The Instigator
candybaby
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
vincitomniaveritas
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Genetically modified foods should be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
vincitomniaveritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,735 times Debate No: 48838
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

candybaby

Pro

genetically modified food should be banned as it will eventually take over the world and it is unstoppable with pesticides and herbicides
vincitomniaveritas

Con

The second you step foot in your supermarket (generally speaking), you are stepping into a 'world' of artificial foods. If people were bothered by the side effects of various potentially harmful chemicals that have been placed into our everyday foods, they'd check the labels and start watching out for their health. If they were VERY concerned about the effects of digesting these foods, they only buy fresh and organic produce, even if it meant spending more money and time.
So that's artificial foods, what about the branch of genetically modified foods?
Let's say we actually banned these foods. There would be people who'd protest against these actions and people who'd be grateful. It'd be a short term solution to an ongoing problem. If we went along and banned the modified foods, people would not know the full reason of why. They'd be curious, protest against the actions that they did not ask for, they might even bring these harmful foods back into our supermarkets.
I am not at all saying that these foods are not harmful, I am simply saying that banning them straight away is not the way to go.
Educate the population about the dangerous properties, get rid of this problem once and for all.
If the people know about the deadly side effects, they'd either protest or stop buying the products, eventually stopping the flowing income these companies rely on to continue making the foods.
Warn the people that by in-taking these foods they are shortening their life span, give them something that they need, show them that these foods will eventually take it away. Scare the people, but give them a solution.
It's not the most efficient way, but it is the most effective.
***I'm sorry if this does not make sense to you, it's late and I am tired.***
Debate Round No. 1
candybaby

Pro

i get it so understandable but still banning them is whats best for everyone and the environment but if we dont stop now how will we get rid of them .. not all in one hit of course but even if it is gradual it will still be an improvement
vincitomniaveritas

Con

This following scenarios are completely made up, I'll elaborate on the 'moral' of it later on in this argument.
Okay, so there is this (made up) fruit called "ancipitis" that is released into the supermarket shelves with no mention of the potentially harmful modifications that have been planted into them during production. This means that the customers, of whom are purchasing 'ancipitis', have no idea that by buying this product, they are putting their lives are risk.
Over time, various health experts and companies decide to run tests on these new fruits, and find the harmful chemicals that have been used to make the product more appealing, by changing the colour/s, enlarging them and making 'ancipitis' taste better. These experts release the news to the public, and it eventually goes viral.
1) The government gets a hold of this information and decides to review the 'ancipitis' and find that these people were correct in thinking that the fruit was harmful. Without telling the public why, the government bans the production and trade of 'ancipitis'. The public is concerned for around a year, but finally lets go of the fact that the fruit is never coming back. *20 or so years later* Since the ban, a new generation of humans has grown up. They look into the banning of 'ancipitis' and don't find any evidence suggesting that this fruit had ACTUALLY posed as a threat. Yes, there was evidence supporting the potential health risk/, but no elaboration. The public was told that the fruit was harmful, but not educated about it's risks. The people researching 'ancipitis' ask reliable sources about the ban, and come to a conclusion that there was nothing to support the government's decision. They bring the fruit back.
2) Instead of banning the fruit, the governments look into the issue. They conduct experiments, and find people whose health has been damaged due to the modifications in the fruit. They finally decide to educate a vast majority of their population on the 'risks' or eating this fruit.(just as we are educated on the risks involved with smoking). The people decide to take action, protesting and warning others about the dangers. People stop buying 'ancipitis', running the companies (who produce it) into bankruptcy and finally stopping production/modifications on the fruits.

You're arguing that you'd like to completely ban genetically modified foods, which has it's positive and negative points. You'll be getting rid of them, but not forever. Eventually banning the foods is even worse, it's exactly the same as banning them straight away except you're almost giving the public a chance to 'rebel' against the decisions. Time for them to think about the decisions.
I do agree, however, that these genetically modified foods are dangerous and inhumane. We're taking some of our freshest produce and ruining it's positive properties for the sake of money and business. Although, when I was on a study tour, we went to a place called the CSIRO*. They explained how their labs modify foods so that they prevent diseases or infestations. One of their projects was going to Africa and planting a field of modified mandarin seeds, these plants served a purpose OTHER than creating a flowing income.
Maybe, when educating people, emphasise the dangers of DIGESTING the foods rather than genetically modified foods as a whole.

*I do not remember the whole story, as it was two years ago, but I believe that this gets to the 'main point'.
->Again, I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense, I'm tired... again... sorry
Debate Round No. 2
candybaby

Pro

I understand if you are tired but it makes straight sense but they should be banned because of the upcoming of new allergies and you never know what you could be eating like nuts for instance it can kill people that have allergies
vincitomniaveritas

Con

I agree, we need to be wary of the allergies of people among our planet, but it should be their responsibility to check up on the chemicals and ingredients used in the food they are digesting. There should be a system in place, allowing us to find the nutrition information of any genetically modified food, instantly.
As to the issue regarding these GM foods creating allergies, you could use that to educate the population, just as educators use the diseases smokers acquire, to get the point across that smoking is, in fact, bad for our health.
I don't think you get my point, I know that GM foods are horrible for your health, it's not negotiable and I know that. My username, "Vincit omnia veritas" is the Latin translation for "Truth conquers all" which means that no matter how hard you fight, if what you are against is the truth, it'll win over you. If I were to say that GM foods are NOT harmful to us human beings, I'd be (one) completely insane, but most importantly, I'd be going against the truth which would result in my imminent loss. My argument is that GM foods should not be banned. I know the dangers within most (a vast majority) of the artificial foods are fatal, but banning them would not be ideal.
These foods were not 'invented' for the sole purpose of our consumption. Of course, some GM crops are used for foods, while others serve purposes such as:
1) Helping the plants to resist diseases
2) Forging the crops to tolerate the herbicides in the weed killer of which the farmers use without using herbicides
3) Making the plants able to maintain a healthy condition through harsh weather conditions such as droughts and cold climates
4) Helping the plants to repel pests*
The list goes on. If the government was to ban GM foods, what's to stop them from banning the science of genetically modifying crops for other purposes as well? I mean, while they come up with a correct methods for these modified crops, they plant them in controlled environments, yes, but also functioning farms. This results in deaths of hundreds of animals.
Also, I'd like to edit something I have said in a previous argument, the crops planted by the CSIRO were engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals, so that the impoverished people of third world countries could rely on a single crop (as the main staple in their diet) to help prevent malnutrition. The person giving us the lecture on these crops said that while this 'batch' of plants was a success, the engineers needed to return to the crops every 3/4/5 months and inject them with the a substance - I'll call it a 'substance' but it's obviously not the correct term (the engineers modified the plants in their labs and then placed them into the countries, allowing them to grow, but then they inject the 'substance' to keep the nutrition levels up... if that makes any sense).
Sorry if this doesn't make much sense to you...
*Yes, we do already have anti-pest sprays but people do not like the sound of having pesticide-infested foods, as pesticides are known to harm animals as well as humans. The solution to this problem is, in fact, the GM crops, banning all GM foods would mean bringing back the sprays containing pesticides, leaving us with more problems to deal with.
Debate Round No. 3
candybaby

Pro

i see where youre coming from but eventually they will be all humans eat but it can get out of control i mean grapes in banana skins like what is that and its not natural its really processed junk really and no one actually nows what is being digested and what effects it could have on them
vincitomniaveritas

Con

I don't think they'll be ALL people eat.
Although most GM foods are harmful, some are actually very useful to us humans. For instance, every time you eat a banana, you are consuming a GM product. They modify the bananas so that they no longer have seeds in them.
There are many other instances where this happens, just look it up and voila!
GM foods and crops are also useful for purposes such as:
1) Helping the plants to resist diseases
2) Forging the crops to tolerate the herbicides in the weed killer of which the farmers use without using herbicides
3) Making the plants able to maintain a healthy condition through harsh weather conditions such as droughts and cold climates
4) Helping the plants to repel pests
(as I have said in a previous argument).
Okay, now say we ban GM foods completely.
We'd have to get rid of all of the other uses too. You'd get home from, let's say, school and bite into a banana full of seeds. Not very appetising, right?
Okay, now pretend you're living in a third world country. You are suffering from malnutrition because they took away the genetically modified rice fields, which kept you alive as they were packed with extra vitamins and minerals, and replaced them with ordinary rice fields which wouldn't keep you alive for much longer.
There are a lot more cases, these two were just ones that came to mind.
The FSANZ (food standards Australia & New Zealand) (link 1) take care of this kind of thing here. They regulate the amount of genetically modified foods allowed in our supermarkets and make sure that it is not harmful to us humans. You can read more about it on their website, this is just a brief overview of what they do.
As I have now said multiple times, educate the people and they can decide whether they'd like to consume these products or not.

1) http://www.foodstandards.gov.au...

***Sorry about this being so late and I'm also sorry if it doesn't make sense.***
Debate Round No. 4
candybaby

Pro

candybaby forfeited this round.
vincitomniaveritas

Con

Seriously?
Okay, well as I have clearly stated in most of my past arguments, banning all GM foods is (1) not going to teach the people anything, (2) not really efficient and, most importantly, (3) a short term solution to an ongoing problem.
I have also stated multiple times that not all GM foods are harmful. Yes, some of them do contain pesticides, but they are improving these crops and finding a way to rid pests without using pesticides. GM foods are meant to be an upgrade of the materials farmers are using right now (like pesticide spray to kill and prevent pests) but if you ban them, the scientists won't get a chance to improve upon them.
Also, in regard to your third argument, people will always have allergies. There is no way, whatsoever, to prevent this but we can create a system allowing any being to look up what chemicals or ingredients have been used in their food. From the information given in this system, people can then avoid allergy attacks.
In conclusion, I believe that harmful GM foods that are not vital to our existence on Earth, should be either banned or we (the population) should get educated about the possible fatalities that we face by consuming them.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 8BitSensei 2 years ago
8BitSensei
As far as I know there has never been a legitimate case where genetically modified foods have caused any damage to a human being.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Raisor 2 years ago
Raisor
candybabyvincitomniaveritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Effective counterplan by Con. Pro had no response.