops the only logical conclusion reached is that they are completely safe.

There is not once piece of credible evidence as to adverse health effects from GMO foods. and 0 zero deaths that can be linked to it.

"We need to label them because, hey, it's just a label, why the fuckk, not? "
why not?. i think the comments from a Vermont state senator sum it up pretty well.

"“This is a marketing ploy by the organics industry so they could get a bigger share of the market. If you scare people about what they’re eating, they’re going to change,” state Sen. Norm McAllister, R-Franklin, told Vermont Watchdog.[1]

McAllister said GMO labeling advocates stand to see a 15 percent gain in market share as a result of mandatory labeling. McAllister’s comments come as Vermont’s attorney general late last week asked a U.S. district court judge to dismiss a lawsuit against Act 120, the state’s new GMO labeling law.[1]

McAllister said the use of Vermont’s legal system to support special interest groups was appalling.[1]

“Whoever comes along with the most money can buy whatever they want,” he said. “We put our legal system up for sale. If you have an advocacy thing, we’ll just let you start up a fund and let people donate to it. And we’ll let the state fight it for you with tax dollars. It’s disgusting.” [1]

Any way. time is running out for this round so ill leave it at that for now. btw i know you are trolling but i thought i may as well treat the debate seriously as it's a subject i actually care and feel quite strongly about. back to you ol chum




Jedi4 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


okie dokie time for my final point as to why gmo containing foods should not be required to be labeled.

Lets just assume that gmo's are as harmful as proposed, what are the claimed health effects?
the 2 main claims are that glyphosates cause cancer or change our dna. theses are pretty big claims.
If these claims were true then surely more action then labeling would be required. I mean a company cannot put arsenic in their baby formula so long as they put a label on it stating so.

now you may argue that cigarettes cause cancer and are legal to sell. however they're not a food stuff or medicine. so it's a different scenario. the reason for cigarettes being legal is due to their use for a long part of history and the difficulty in policing their use. gmo foods do not face these issues. If gmo foods were as harmful as claimed such as causing cancer, they're use would be completely discontinued. their cultivation would become illegal.

now lets swap it around and assume that gmo's are completely harmless. If so then why label them?. if there is no difference in their nutritional content from organic food stuffs then there is no requirement to label them. it would mean that people who choose not to eat them are doing so due to a personal ideology and philosophy that is flawed and incorrect. Now even though this ideology is wrong, they have every right to exercise it. however as much as it is their right to exercise it, it is also their responsibility to exercise it. if they wish to avoid gmo products due to a personal yet unfounded belief about them then that is not the responsibility of the companies to assist with that. you cannot use the force of the state to help you boycott a product due to your own personal beliefs.

so with these two scenarios explored lets put a fork in this debate.
if gmo's are indeed as bad as claimed by anti gmo proponents then they would be made illegal rather then labeled.
if gmo's are not dangerous then there is no reason to label them. so either way gmo foods should not be labeled.

oh and here's a wee picture to finish on


Jedi4 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by opiumfiend 3 years ago
Posted by opiumfiend 3 years ago
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Message me when it's time to vote on this, please.
No votes have been placed for this debate.