Genetically modified salmon should be cleared for human consumption by the FDA.
Debate Rounds (5)
Today I would like to prove why genetically modified salmon should be cleared for human consumption. GMOs are a wonderful idea. Genetically modified crops are already being produced and used in the food industry. They are easier to grow, more resistant to stresses, and increase yield for farmers.  I would like to discuss today the economic effects, testing, and social implications of GMOs.
Looking at the economy today, the casual observer can see that it is not in the best of shape. The unemployment rate in America is at 8.3 percent. Genetically modified salmon would need maintenance, supervisors, and harvesters. This could potentially create hundreds of jobs, jobs that Americans need. Secondly, Salmon costs on average $8.60 a pound.  Salmon being so expensive cannot achieve the market of the lower middle and lower classes. If genetically modified salmon were legalized, they could reach these markets. According to the law of supply and demand, if there is more demand for salmon, there will have to be a larger production of the fish. This would lead to stimulation of the industry, and lower prices for consumers. Thirdly, we could sell the technology to other countries. This would stimulate our economy, increasing foreign trade, and allowing both our and foreign economies to flourish. The United States economy needs some help, legalizing GMO's for human consumption may just be the answer.
I want to discuss the testing which has been done on these organisms next. One of the FDA's main concerns is whether or not the fish is safe or will have long term effects on humans. This is a good thing. One of the FDA's primary obligations is to make sure food is safe for human consumption. However, AquAvantage submitted its first data set to the FDA in 1996, 16 years ago. What they don't seem to understand is that this salmon is the same as any other animal. It has genetics just like any other organism. The genetics of cattle are not subject to the meticulous scrutiny these fish are. What if there are long term effects of beef consumption due to their genes? It is ridiculous to single out this organism for the sole fact that its genes were not formed by natural selection. A second concern is that the fish could mate with other salmon replacing the traditional population. The company has this to say on the subject,
"AquaBounty has further stipulated that it will market only sterile, all female AquAdvantage® Salmon. Since these fish are unable to reproduce, there can be no gene flow to wild salmon. As a further precaution, AquAdvantage® Salmon will be reared in physically contained facilities, similar to those used in the commercial trout industry. AquAdvantage® Salmon will thus be raised with redundant biological and physical containment, mitigating any potential risk of a negative impact on genetic diversity of wild stocks." 
As we can see from this quote, all salmon will be sterile in containment facilities. There is no possible way for these salmon to mate and therefore there is no risk to the traditional population.
Finally, I think another major problem the FDA has with legalizing the fish is social pressure. People have bought into the sensationalism of being anti-"Frankenfood." The view that GMOs are dangerous is propagated by organizations such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund. Many people say they are against genetically modified organisms or that it should be labeled already eat GMOs on a normal basis.  Genetically modified crops are used all over the US, and there has been relatively little problem with them. About as many problems as you would run into with traditional foods.
Today I have outlined a case for the legalization of genetically modified salmon for human consumption. I have made this assertion based on the economy, testing, and social issues.
1dustpelt forfeited this round.
I am most terribly sorry that I forfeited the last round. I had an unexpected pile of work to do. Also realize that I was currently debating 6 other people. Please give conduct to Pro.
Also, I do realize that my opponent is arguing for GMO's. When I accepted this debate, I thought she was arguing against GMO's, because of the title "Genetically modified salmon should be cleared for human consumption by the FDA."
By "cleared" the definition:
"Adverb. So as not to be in contact with or near; away (often followed by of ): Stand clear of the closing doors."
By this, I thought she meant that the FDA should not let people get in contact with GMO's.
My argument is that Pro took the wrong side, thus arguments should go to me.
There are over 70 definitions for the word. Sorry for the confusion, but I posted, "I think the FDA should allow GM salmon to be legal for human consumption" in the beginning of the debate, to avoid this kind of confusion.
I am sorry for this confusion. But on dictionary.com, there are three definitions and none of them say the bill is approved.
There is no way anyone can argue on this debate. Voters, please don't vote on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro took the wrong side hence the conduct vote. agree with pro as the FDA should allow all foods: you wanna eat rancid mean have fun. I will come back and evaluate this debate with a more thorough mind later. Then con said do not vote... tie until I come back.
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.