Debate Rounds (4)
Biotechnology and Genetic engineering are very closely related because biotechnology is implementing technology into organisms or genetically engineering them. There are many reasons why genetic engineering is good although Stem cells are very controversial with them you can grow bones or tissues for a patient in need this would save a great deal of lives and with more testing amputees could be helped by growing new body parts.
Even though some genetically modified foods have proven unsafe with more understanding that problem could be solved and genetically modified crops could be mass produced to help feed the starving masses in other countries.
On top of that, we don"t know of the effects it could have on the environment, in, say, 20 years time. We have no idea what it could do to the environment to have crops genetically altered. Genetic modification could cause animals to react differently, and possibly negatively, to the plant, since it would be foreign to them. If an animal were to eat the genetically altered plant, without knowing the effects, it could kill the animal.
Now, you talked about how plants have been genetically modified to be more resistant to herbicides like Roundup, and how if people were to get their hands on these crops that they might apply to much, expecting better results, and end up causing their crops to become unhealthy. Now, we can"t exactly rely on people to become more responsible with these new genetically modified crops. People will be who they want to be, and there"s not much we can do to change that. If we are to release these genetically modified crops into the public, there"s no telling what people might do. We can"t trust people to be responsible with genetically modified crops.
Also, comparing genetically modified foods to surgical procedures is inaccurate, since genetically modified foods, if they were to be released into the public, would be everywhere. Not everyone gets surgery in their life, whereas if genetically modified foods were to be released, it is very likely that almost everyone would come into contact with them.
If you don't mind could you explain so everybody knows what the part about potatoes means just to clarify what it means.
As you might not be aware because of the fda genetically modified foods are already out and in supermarkets it is just that the fda as I was saying does not require the manufacturer to put a label on the item unless it has different significantly different nutritional property, an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present such as a peanut protein in a soybean product, or if a food contains toxicants beyond acceptable limits. so this is probably why most people might not know that they are already in circulation.
With regards to being responsible with genetically engineered foods wouldn't it make more sense to be more responsible with the pesticide or herbicides that they are using rather than being more responsible with the plant because the pesticides and herbicides are the true problem not the plant.
The only companies that would use GM crops would be large companies that are already big competition for small farmers, therefore they would already have the money necessary to start a farm devoted to genetically modified crops.
I am aware that the FDA has put genetically modified foods on the market already, but these are minor modifications. The kind that we"re talking about pose an allergenic risk since they are untested on humans.
Regarding your response to the responsibility of those who use genetically modified crops, you"re nitpicking there. Yes, I said that "we can"t exactly rely on people to become more responsible with these new genetically modified crops", but that implies both.
Genetically modified organisms can cross-pollinate, and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.
I believe that even if you do test on lab animals it still isn't the same as a human using it. I am not suggesting that we test these things on humans but that lab results have often been proven wrong. Fear of the unknown is no reason to reject advances in science and technology. If we choose to suppress research we might as well be back in the middle ages.
I agree that if we always gave in to the fear of the unknown then we wouldn"t be nearly as technologically advanced, but this is quite a risk, and has evidence towards it being dangerous.
Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments' superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely political. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesn't require a single safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different. But this was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even among the FDA's own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, later their vice president.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.