The Instigator
dfinn475
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
ishallannoyyo
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Genetically Modified Food

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 5 votes the winner is...
ishallannoyyo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,106 times Debate No: 25882
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

dfinn475

Con

Have you ever wondered what is in the food you eat. Well I did research and found out that most of the food we eat is genetically modified. That means it has been injected with chemicals and fillers to make it supposedly are larger quantity of food, but these fillers deadly. So I think that genetically modified foods should be banned.

Rules
Round one is acceptance.
Round two is presentation of argument.
Round three is rebuttal and conclusion.
No cursing, slandering, or racist remarks.
A forfeit is the automatic loss of the grammar point.

I look forward to this debate.
ishallannoyyo

Pro

I thank my opponent for instigating this debate. I would like to put forth some definitions to guide this debate.

Genetically Modified Food (GMO) - foods that have had genes foreign genes inserted into the genetic code of the food. Examples include genes that make vegetables grow bigger etc. [1]

We will have a shared BOP, I will assume that my opponent will be arguing that GMO foods need to be banned while I will be arguing that GMO foods need to stay. I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments!

SOURCES
1. http://www.umm.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
dfinn475

Con

Okay.

Genetically modified food should be banned because of these four main reasons.
1. GM foods have not been proven safe to eat.
In a lab study they did test on rats on the effects of gm food. These were the resullts:
Rats fed GM tomatoes developed stomach ulcerations
◦Offspring of rats fed GM soya had 4 times the death rate of rats fed non-GM soya
◦Liver, pancreas and testes function was disturbed in mice fed GM soya
◦GM peas caused allergic reactions in mice
◦Rats fed GM oilseed rape developed enlarged livers, often a sign of toxicity
◦GM potatoes fed to rats caused excessive growth of the lining of the gut similar to a pre-cancerous condition
◦Rats fed insecticide-producing GM maize grew more slowly, suffered problems with liver and kidney function, and showed higher levels of certain fats in their blood
◦Rats fed GM insecticide-producing maize over three generations suffered damage to liver and kidneys and showed alterations in blood biochemistry
◦Old and young mice fed with GM insecticide-producing maize showed a marked disturbance in immune system cell populations and in biochemical activity
◦Mice fed GM insecticide-producing maize over four generations showed a buildup of abnormal structural changes in various organs (liver, spleen, pancreas), major changes in the pattern of gene function in the gut, reflecting disturbances in the chemistry of this organ system (e.g. in cholesterol production, protein production and breakdown) and, most significantly, reduced fertility
◦Mice fed GM soya over their entire lifetime (24 months) showed more acute signs of ageing in their liver
◦Rabbits fed GM soya showed enzyme function disturbances in kidney and heart
◦Feeding studies with farm animals:
◦There are very few studies of this type that have looked directly at the long-term effects on farm animals. However, even these have shown problems:
◦GM DNA can survive processing and is detectable in the digestive tract of sheep. This raises the possibility that antibiotic resistance and Bt insecticide genes can move into gut bacteria, a process known as horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal gene transfer can lead to antibiotic resistant disease-causing bacteria ("superbugs") and may lead to Bt insecticide being produced in the gut with potentially harmful consequences. For years, regulators and the biotech industry claimed that horizontal gene transfer would not occur with GM DNA, but this research challenges this claim
◦Sheep fed Bt insecticide-producing GM maize over three generations showed disturbances in the functioning of the digestive system of ewes and in the liver and pancreas of their lambs

2. GM foods are not the answer to the world hunger.
GM foods don't solve world hunger because there is not a shortage of food in this world. It is that some people have no access to food or have financial issues where they don't have food.

3.GM foods can harm the environment.
Genetically modified crops can easily contaminate other crops. It also increases pesticide use.

Well, with just this information alone, this should be convincing enough to prove why gm foods should be banned. But, there is more where that came from.

Works Cited
http://www.bangmfood.org...
http://www.stopgm.org.uk...
ishallannoyyo

Pro

I thank my opponent for his comments. I would now like to take this time to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent and introduce my contentions. As my opponent has the majority of the BOP as GM foods are already prevalent, I will only provided one contention (and I don’t have too much time on the clock left).


GM foods have not been proven safe to eat.


All of the “results” and “dangers” shown by my opponent are the effects of GM foods on are small rodents. However, small rodents are very different from humans. Oranges are potentially fatal to mice and will cause adverse reactions. [1] Thus, we should not eat oranges because a mouse ate it and died. This is ridiculous. 60% of the food you eat is GM [2], has anybody died from eating this food? Of course not. Furthermore, according to the same source GM foods are the most heavily tested food products out there: GM foods are screened for nutritional value, any possible allergens, any potential toxins, and anything else that may potentially harm humans before they are shipped off to stores around the globe. In the 1990s, a Brazilian Company tried to insert the gene of Brazilian nuts into soy beans to increase the protein. However, the nuts were a known allergen. Testing showed that these nut gene could cause a human reaction if a human ingested the soy bean, so the project was dropped [2]. This clearly shows how through human testing and careful screening GM foods cannot and will not ever harm humans.


GM foods don’t solve world hunger because there is not a shortage of food in this world. It is that some people have no access to food or have financial issues where they don’t have food.


World hunger and not having access to food or having a financial issue where they can’t obtain food is synonymous with each other. They are essentially one and the same. GM foods solve this issue. For example, people can’t access fish because the water’s are too cold and the fish die. An anti-freeze gene found in fish can be inserted into other fish, allowing them to live at lower temperatures, thus providing people with food. [3] GM crops have been developed to survive in drought like conditions AND can be irrigated with seawater, not fresh. [4] This revolutionary crop could potentially bring foods to thousands of people suffering from a drought. Instead of all your crops dying, now you have crops that still survive. Thus, GM foods do solve world hunger.


Genetically modified crops can easily contaminate other crops. It also increases pesticide use.


I invite my opponent to explain his point on GM crops “contaminating” other crops, as I don’t understand how a change in the genetic code of a crop leads to a plague affecting corn. My opponent has also failed to explain how GM crops increase pesticide usage. Without evidence or explanation my opponent has essentially made a random assertion without any base in fact. Thus, these points are voided until my opponent can provide evidence and explain what he means.



I will now move on to my constructive case, having refuted all of my opponent’s points.



C1: GM Foods lead to larger yields


Get this, inserting a growth hormone from Pacific Chinook salmon leads to other fish growing to market size in 16 – 18 months instead of 3 years. [5] What does this mean? More salmon. What does that mean? More food. GM crops and GM livestock all lead to larger yields, tastier yields, and more food. More food is of course beneficial to our society as there are people everywhere who need food. Food is a universal need. My opponent is in favour of lengthening fish growth times to 3 years, reducing the sizes of apples and other fruits, and cutting our yield in half minimum. GM foods as I have shown are not detrimental to society in the slightest and are in fact extremely beneficial. Thus, they shouldn’t be abolished.



I have proven my BOP, showing how GM foods need to stay. I have refuted my opponent’s arguments and thus it is a clear vote PRO.




  1. http://pet-mice.com...

  2. http://science.nationalgeographic.com...

  3. http://en.wikipedia.org...

  4. http://nocamels.com...

  5. http://en.wikipedia.org...


Debate Round No. 2
dfinn475

Con

It is now time to refute my opponent's argument but before I do that I must recognize to you that my opponent did not follow the rules of the debate. In round two, my opponent was suppose to introduce his argument, but instead, decided to refute my argument at an earlier time.

"I would now like to take this time to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent...."

Argument 1.
My opponent says that their would be larger yields of food, but the question remains: is the food safe? The food has been filled with viruses that have major consequences. Test on animals shws that it has a toxic effect.

And also, studies have shown that GM foods don't increase yield production. In fact, an experiment was made and after 13 years of research, it was provven that certain crops suffered reduced yields.

I hope that this added information helps you decided that GM food is bad, my opponent did not follow the guidelines, and for you to vote pro.

http://www.bangmfood.org...
ishallannoyyo

Pro

I thank my opponent for his comments. I would like to point out that I provided refutation in R2 as it gives my opponent a chance to defend his arguments. Had I reserved my refutation, my opponent would only be able to refute my arguments and have no chance to defend his own asI would post last. Thus, it was not a violation of the rules and instead just gave my opponent a chance to argue on his behalf. I will move on to defend my pillars and further refutation.

My opponent says that there would be larger yields of food, but the question remains: Is the food safe? The food has been filled with viruses that have major consequences. Test on animals shows that it has a toxic effect.

My opponent has completely ignored my refutation to his point. I have already shown that GM foods are safe to eat and the fact that they are toxic to animals is not conclusive evidence. Oranges are toxic to mice, thus oranges are toxic to humans?? This is a massive logical fallacy to assume that just because something is poisonous to animals that it will be poisonous to humans. Humans and animals are completely different. Secondly, my opponent says that GM foods have been filled with viruses. This is ridiculous; no “viruses” are put in the food, just a gene from something else. We all have genes in us; these genes have no effect at all on us.

And also, studies have shown that GM foods don’t increase yield production. In fact, an experiment was made and after 13 years of research, it was proven that certain crops suffered reduced yields.

My opponent has ignored the fact that GM crops can be grown in desert like conditions. Can any other crops be grown in desert like conditions? I didn’t think so. This allows more crops to be grown in more areas, thus leading to a larger yield as there are more crops planted in previously inhospitable places. Secondly, my opponent failed to tell the voters that it was only ONE crop that had reduced yields and that was soya according to my opponent’s source.

My opponent has not rebutted my refutation or defended his points, thus they all fall. I have defended my points and they all still stand. I have shown you how GM foods are not at all toxic and are safe to consume, they produce larger yields, and are extremely beneficial to society. I have not violated the rules, only given my opponent a chance to defend his points. My opponent has even admitted this, at the end of his speech stating and for you to vote pro. This opportunity has been squandered; it is a clear and easy vote PRO.



Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by daniel.droege5 4 years ago
daniel.droege5
GMO food is not causing tumors in humans are you serious?
Search for cancer rates in America and compare that data with the rate GMOs were introduced to our diet. Many, Many, Many countries have banned these crops. Most at least require them to be labeled but not in the U.S. I wish Con did a better job.

RoundupReady crops are resistant to toxic pesticides. The pesticides stay in the soil and only allow crops treated with that particular gene to grow.

Terminator seeds were developed and forced on farmers. These seeds are genetically modified to not reproduce new seeds. This is placing the countries food supply under control of Monsanto. They are the leader in GMOs and pesticides/herbicides.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 4 years ago
PeacefulChaos
Pro, by far, has done a superior job in defending his position. Although Con made several convincing arguments (which simply turned out to be copy and pasted), Pro refuted them by showing how the bodily structures of other animals = / = humans and used the effects of an orange on mice as an example. Furthermore, Con failed to defend his contentions, whereas Pro did not, thus resulting in a win or Pro.

Concerning the reliability of sources, both sides did a relatively equal job. Con provided sites specifically geared towards getting rid of GM foods, showing the extreme bias of his sources. Pro, although providing several reliable sources, also provided unreliable ones, such as wikipedia.

That being said, I give the win to Pro.
Posted by michael1010 4 years ago
michael1010
Con you have some valid points and I did read some of your sources as well. Your sorcerers do make valid points but some of there research is also flawed and when you did down deeper into some of there studies you see they are outdated. Pro you did a great job with rebuttals and found very interesting your points via animal testing and human testing. If I was able to vote I would vote pro on this subject. On personal note I live in ia where genetic engineering is used on majority of corn we use this year we had a major drought but yields are still high due to the strength of our corn crop from gm if we where using same crops that we where using 5years ago you would of seen far less yield and potential food shortages across the country
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
Unless of course it is agreed upon that comments count as arguments XD which Con forgot to do.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Voters should vote based on what occured in the debate.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Well then I will post 20 sources and everything you've said will be invalidated! You didn't post it in the debate, you can't expect voters to read through your source and have the source argue for you.
Posted by dfinn475 4 years ago
dfinn475
Voters, please look at my sources before you vote so you can see that some of my opponent's rebuttals are not valid.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by daniel.droege5 4 years ago
daniel.droege5
dfinn475ishallannoyyoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Wish this had more rounds and was a fair fight.
Vote Placed by ObiWan 4 years ago
ObiWan
dfinn475ishallannoyyoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: There was so much more con could have included, but pros arguments and rebuttals were better.
Vote Placed by PeacefulChaos 4 years ago
PeacefulChaos
dfinn475ishallannoyyoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
dfinn475ishallannoyyoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the better backup for his arguments. co didn't refute the specific claims cited for salmon and for desert crops. Pro only needed to show that some genetically modified should not be banned. Con had to prove all should be banned.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
dfinn475ishallannoyyoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to con because Pro chose to follow the conventional rules instead of the instigators rules, Pro had better everything else.