The Instigator
thisisntchloe22
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
aboivin21
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Genetically Modified Foods

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: 4/10/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,220 times Debate No: 52103
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

thisisntchloe22

Con

All of Europe banned genetically modified food. In February of 1999, certain strains of GMO potatoes were proved toxic to rats in Germany. According to Tom Warhol and Alex Rich, United States long-grain rice is banned from export to Japan, because GMO pollen contaminated an organic rice crop in Arkansas. If almost an entire continent has banned GMO foods, the United States should take the hint. Enough of the world does not support the production of GMOs, and the US should do the same.
aboivin21

Pro

Just because other countries have banned genetically modified food doesn't mean that the United States should. Maybe other countries just didn't explore all of the facts before they made their decision. For example, genetically modified crops are better quality and taste better. This is because the flavors can be enhanced through genetic modification. It can restore some of the flavor and aroma lost through pesticides. In fact, 90% of a group of taste testers preferred genetically modified tomatoes to organic tomatoes.
Debate Round No. 1
thisisntchloe22

Con

The major problem with genetically modified food is the fact that people do not know the long-term effects of consumption. Genetically modified/organic hybrids are not even approved for human consumption, proving there is something wrong with the genetically modified food, as organic hybrids are approved for human consumption. So while there might be a tomato that is insect resistant, five times an organic tomato"s size, and tastes better, does not mean that it will be good for anyone for long term consumption.
aboivin21

Pro

Just because it has not been approved does not mean that it is not safe. For example, laws take a long time to pass, but that doesn't mean that they aren't worth having. It just means that they are exploring the facts before passing the law. Genetically engineered food are better for the economy as well. They can be engineered to have a variety of benefits, not just tasting better. Our society values things that grow faster and do not take much work. Therefore, genetically engineered crops are the better option. They can be engineered to be more resistant to diseases and pests. The crops are engineered to make the immune system of the plant stronger. This will also reduce the growers from having to use pesticides on their crops to keep the pests away. Less pesticides means that the plants will be healthier for people and they will not come with a layer of chemicals on them. This is incredibly helpful to farmers that don't want bugs, fungi, mold, and rodents infecting their crops, making the food more beneficial and better for people to consume.
Debate Round No. 2
thisisntchloe22

Con

People claim that genetically modified foods are better for the economy, but that is not necessarily true either. Claims that support that GMO foods can yield more product do not take into consideration the idea of supply and demand. If more people in our communities spent their money on organic food, the demand would go up, and so would the supply. The previous farms who produced GMO plants would produce organic to increase profit. Also, GM crops use harsh chemical mixes in order to grow them effectively, and a large amount of GM plants can"t even be fed to livestock. Organic farmers are finding way to enrich their soil, which could cut pesticide and herbicide uses.
aboivin21

Pro

That is true, but not everyone will spend the extra money to buy organic food. With most of the population participating, in time, the price of the organic food would go down. However, the people want the best bargains and food that will withstand harsh conditions and survive will give it to them. Genetically modified food can withstand harsh weather conditions as well, which largely contributes to plants dying. Then, the supply goes down, causing the demand and the price to go up. Genetic modification prevents all of this from happening and is clearly the only answer to this problem.
Debate Round No. 3
thisisntchloe22

Con

GMO foods may not be proven to be bad, but there is evidence to back up that argument. According to the OCA, a nonprofit organization, certain GMO foods are causing allergic reactions for people because of the DNA spliced into the plants. This could potentially cause deaths to people who did not even realize what they are eating. Somebody could be careful to purchase food that will not trigger their allergies, and die of anaphylactic shock because their food has different DNA than the organic food. Some GMO foods could potentially cause cancer, too. Carcinogens have been found in certain food flavorings. Organic food has been consumed for as long as humans have lived, and that has never been found, not even close.
aboivin21

Pro

All foods can cause an allergic reaction, including natural foods. People are allergic to nuts because of something naturally in the food, not because of something added to it. If they find out they are allergic to it they stay away from that food and continue living their life. Plants that are genetically modified can actually help nutrition. Vitamins and minerals can be added to foods to increase the health benefits. This is especially for people in third world countries who can't get enough variety in their diets. For example, in Japan people are malnourished since rice is the main part of their diet. Adding nutrients will prevent malnutrition and is extremely important to do.
Debate Round No. 4
thisisntchloe22

Con

People in countries are starving, this is true. The big thing there is that they don"t even want to feed their people GMO foods. Research for GMO products is backed by somebody with money. Scientific data can be skewed to project whatever the companies want to project. So even if there was evidence to prove that GMOs were not safe, some big company like ConAgra or another one to bribe the data. The information presented to the American people is skewed and unsafe. We have been human guinea pigs for years. This is completely unethical, and this is something to not test on people.
aboivin21

Pro

People that do not want to reap the benefits of genetically modified foods are not making smart choices. It can help them will malnutrition and supply and demand. They should give the genetically modified foods a chance to prove if they are bad or not. If people don't take chances, no advancements will be made. For example, people didn't know if going into space would be safe or if they could return safely to earth. There is no guarantee in science. Still, people took the risk because they believed that it would benefit the world. The same should happen for genetically modified foods. If you never try anything new, how do you know if something is worth trying? Therefore, genetically modified foods should be given a chance. Perhaps they should be labeled so that only willing participants try the more superior foods. That way people will ensure that the genetically modified crops are the best.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.