Genetically Modified Organisms
Debate Rounds (4)
Many people believe food which has been genetically modified is unsafe to eat. This has been proven wrong by scientific studies. I Therefore strongly believe that we should continue using genetically modified organisms.
Many countries are debating whether or not to allow GMOs. In many developing countries, families rely on their own gardens at least some of the time; this makes it even more important to have a successful harvest. On average, Ugandans eat about a pound of fruit a day. Most people in Uganda actually have a banana tree in their backyard. But recently a bacteria has been effecting those trees. Harvests have gone down by as much as 30 percent. But according to an article on NPR.org, Uganda's National Agricultural Research Organization, has produced a genetically modified banana that can stand up to the bacteria. The Ugandan government has realized how helpful GMOs can be and is in the process of passing a bill allowing genetically modified organisms.
1) What heppnes to all of those hungry people if the GMO foods start to make them sick?
2) What starving country would have enough money to pay the farmers and scientists for all of those GMO foods?
I don't believe your first question is relevant based on the evidence from my second question. In answer to your second question, the scientists who developed the GM banana would like to give them out to millions of families for free (and banana trees regrow from clippings).
(1) According to an article on Academics Review.org, the 1999 study conducted by Arpad Pustzai was faulty. "Experts say no scientific conclusion can be made from the work." Do you think that study should still be used as evidence?
(2) 1783 studies on GMOs were recently reviewed by a team of researchers. Their conclusion was simple "We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop
safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops." Do you still stand by your argument?
Climate change is one of the big topics right now. Humans are pretty well equipped for warmer or cooler temperatures. But plants cannot put on the AC or bundle up in a scarf. For generations we have been using selective breeding to better equip plants for harsh conditions. Selective breeding is when you breed together plants with specific traits to get desired results. But along with our need for high speed internet, we need high speed adaptation. Genetically modifying organisms lets us get that desired trait quicker. With our growing population, we can't afford to lose crops to droughts or bacteria.
Wheat is one of our three major exports, along with soy and corn. Most of the soy and corn in the US is genetically modified, wheat however is not grown genetically modified anywhere in the world. This has posed a big problem. Since most wheat is grown in the central plains, one of their main sources of water is the Ogallala Aquifer. The Ogallala Aquifer is quickly being drained of its water, some people predict it will be half gone in less than fifty years. With decreased access to water, crops without genetic modifications have great difficulty surviving.
The public knows this as well. Some experts believe that one of the leading GMO companies, Monsanto spent buckets of money influencing congress and the white house to pass laws in their favor. Apoll done by ABC news stated, that "55% of respondents would be less likely to buy a food if they knew it had been genetically modified."Let the public be heard, why keep GMO?
1) I do think that we should count that study as evidence. Even if we can"t make a conclusion it still shows that there is a huge possibility that GMO foods do cause health problems.
2)I do still stand by my argument. The quote did not say how old those studies were. GMO crops could have changed greatly by then and could still change in the future.
I stand by my points for keeping GMOs. Developing countries can be greatly helped by GM crops, providing food that can stand up to bacteria and other threats. They can also provide the U.S. with ways to quickly adapt plants to any conditions that threaten our crops. With all of this evidence, I conclude my argument hoping that you can see how much genetically modified organisms can help us. Thank you.
My opponent believes that GMO foods would end world hunger. This is wrong. Most countries that would need these crops are extremely poor. How would they have enough money to pay for the food? This also applies to her thoughts on climate change as well.
Many countries are highly against GMO organisms. Why aren't we? Lobbying and false ideals have shaped this countries opinion on GMO foods. Listen to the facts. GMO foods are highly dangerous.
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.