The Instigator
BittersweetMemories
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
FreedomBeforeEquality
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

GMO's Are Dangerous and Should Be Banned

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: 3/11/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 772 times Debate No: 71549
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

BittersweetMemories

Pro

Genetically modified organisms, also know as GMO's are a hazard to the world and should be banned until there is scientific proof that it is safe.
FreedomBeforeEquality

Con

The blanket statement that GMO's in general are dangerous is false. Things should not be banned for use barring scientific proof of safety. People should be allowed to weigh the options and risks of use as the do with anything in life. Disclosure of GMO's in a particular product is one thing ... banning them completely is a gross overreaction to a few publicized incidents that are misrepresentative of GMO's as a whole and the benefits to their use, which far outweigh their non-use because of the very nature of the businesses that manufacture them.
Debate Round No. 1
BittersweetMemories

Pro

GMO's have little to no scientific proof that its benefits are greater. However, there are indeed proof on the white mice, which showed signs of premature growth, smaller brains, the inability to reproduce, and large tumors. Different substances should not be mixed, and Mother Nature should not be defied.

Even in the slim chance that it may not be harmful, it is also taking over organic fields. Despite not being able to reproduce, the modified plants easily contaminates nearby fields, and using this as an advantage, organic farmers were forced to pay the GMO companies for using their technology even though they didn't want to. At this rate, it wouldn't be long before organic foods disappear off the face of Earth.

A very suspicious fact about GMO's is that companies are spending millions to prevent modified foods from being labeled as "Genetically Modified." That hints at how the food is unstable, and the companies are attempting to hide it.

Do you have any proof that the benefits to their use far outweighs their non-use?
FreedomBeforeEquality

Con

Literally the only reason a business would pay to not be labeled containing GMO's is because of the bad rap they get from people like you. If everyone was jumping on the 'no sugar' band wagon ... companies would pay millions to get their sugar content off that label too. If it makes fiscal sense to pay a few million to save 10's of millions in sales, they'll do it.

There is certainly some scientific proof that each is effective because they would not release it or pay to fund a project that doesn't render a superior product or better crop yields. If GMO's did things worse than the norm ... no company would pay for them as their cost would be higher than just using, say, plain old tomatoes.

I can't say I agree with the aggressive patent and lawsuit practices they participate in, but I venture to guess those are brought on too by the negativity perpetuated aver a perfectly fine product they just got done spending millions on developing. Its sad they feel they need to offset that cost by way of lawsuits ... but I'm certain they take their fair share of licks from the organic crowd as well.

I think organic farming is being misrepresented as some grassroots small business that's being kicked around by big business. There are plenty of organic brands linked in farming networks the same as any other food producing market, just like the GMO guys, just like Purdue, and any other. Organic vs. GMO are just two corporations fighting each other for business. Organic wins their crowd through scare tactics and public perception and GMO tries to win theirs through scientific improvement to plants and animals for better food yield and by means of patent protection. GMOs aim to target the masses by beating out their competition with lower prices, organic tend to target the wealthy privileged few. The US just happens to have a lot of people who take to fads and have generally more disposable income to spend on the image organic brands are selling them on.

Frankly we've already defied mother nature to the extent that this type of food optimization is necessary to maintain the population we've grown to. If you wanted to wipe every food modification ever performed off the map today, you'd start a worldwide depression and so many would starve. I don't know your financial background, but i'd venture to guess you wouldn't be able to afford enough of the organic food you're fighting for to be able to feed your family. And lets hope you ate it immediately because organic food has substantially less shelf life to boot. (i.e. food shipments cost more and contain less choices)
Debate Round No. 2
BittersweetMemories

Pro

(Why on earth did I open a 3 round argument?!)
Anywayy, if the modified foods are better, then why are organic foods more expensive? Also, did you know that all of the following countries enforced labeling policies?
Australia, Austria. Belgium, Bulgaria, China, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom
I'm quite sure the government of these countries aren't stupid. They knew GMO's are not properly tested so they wanted to give the people a choice. By saying this I am not saying GMO's have never been tested. They have, but not enough.
As a kid, I'm not confident if this sounds "normal" or not, but when you said "Organic vs. GMO are just two corporations fighting each other for business. Organic wins their crowd through scare tactics and public perception and GMO tries to win theirs through scientific improvement to plants and animals for better food yield and by means of patent protection," I had a picture in my mind where there is a horde of zombies (GMO, since they're both "mutated") trying to take over the mass of surviving humans (Organic, because both are natural") , like the IOS (or android I'm not sure) game "World Zombination."
Thank you.

FreedomBeforeEquality

Con

I must reiterate I'm not really against labeling of it ... so long as its not overly required to the point it is significantly damaging GMO's and giving organic an artificial advantage in the market. A prime example would be like the labeling they instituted against cigarette companies where entire 1' x 3' areas of their packaging had to be reserved for high definition stomach turning pictures and anti cigarette propaganda. That's going way too far. Simple labeling or open disclosure on the company websites suffices.

They're tested well enough to pass FDA standards. Some organic foods can't even claim that level of cleanliness (though admittedly is quite low). Its acceptable.

Yes, your last paragraph about the vision people have over GMO's is exactly the type of 'scare tactic' type image that has unjustly grown around their use. Its of course nothing like that. The modifications are actually much more simple than some zombification virus like in resident evil. Its just stuff like making the outer cell wall of a fruit slightly thicker to make it more resilient to bugs and weather, making a strain more 'horny', as it were, so it attempts to reproduce even out of season, strengthening the immune systems of plants so they are less susceptible to pestilence and other sickness that might kill them and decrease yield.

Basically we do it to our own bodies to prolong our lifetime, why not prolong the life of our food sources such that we can continue to benefit from them for much longer periods.

On a side tangent, there is a level of consistency you get from a company making the entire genome of a strain proprietary. They know it and basically clone it. You know what you're getting. Organic foods are far less controlled and you could actually be subject to mutational effects that come from plants constantly reproducing. I can't say I've seen it be a problem that has escaped its own demise or was ever not filtered out by FDA or some other quality control ... but there is some risk there. Risk in leaving things up to nature to decide what its gonna dump on you this week. Bad weather, pestilence, bad crop.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by FreedomBeforeEquality 2 years ago
FreedomBeforeEquality
And it turns out people don't really even care. No one voted anyways.
Posted by FreedomBeforeEquality 2 years ago
FreedomBeforeEquality
Why discouraged? I think making them label it, given the way public opinion is currently, is enough discouragement to put on a company's product already.

Id say maybe the public should be educated about what GMOs are ... but not discouraged from their use. Keep the information unbiased.
Posted by Anarcho-Socialist 2 years ago
Anarcho-Socialist
I think that they should be labeled and their use be discouraged, but not banned completely.
Posted by really12 2 years ago
really12
@FreedomBeforeEquality,

Your post was well-written and informative, thank you.
Posted by FreedomBeforeEquality 2 years ago
FreedomBeforeEquality
I can't imagine it ever getting that far ... but it certainly helps the world hunger issue. I can however imagine Bittersweetmemories and other vegans pushing against the development of say a perpetually reproducing organism developed to live in the gut to form a symbiotic relationship with the human and end the need to ingest food ever again ... because they are too conservative and too in bed with their big farming business to accept progress and improvement.

The 'Mother nature should not be defied' statement was a dead giveaway to that ignorance. But we do have something in common. I trust mother nature to weed those overly conservatives out ... so I'm not worried much about their attempts to squash progress.
Posted by really12 2 years ago
really12
GMOs are a controversial topic as both sides are unanimously debatable.

I must admit that I do rebuke GMOs to a certain degree since it is unclear to me as to where they acquire these organisms.

However, won't the introduction of GMOs see an end to world hunger as it will lead to a global abundance of food?
No votes have been placed for this debate.