The Instigator
owenmontoux
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Percenter
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Monsanto is the most evil company in the world

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
1Percenter
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,620 times Debate No: 35992
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

owenmontoux

Pro

from my point of view as a beekeeper/farmer monsanto has been a main reason for bees dying off. also they have used western society as a whole as an experiment, a giant human experiment, regarding gmo's, pesticides, and is responsible for our reliance on processed unhealthy foods
1Percenter

Con

Thanks owenmontoux for starting this debate.

Monsanto was one of the first groups to create a transgenic plant in the early 1980's. It has been a pioneeer in the biotechnology industy and is responsible for some very important enhancements in the GMO industry. That being said, Monsanto is recognized as a corporate entity. It is not inherently good, nor is it inherently evil.

Though Pro has the burden of proof, I will still put forth my own case for why Monsanto should NOT be considered the most evil company in the world:

GMO crops increase production and yield
Crops are being modified with traits that increase resistance to infectious diseases, herbicides, pesticides, and environmental stresses such as drought, frost, and nitrogen starvation. This enables farmers to produce more food more efficiently. [1.http://www.nature.com...]. For example, millions of people in Africa rely heavily on bananas for food or income. However, a disease called BXW (banana Xanthomonas wilt) has been devastating to banana crops. In response, genetic engineers have modified bananas with a gene taken from sweet pepper that provides resistance to BXW. [2. http://online.wsj.com....]

GMOs can make crops more nutritious
Monsanto and other biotech companies use a process called "biofortification" to enrich crops to increase their nutritional value. It is estimated that 250,000-500,000 children go blind due to vitamin A deficiency annually, and half of them die within 12 months. [3. http://www.who.int...]. To address this tragedy, "Golden Rice", a a strain of rice genetically modified to produce more Vitamin A has been designed. Monsanto was one of the first companies to grant free licences for farmers to produce Golden Rice in developing countries. [4. http://whqlibdoc.who.int...(10)news.pdf]. Breeds of sorghum, cassavas and potatoes are also designed to produce greater micronutrients. [5. http://www.agbioforum.org...]

GMOs have environmental benefits
GMOs have been designed to be more resistant to weeds, and require less time and energy plowing croplands. This decreases soil erosion, runoff, and use of tractor fuel. Resistance to insects means less agricultural chemicals and pesticides threatening to contaminate soil and water. [6. http://www.ehow.com...]

Clearly, GMO's are very beneficial to both producers and consumers worldwide. Monsanto's research and contributions to the GMO industry should not warrant them the title of "the most evil company in the world."

I will now respond to some of Pro's claims.

"from my point of view as a beekeeper/farmer monsanto has been a main reason for bees dying off."

I can only assume my opponent is referring to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Not alot is known about CCD, but it is suspected to be some combination of malnutrition, pathogens, immunodeficiencies, mites, fungus, pesticides, and beekeeping practices (such as the use of antibiotics, or long-distance transportation of beehives). [7. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Some have suggested that Bt crops (crops genetically modified to produce their own pest-killing proteins), but there are no published data supporting direct or indirect damage to bees caused by crops engineered to produce Bt proteins.

"...also they have used western society as a whole as an experiment, a giant human experiment, regarding gmo's, pesticides..."

How so? It's impossible to design a long-term safety test in humans, which would require the consuming large amounts of a particular GM product over a very large portion of the human life span. There is simply no practical way to learn anything through human studies of whole foods. This is why no existing food, conventional or GM, or food ingredient/additive has been subjected to this type of testing. So by your rationale, everything we consume is part of some company's "experiment".

"...and is responsible for our reliance on processed unhealthy foods"


I don't see how this is relevant or even accurate. Even then, researchers have discovered very little difference between the nutritional content of organic foods and conventionally grown food, so this contributes nothing to his claim that Monsanto is "evil". [8. http://www.health.harvard.edu...]


I look forward to my opponent's response.

Debate Round No. 1
owenmontoux

Pro

owenmontoux forfeited this round.
1Percenter

Con

I have a correction to make in one of my arguments in R2, just to clear up any confusion. The correction is in bold:

"Some have suggested that Bt crops (crops genetically modified to produce their own pest-killing proteins) have been harmful to bees, but there are no published data supporting direct or indirect damage to bees caused by crops engineered to produce Bt proteins."

Anyway, extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
owenmontoux

Pro

owenmontoux forfeited this round.
1Percenter

Con

Not really sure why people like to come to this site and spout their opinions if they aren't going to put in the time and effort to defend them.

*sigh*

Oh well... Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
owenmontoux1PercenterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
owenmontoux1PercenterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
owenmontoux1PercenterTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT: FF. ARGUMENT: Con gave evidence for their case, and shot down pro's; to which pro did not even attempt a defense. SOURCES: See argument.