Nov14 - GMOs - PFDebate Final Focus

November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 1
INDEX
Labeling Good 2
Labeling Bad 3
Language 4-5
Pro- Bananas 6-8
Pro- Energy and Environment 9
Pro- Farming & Health 10
Pro- Food Shortages Now 11
Pro- Forests 12
Pro- Health 13
Pro- Opposition Bad 14
Pro- Pesticides 15
Pro- Pests Now 16
Pro- Pigs 17
Pro- Staph Infections 18
Pro- AT: Allergens 19
Pro- AT: Indian Cotton 20
Pro- AT: Unsafe 21-22
Con- Biodiversity 23
Con- Chemicals 24
Con- Democracy 25
Con- Dependency 26
Con- Environment 27
Con- Farming 28
Con- Genetic Pollution 29
Con- Health 30-32
Con- Media 33
Con- Monoculture 34-35
Con- North/South 36
Con- Patents Bad 37
Con- Pollution Impacts 38
Con- Problems Snowball 39
Con- Risks 40
Con- Soil 41
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 2
Labeling Good
Labeling would allay consumer fears which is the only impediment to GMOs
Charlebois, Associate Dean of the College of Management and Economics at the Univ. of Guelph, 11-13-
12 (Sylvain, The Kitchener-Waterloo (Ontario) Record, p. A11)
The many benefits stemming from the biosciences should be clearly demonstrated to consumers. To that end,
labelling is an interesting option. Genetically modified organisms clearly need to be demystified, but consumers
are owed an explanation for their existence.
Labelling remains the most effective and powerful tool to properly communicate risks to consumers in real
time, at points of sale. For example, since August, it is now mandatory in Canada to mention allergens on food
labels. It was the right thing to do to protect over one million Canadians who suffer from food allergies. In the
case of genetically modified organisms, what hangs in the balance is consumer trust. Over time, we are likely to
see more consumers feeling more comfortable with what biotechnology has to offer.
We are now at a point where consumers not only deserve more clarity, but where most can handle the science
behind the food products they buy. The food industry will always get the consumers it deserves, many of whom
are currently overwhelmed with a sense of suspicion and distrust of genetically modified organisms. Conveying
the proper information could be a game changer for both consumers and industry.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 3
Labeling Bad
Labeling fails: multiple reasons
Du, Harvard Law School, Fall 2012 (Dorothy, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, vol. 26, no. 1, p. 391)
In light of strong consumer demand and lack of comparable alternative food labels, mandatory labeling presents
an appealing alternative to expanding the scope of the risk factors regulatory agencies may consider. However,
there are several reasons it has not been instituted. First, labeling is not compulsory precisely because it would
directly reflect consumers non-scientific concerns. Second, even if labeling were required, it would be an
incomplete solution because it is inherently reactive, rather than prophylactic. Upstream regulations are better
suited to resolving issues of field contamination and moral objections to biotechnology. Third, mandatory
labeling could increase the cost of non-GMO food for farmers and consumers by forcing non-GMO farmers to
bear the expense of testing their crops for GMOs.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 4
Language
Social science literature that uses the phrase genetically-modified impedes science and threatens lives
Nelson, Univ. of Manchester, 2005 (Scott R., International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable
Development, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 22)
In this article, I argue that neither genetic modification of food nor agricultural biotechnology are recent
phenomena. This article seeks to elucidate the fundamentals underlying recombinant DNA technology and to
explain why the more popular terms used for rDNA or transgenic biotechnology (i.e. GMOs, GM, GE, etc.) are
imprecise and generally contribute - intentionally or otherwise - to the paucity of informed opinion that so often
characterizes the discourse on modern agriculture. Social scientists, in particular, must strive to refine their
discussion of transgenic biotechnology in the interest of producing a more informed discourse, a discourse that -
one hopes - will ultimately find its way into the popular domain.
Creating hysteria about the risks of rDNA tech is a discursive trick

By and large, use of the terms transgenic, transgenes, and rDNA are conspicuously absent in the popular
literature on this topic. Instead, one finds transgenic crop plants and rDNA manipulation described alternatively
- but not solely - as genetic modification, genetic engineering, or biotechnology. To those with even a basic
comprehension of the history of agriculture and human domestication of plants from their feral relatives, these
alternative terms are at the least frustrating. Moreover, it seems plausible that the dumbing down of the
discourse on rDNA-derived crops by otherwise well-informed groups such Greenpeace and the Sierra Club may
be a strategy aimed at intentionally overemphasizing the differences between transgenic agriculture and
conventionally or organically cultivated crops. Indeed, the common claim that rDNA-derived crops represent a
potential Frankenstein monster (hence the term Frankenfoods) appears more tenable when such crops are
portrayed as genetically engineered and, as such, simplistically contrasted with so-called pure crops
produced through traditional breeding and cultivation (Stone 2002).
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 5
Language
The term genetically modified is nonsensical and threatens the credibility of your evidence
With these realities in mind, it appears that we are faced with the need to re-clarify the ontological meaning
inherent in different terms. Ought not the terms genetically modified and genetic engineering be expanded to
include those forms of non-transgenic biotechnology that involve - despite not utilizing rDNA techniques -
mapping and reorganizing DNA sequences, cell altering, gene stacking, and marker-assisted selection? Beyond
that, would not numerous traditional biotechnologies - e.g. induced nitrogen fixation, grafting, plant
domestication and selection, and varietal hybridization - qualify for inclusion in such a broader, redefined
category of genetic modification? Although these rhetorical questions eschew definitive answers, they
illustrate the arbitrary nature of much of the discourse on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). What is
more, because modern agriculture consists of countless products and innovative techniques that employ some
degree of genetic modification, one might reasonably conclude that categorical terms such as genetically
modified and genetically engineered are arbitrary and vague to the point of being meaningless in a biological
sense.
One implication of the vague and arbitrary nature of GMO-related terminology is that much of the discourse on
modern agri-biotechnology is poorly informed and inadequate. Unfortunately, use of the imprecise terms
hitherto discussed is not limited to the popular literature on transgenic crops. Rather, one finds numerous
examples of otherwise scholarly books and journal articles in which a variety of cutting-edge biotechnologies
are excluded from the arbitrarily constructed category of GMOs.
rDNA just represents the next logical step in human agriculture

This review of agricultural biotechnology has attempted to convey a sense of the true breadth of technologies -
both traditional and modern - that comprise this rapidly evolving field. Moreover, the preceding deconstruction
of GMO-related terms has illustrated the arbitrary, imprecise, and constructed nature of the GMO category. Of
particular concern is the ultimately deleterious reproduction and validation of popular GMO discourse by
biotechnology specialists. Although rooted in the well-meaning desire to communicate in a common lexicon,
such reproduction further muddles popular understanding of the connection of transgenic biotechnology to
genetic transformations of crops resultant from other forms of modern biotechnology, from crop hybridization,
and more holistically from the 11,000-year human process of domesticating plants from their wild relatives.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 6
Pro- Bananas
Bananas are a staple food for some countries in Africa like Uganda, where they are not only a huge part
of the daily caloric intake but also the cultural fabric of everyday life.
Huizen, Scientific American; 7/1/14 (Jennifer; Scientific American; Super bananas enter U.S. market trials;
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/super-bananas-enter-u-s-market-trials/)
Ugandans love bananas. In fact, many receive 30 percent of their daily caloric intake from them, eating three to 11
bananas daily, or roughly 500 to 800 pounds annually. The consumption numbers apply roughly to Ugandan's neighbors,
as well, though to a lesser extent.
Hundreds of different varieties of bananas exist in the country, and they are harvested and eaten in a variety of ways,
including stewed, roasted and ground into flour for storage or use as a starch base. While brewing forms of the banana are
refined into alcohol, cooking bananas account for the bulk of the fruit consumed daily.
"Bananas are to Ugandans what potatoes are to Americans or rice is to East Asian countries," Dale said. "Every culture
has a staple starch crop, and in Uganda, that crop is bananas."
Matthew Schnurr, an associate professor of international development studies at Canada's Dalhousie University who has
been researching the social aspects of genetically modified crops, said bananas are more than just a food staple in Uganda;
they are part of the cultural fabric.
"The Ugandan word for food is actually the same as the word for a traditional meal made of the stewed banana: matooke,"
he said. Because of this, Schnurr said, physical attributes of the fruit itself are particularly important to Ugandans, so
altering the fruit could have social consequences.
Hundreds of thousands of Ugandans have vitamin A deficiency.

Vitamin A deficiencies are particularly common in East African countries. "Roughly 15 to 30 percent of the Ugandan
population under 5 and women of childbearing age suffer from a deficiency," Dale said. "These are fairly typical statistics
for developing countries."
With as few as 600,000 and as many as 2.5 million child deaths worldwide, and another 300,000 cases of blindness,
annually attributed to a lack of the vitamin, finding ways to insert the vitamin into staple foods has become popular.
Lack of genetic variation in conventional breeding makes bananas highly vulnerable to diseases.
In the wild, bananas are diploid like humans, but when fertile, they produce fruit chock-full of hard seeds with very little
flesh. Over time, the wild types have been selected and bred to be triploid, but this dynamic also has halted the banana's
genetic evolution.
Without proper seeds, the fruit must be cloned by grafting, meaning every new banana plant is a clone of its parent. Genes
are neither introduced nor removed from the banana population, greatly decreasing the diversity of the plant and making it
highly vulnerable to disease.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 7
Pro- Bananas
Super bananas have 10x the vitamin A as non-genetically modified bananas.
Dale's bananas will have roughly 10 times the vitamin A potential of traditional bananas thanks to beta-carotene additions,
but for these new bananas to truly become worthy of their title, they'll first have to be adopted by their target audience.
This is where science begins to take the back seat in the story.
Super banana 2.0 will have modifications to be disease, drought, and pest resistant with higher yields and
vitamin A without the risk of cross-pollination.
Dale is currently working with many other projectsinside and out of the countryto ultimately weave together a
drought-, pest- and disease-resistant, higher-yielding and beta-carotene-rich banana, a super-banana 2.0, so to speak. If
this banana combined farmer's yield interests with nutritional needs, it could be worthy of the title, helping save resources
and reducing waste.
There is also less contention over the environmental implications of the super-banana, he said. Super-bananas won't be
able to mix or spread their genes with wild varieties.
"This really wipes out the worry of genetic pollution many worry about with genetically modified crops," Schnurr said.
Improving health and food security frees up national and international funds for other projects.
Improving the health and food security of Ugandans and their neighbors also could reduce the aid needed for food or
nutritional supplementation, freeing up national and international funds for other projects, analysts said.
Super banana seeds will be free and create a model for the world.
As Africa is slotted to take on the bulk of the future world population's food demands, Dale's project is certainly not
unique in the region, but its fate could influence other initiatives.
"We're also offering this technology for free; anyone is encouraged to take it and use it or build off of it," Dale said. This
means the super-banana, unlike seed-bound crops, will never be bound or controlled by middlemen such as seed dealers.
"If we manage to pull this off, as with most technology, the next projects will be easier and cheaper, making bio-
fortification an option for many more people and many more crops," said Dale, reflecting.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 8
Pro- Bananas
Genetically modified bananas can resist wilting.
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research; 12/3/11 (Green pepper to the rescue of African
bananas; http://www.cgiar.org/consortium-news/pepper-rescue-african-banana/)
Even if a source of resistance were identified today, said Leena Tripathi, a molecular geneticist at IITA, developing a
truly resistant banana through conventional breeding would be extremely difficult and would take years, even decades,
given the crops sterility and its long gestation period. However, two proteins plant ferredoxin-like amphipathic protein
(pflp) and hypersensitive response-assisting protein (hrap) isolated from sweet green pepper have been shown to prevent
the spread of the Xanthomonas bacterium in banana.
The hrap and pflp genes work by rapidly killing the cells that come into contact with the disease-spreading bacteria,
essentially blocking the disease from spreading any further, Tripathi says. Hopefully, this will boost the arsenal
available to fight BXW and help save the livelihoods of millions of farmers in the Great Lakes region. This mechanism,
known as hypersensitivity response, also activates the defenses of surrounding and even distant uninfected banana plants,
leading to a systemic acquired resistance. These proteins can also provide effective control against other BXW-like
bacterial diseases in other parts of the world.
In 2010, scientists from IITA successfully transferred genes coding for these proteins into East African Highland bananas.
The transformed bananas have shown strong resistance to BXW in laboratory and screen house trials. The IITA team,
together with scientists from the National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO) of Uganda and in partnership with
the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), has begun evaluating the new banana lines in confined field
trials at NARO in Kawanda. The trials were authorized by the Ugandan National Biosafety Committee.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 9
Pro- Energy and Environment

Genetic engineering critical in order to improve bio-fuels and adapt to drought
Biello, associate editor, Jan. 2011 (David, Scientific American, vol. 306, no. 1, p.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tweaking-photosynthesis/)
For years researchers have been trying to figure out the best ways of making plants produce biofuels. But
there is a fundamental problem: photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert sunlight into stored
chemical energy, is highly inefficient. Plants turn only 1 to 3 percent of sunlight into carbohydrates. That is one
reason why so much land has to be devoted to growing corn for ethanol, among other bad biofuel ideas. And yet
plants also have many advantages: they absorb carbon dioxide at low concentrations directly from the
atmosphere, and each plant cell can repair itself when damaged.
Scientists have begun a new effort to soup up photosynthesis and help humans make greener fuel. The U.S.
Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, known as ARPA-e, has funded 10 such projects so far, most of
which use genetic engineering to tweak a plant's DNA-based instruction manual for growth, pigments, and the
like. The largest grant--more than $6 million--has gone to the University of Florida to alter pine trees to make
more turpentine, a potential fuel. Another project, led by Davis, Calif.-based Arcadia Biosciences, is aimed at
inducing fast-growing grasses such as switchgrass to produce vegetable oil for the first time in history.
In the future, engineers might create a black plant that would absorb all incoming sunlight or a plant that uses
different wavelengths of light to power the different steps of photosynthesis; plants now use the same
wavelengths for everything. An engineered biofuel-producing plant might even have smaller leaves, reducing
its own energy demands for growth, or it might no longer store energy as sugar but turn it directly into a
hydrocarbon molecule for human use as fuel.
The scientists in the program, dubbed PETRO, for plants engineered to replace oil, will also have to deal with
the challenges of increasingly limited water supplies for crops and public skepticism of genetically modified
organisms. And they will face competition from efforts to replace photosynthesis altogether, such as ARPA's
own Electrofuels program, which aims to induce microbes to make hydrocarbons, or from efforts to build
artificial leaves that use the electricity from so far cells to split water into oxygen and hydrogen for use as fuel.
For plants, simply being green is no longer enough.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 10
Pro- Farming & Health

The newest GM crops increase profits for farmers and can solve malnutrition in developing countries
Scientific American Online Editorial Board, Sept. 2013 (Scientific American Online, vol. 309, no. 3)
Antagonism toward GMO foods also strengthens the stigma against a technology that has delivered enormous
benefits to people in developing countries and promises far more. Recently published data from a seven-year
study of Indian farmers show that those growing a genetically modified crop increased their yield per acre by 24
percent and boosted profits by 50 percent. These farmers were able to buy more food -- and food of greater
nutritional value -- for their families.
To curb vitamin A deficiency -- which blinds as many as 500,000 children worldwide every year and kills half
of them -- researchers have engineered Golden Rice, which produces beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A.
Approximately three quarters of a cup of Golden Rice provides the recommended daily amount of vitamin A;
several tests have concluded that the product is safe. Yet Greenpeace and other anti-GMO organizations have
used misinformation and hysteria to delay the introduction of Golden Rice to the Philippines, India and China.
More such products are in the works, but only with public support and funding will they make their way to
people's plates. An international team of researchers has engineered a variety of cassava -- a staple food for 600
million people -- with 30 times the usual amount of beta-carotene and four times as much iron, as well as higher
levels of protein and zinc. Another group of scientists has created corn with 169-fold the typical amount of beta-
carotene, six times as much vitamin C and double the folate.
Studies prove that GM crops increase efficiency and farmers profits

Kariyawasam, Senior Lecturer in Business Law, Griffith University & Adjunct Research Fellow, July
2010 (Kanchana, Pacific Rim Law Journal, vol. 19, no. 3, p. 467)
It is believed that this technology has the potential to revolutionize agriculture and to achieve long-term
agricultural growth and food security. GM crops have been proven to enhance agricultural productivity so that
farmers are able to produce more crops from the same area of land. In fact, a study indicated that biotechnology
helped to increase America's agricultural production by 8.34 billion pounds on 123 million acres in 2005, an
increase of thirty percent in com yield since 1996, and a twenty-two percent increase in soybeans. Worldwide,
conservative estimates indicate that biotech crops increased farmers' income by $4.8-6.5 billion in 2004,
contributing to a cumulative gain of nineteen to twenty-seven billion dollars between 1996 and 2004. By
transferring genes from one organism to another, genetic engineering can overcome the productivity constraints
of conventional plant breeding, enabling new varieties of crops to be developed at a faster rate than was
possible using traditional methods.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 11
Pro- Food Shortages Now

Status quo agriculture insufficient to meet burgeoning needs, food shortages increasing now
Khan et al, Biotechnology and Food Research Centre, 6-1-2012 (S. J., Pakistan Journal of Science, vol. 64, no.
2, p. 6)
World population is increasing day by day which is a threat to food security. According to the United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) widely accepted definition of Food security is that food is
available at all times; that all persons have means of access to it; that it is nutritionally adequate in terms of
quantity, quality and variety; and that it is acceptable within the given culture. Only when all these conditions
are in place can a population be considered food secure (Mustafa et al., 1999; WHO, 1991). To maintain an
adequate supply of food for the tremendous annual increase in population between now and 2020 and beyond is
a formidable challenge to the scientific community (Bao-Rong and Allison, 2005). To achieve the goal of
providing food to everyone world scientists are working to develop new technologies which create some food
safety issues (Brown and Funk, 2008). In spite of the advances in food grain production, over 800 million
people, mostly from the developing countries go to bed hungry every day, while chronic hunger takes the lives
of 2400 people every day (Khush, 2005). Over 13 million children under the age of five die because of hunger
and malnutrition, whereas, one out of five babies is born underweight (Borlaug, 2000). Conventional processes
of crop breeding are insufficient to meet the demands of growing global population, especially in developing
countries. The combination of genetic engineering with improved plant breeding offers a solution to the demand
for food security (Khush, 2005).
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 12
Pro- Forests
GM technology key to saving forests and timber industry
Charman, independent investigative journalist, May/June 2005 (Karen, World Watch,vol. 18, no. 3, p.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/576)
Like their colleagues in agriculture, proponents of forestry biotech use the rationale of looming scarcity and
environmental preservation to argue their cause. In a 2000 Foreign Affairs article widely quoted in forestry
circles, David Victor and Jesse Ausubel offer two visions for the future. In one, "quaint and inefficient
agriculture and forestry" lead to a "Skinhead Earth" scenario, where the planet's forest cover shrinks by 200
million hectares by 2050, and lumberjacks regularly shave 40 percent of what remains. Alternatively, "efficient
farmers and foresters" who grow "more food and fiber in ever-smaller areas" herald a "Great Restoration" that
adds 200 million hectares of forest by 2050 and requires cutting only 12 percent of the world's woodlands to
meet global demand for forest products.
Genetically engineered trees grown in intensively managed plantations, or "fast forests," fit into the latter
scenario. Today, forest plantations produce one quarter of the world's industrial wood. Though still a tiny
percentage of the Earth's nearly 4 billion hectares of forests, they are expanding rapidly, especially in Asia and
South America. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, between 1990 and 2000,
plantations increased 51 percent from 124 million hectares to 187 million hectares. At current rates of planting,
they are projected to produce one billion cubic meters of wood--half of the world's supply--by 2050.
The American South, the nation's wood basket since the late 1980s, produces 15 percent of the world's pulp and
paper products, primarily from 13 million hectares of intensively managed loblolly pine plantations. Timber
companies have invested up to $1 billion for each of the pulp and paper mills that pump out reams of paper,
newsprint, and cardboard, says Conner Bailey, a rural sociologist at Auburn University who studies the timber
industry. Yet mounting competition from low-cost pulp and paper producers in places like Indonesia and Brazil
is putting these investments at risk, because the mills aren't easily converted to other uses. The industry's
solution to safeguarding their profits? Increase efficiency through technological innovation, including
by genetically engineering the raw material.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 13
Pro- Health
GM crops show the potential to solve diseases while showing no allergenic effects
Assam Tribune, 6-9-2013 (p. Lexis, retrieved 10-18-14)
The GM technology helps in the development of virus resistance in crops like papaya, squash, potato and many
other crops and viral resistance has also been transferred to potatoes with replicase enzyme from the potato leaf
roll virus. By expression of multiple viral proteins, the plants will develop resistance against multiple viruses.
By using coat proteins, resistance has also been introduced into tomatoes, water melon, barley, sweet potato and
other crops. Already approved for commercial uses are transgenic corn, rice, rapeseed, soybean, sugarbeets,
cotton, etc., tolerant to glyphosate or bromoxynil which are widely used herbicides. The development of high
yielding oil palms genotypes, potatoes and tomatoes with high solid per cent, higher levels of nutrients like
vitamin A, C and E are now a reality. The high amino acids content in corn, soybeans, potato, etc., along with
lower levels of saturated fats in oil seed crops could be achieved.
Some of the advantages of GM crops and GM foods are: As they are made resistant to pests, they reduce the use
of pesticides thereby reducing environmental pollution. The GM foods are of improved nutritional quality with
improved flavour, better taste and quality. Furthermore, GM foods possess better processing and preservation
quality. GM foods can help in preventing and curing disease. Plant-derived antigenic proteins can delay or
prevent the onset of disease in animals. GM foods boost immunity and develop inbuilt vaccines for livestock
and poultry.
GM foods have been available for about a decade only. The worldwide consumption of GM foods with no
adverse effects on human health was reported in the peer reviewed scientific literatures. Nevertheless, long term
effects are theoretically possible. Currently, safety assessment of GM foods should be the focus of risk
assessment, not the process by which it was produced. Food allergies affect 1 to 2% of the population and
virtually all food allergens are proteins. There is no known case of allergic reactions caused by marketed foods
derived from GM plants. There is no evidence that transgenic markers currently in use pose a health risk to
humans or domestic animals.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 14
Pro- Opposition Bad

Media and public hysteria drive up costs and force genetic research toward multinationals
Ostrander, staff-writer, 9-1-2014 (Madeline, The Nation, vol. 299, no. 9-10, p. 26)
When I spoke with Bradford, he blamed anti-GMO activists, in part, for making R&D difficult: Those groups
have driven all of the biotechnology work into the companies they hate, he said. Theyve made it impossible
for anybody else by raising a stink. Even if the regulatory bars dont seem so high, [activist groups] will sue.
Only big companies like Monsanto can afford the legal and regulatory costs to test GM varieties and bring them
to market, Bradford argues.
Neither biotech researchers nor GMO opponents think the current regulatory process is working well. Anti-
GMO groups insist that the Food and Drug Administrations approval process is too opaque and leaves GMO
testing in the hands of food companies. Biotech researchers counter that, in practice, the FDA insists on
exhaustive and expensive testing far beyond what has been required for any other kind of food crop, even
though years of research suggest that the technology of genetic engineering is safe. The American Association
for the Advancement of Science, for example, has announced that foods containing ingredients from [GM]
crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding.
Bradford and others insist that it doesnt make scientific sense to single out GM crops for special testing when
other, far less precise methods of crop developmentincluding blasting plants with radiation arent subject to
such rigorous scrutiny.
GM opposition gives control of research to multinationals which stifles innovation

The high cost of GMO field-testing may explain why the only genetically modified crops that have made it to
market are, in the words of environmental scientist Jonathan Foley, very disappointing and come with some
big problems.
GMO efforts may have started off with good intentions to improve food security, Foley wrote in a column in
the science magazine Ensia in February, but they ended up in crops that were better at improving profits.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 15
Pro- Pesticides
GM crops reduce the need for pesticides and other chemicals
2, p. 6)
These days, genetically engineered crops appear as the most recent technological advances to help boost food
production, mainly by addressing the production constraints with minimum costs and environmental pollution.
Transgenic crops offer significant production advantages such as decreased and easier herbicide and/or
pesticide use (Baker and Preston, 2003). This has a double advantage; first, it reduces the cost of production and
second, it escapes environmental pollution due to the indiscriminate use of pesticides and herbicides. Moreover,
production of transgenic plants using transformation technology can overcome the limitations of species
incompatibility and the desirable genes can be incorporated into elite plants with very little disturbance of the
original genetic constitution (Liang and Gao, 2001). According to Uzogara (2000) and Sharma et al. (2002)
genetic engineering has the potential to produce improved varieties in terms of quality and yield traits, more
quickly than traditional breeding.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 16
Pro- Pests Now

Pests cost ag industry over $60 billion annually, only GMOs can solve
Kaplan, prof. and head of the Division of Bioethics at NYUs Langone Medical Center, 9/13/13 (Arthur L,
Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 60, no. 2, p. B4)
But at the same time, the Times also noted that commercial farming of oranges and grapefruit is in dire peril
from an insect-borne bacteria that causes a disease known as "citrus greening." An uncontrollable fungal blight
is destroying the banana crop around the world. Coffee rust is knocking out plants in Central and South
America. Diseases like rice blast, soybean rust, stem rust in wheat, corn smut in maize, and late blight in
potatoes destroy at least 125 million tons each year of the world's top five foods. The damage done to rice,
wheat, and maize alone costs global agriculture $60-billion per year. The effects are especially catastrophic in
the developing world, where 1.4 billion people rely on these foods.
There is a way to get rid of such otherwise unstoppable plant diseases, which waste scarce resources, bring
about malnutrition and starvation for hundreds of millions, and cost the world economy billions of dollars:
genetically-modified organisms.
Specifically, engineering plants to resist the diseases. So why don't the folks bearing the bad news about GMOs
make a connection to the huge problems that could be fixed by genetic engineering? The answer is the bungling
mismanagement of a potentially useful breakthrough technology by the GMO industry, alongside market forces
that produce GMOs friendly to pesticides rather than hostile to fungi.
On balance, GMOs offer better solution than organics

Kaplan, prof. and head of the Division of Bioethics at NYUs Langone Medical Center, 9/13/13 (Arthur L,
Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 60, no. 2, p. B5)
WHICH BRINGS US back to all those diseases and bugs that have figured out ways to defeat our herbicides,
pesticides, fungicides, insecticides, and microbicides while thoroughly enjoying global warming, war, and
human deforestation. Chemical agriculture has no answer. Nor does organic farming.
The only path toward a continuous supply of a variety of foods, more nutritious food, cheaper food, and an
environmentally friendlier agriculture is the genetic engineering of plants and seeds. Critics of genetic
engineering need to start to separate the technology from its miserable history. Altering genes, which is going
on in medicine as a powerful tool against disease, has to be deployed in the same way in the plant world.
The route to getting rid of chemical agriculture can run through organic farming. But it must also incorporate
genetic modification, lest entire industries, such as those providing orange juice or coffee products--and their
jobs--disappear, and those who eke out a living trying to farm on a warming planet, short on water, with many
blight-threatened crops, starve.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 17
Pro- Pigs
Transgenic mice and pigs have already been made with omega-3 that can prevent numerous diseases in
people with meat dominant diets.
Lai, et. Al.; April 2006 (Liangxue, Jing Kang, Rongfeng Li, Jingdong Wang, William Witt, Hwan Yul Yong, Yanghong Hao,
David Wax, Clinton Murphy, August Rieke, Melissa Samuel, Michael Linville, Scott Korte, Rhobert Evans, Thomas Starzl, Randall
Prather & Yifan Dai; Nature Biotechnology; 24:4; Generation of cloned transgenic pigs rich in omega-3 fatty acids)
The health benefits of long chain n-3 fatty acids, found mainly in fish oils, are well recognized. Meat products normally
contain small amounts of n-3 fatty acids and large amounts of n-6 fatty acids. Diets with a high ratio of n-6/n-3 fatty acids
may contribute to the prevalence of many diseases, such as coronary artery disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis and
depression2. The high n-6/n-3 ratio in meat products is largely due to the extensive use of grains rich in n-6 fatty acids but
deficient in 11-3 fatty acids as animal feed. In addition, livestock cannot convert n-6 fatty acids into /1-3 fatty acids
because they lack an /1-3 fatty acid desaturase gene, such as the fat-l gene found in the roundworm C. clegans3. Earlier
work in transgenic mice carrying the fat-! gene has suggested the feasibility of creating fat-l transgenic livestock capable
of producing n-3 fatty acids from the corresponding n-6 fatty acids4. Here we report the cloning of fat-1 transgenic pigs
that produce high levels of /1-3 fatty acids in their tissues and organs.
Transgenic pigs have a 23% reduction in n-6 fatty acids that cause many diseases and three times higher
rates of omega-3 fatty acids compared to wild, nontransgenic pigs.
Lai, et. Al.; April 2006 (Liangxue, Jing Kang, Rongfeng Li, Jingdong Wang, William Witt, Hwan Yul Yong, Yanghong Hao,
David Wax, Clinton Murphy, August Rieke, Melissa Samuel, Michael Linville, Scott Korte, Rhobert Evans, Thomas Starzl, Randall
Prather & Yifan Dai; Nature Biotechnology; 24:4; Generation of cloned transgenic pigs rich in omega-3 fatty acids)
Piglets nos. 2, 4 and 5 were killed at 3 weeks of age because they developed symptoms of heart failure caused primarily
by an interatrial septal defect. This defect has been reported in other cloned pigs6 and appears to be a function of the
cloning process (incomplete nuclear reprogramming) rather than the hfat-l transgene: transgenic piglets nos. 8 and 9 did
not have cardiac defects whereas nontransgenic piglet no. 2 showed the same symptoms as transgenic piglets nos. 4 and 5.
In addition, hfat-l transgenic mice produced by pronuclei microiniection4 have been bred for many generations and show
no heart failure symptoms (Kang et al., unpublished data). This speculation was further supported by characterization of a
litter of eight healthy male piglets that were cloned from muscle fibroblasts isolated from piglet no. 4. As expected, all of
them were hfat-l transgenic. However, none showed heart failure symptoms at 3 weeks of age. Table 1 shows the fatty
acid profiles of tail samples from these eight transgenic piglets and eight age-matched, wild-type, control piglets. The
concentrations of total n-3 fatty acids in tail tissues of the transgenic piglets were threefold higher than in the wild-type
piglets. Among them, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) showed a 15-fold and fourfold
increase, respectively. On the other hand, the concentration of total n-6 fatty acids in the transgenic piglets was reduced by
23%. Consequently, there was a fivefold reduction of the n-6/n-3 ratio in hfat-l transgenic piglets compared with wild-
type piglets (from 8.52 to 1.69, P < 0.001) (Table 1).
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 18
Pro- Staph Infections

Transgenic cows resist staph infections that do billions of dollars of damage to the dairy industry every
year.
Wall, et. Al.; April 2005 (Robert, Anne Powell, Max Paape, D Kerr, Douglas Bannerman, V Pursel, K Wells, Neil Talbot, & H
Hawk; Nature Biotechnology; 23:4; Genetically Enhanced Cows Resist Intramammary Staphylococcus Aureus Infection)
Mastitis, the most consequential disease in dairy cattle, costs the US dairy industry billions of dollars annually. To test the
feasibility of protecting animals through genetic engineering, a transgene encoding the endopeptidase, lysostaphin, was
introduced into cattle. Transgenic cows produced lysostaphin at concentrations ranging from 0.9 to 14 ug/ml in their milk.
In vitro assays demonstrated the milk's ability to kill Staphylococcus aureus, exhibiting bioequivalence of approximately
15% of recombinant lysostaphin produced in bacteria. Intramammary infusions of S. aureus were administered at peak,
mid- and late stages of lactation to three transgenic and 10 non-transgenic cows. Milk somatic cell increases, indicative of
infection, were observed in all of the challenged non-transgenic cows but in none of the transgenic animals. Measures of
innate immune responses such as a rise in body temperature and induction of hepatically-derived acute phase proteins
were observed in non-transgenic animals but not in the transgenics. Protection appeared to be dose dependent, with a
predicted threshold of expression of 3 ug/ml of milk required for complete protection. Genetic engineering appears to be a
viable tool for protecting against debilitating disease and improving animal well-being in livestock.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 19
Pro- AT: Allergens

Status quo procedures flag and check allergen transfer
DeFrancesco, senior editor, Sept. 2013 (Laurie, Nature Biotechnology, vol. 31, no. 9, p.794)
Whereas the incidence of food allergies are on the rise (CDC reports the incidence of food allergies in children
under 18 rose from 3.4% to 5.1% between 1997 and 2011), the cause of the rise, as well as whether it is linked
to new allergens or existing ones, is not clear. However, the possibility of introducing a food allergen exists in
all new foods (e.g., kiwi fruit, introduced into the American diet rather recently, turned out to be allergenic), and
is not limited to genetically modified foods.
Neither allergenicity or toxicity has been a problem, according to Alan McHughen, cooperative extension
specialist in biotechnology for sustainable agriculture at the University of California, Riverside, who was a
member of a panel convened in 2004 by the National Research Council of the US National Academy of
Sciences to assess safety testing of transgenic foods. We say in [the resulting report] that we were unable to
identify any actual incidence of harm from the consumption of genetically engineered foods, and during our
public input session, we requested people to bring us evidence. None of those were borne out. However, this
group did find the potential for unintended changes to be higher for genetically modified crops than most other
modification techniques.
Status quo procedures check spread of allergens

DeFrancesco, senior editor, Sept. 2013 (Laurie, Nature Biotechnology, vol. 31, no. 9, p.794)
A frequently cited example from the 1990s generally comes up when discussing the ability to detect whether a
newly created food is allergenic. A methionine-rich protein (2S albumin) from the Brazil nut was inserted into
soybean by scientists at the University of Nebraska and the agbiotech company Pioneer Hybrid of Johnston,
Iowa, to improve the nutritional balance of soy for use as poultry feed (and reduce the need for costly feed
supplements). However, the engineered soy plant was found to cause skin reactions in people allergic to Brazil
nuts, which confirmed that an allergen can be transferred from one plant to another. This finding not only
eliminated the plant from the product pipeline before any harm was donea testament to the ability of the
available tests to detect introduced allergensbut also enabled researchers to identify the source of the allergy
in Brazil nuts, which, before this, was unknown.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 20
Pro- AT: Indian Cotton

GM cotton in India has been a success; it does not have a proven link to suicides among farmers
Kloor, freelance journalist, winter 2014 (Keith, Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 30, no. 2, p. 66)
But there is one problem with this story. Bt cotton has been all the rage in India since it was officially approved
in 2002. The technology has been adopted by over 90% of Indian cotton farmers. Multiple studies point to
significant reduction in pesticide spraying and subsequent cost savings for cotton farmers. (Similar findings
attest to the same in China, where Bt cotton accounts for 80% of its crop.) India's agricultural minister said in
2012 that the country "has harvested an average of 5.1 million tons of cotton per year, which is well above the
highest production of 3 million tons before the introduction of Bt cotton." India is the world's second-biggest
cotton producer, behind China.
Apparently, Indian farmers have come to overwhelmingly embrace genetically modified cotton. Yet there is an
enduring belief that Bt cotton has failed in India, with tragic consequences.
This failure, the story goes, has resulted in burdensome debt and caused more than a quarter-million Indian
farmers to take their own lives. Ronald Herring, a political scientist at Cornell University, has studied the
seeming paradox and written on it extensively. As he observed in one paper, "It is hard to imagine farmers
spreading a technology that is literally killing them."
General social problems are most responsible for Indian farmer suicides
Kloor, freelance journalist, winter 2014 (Keith, Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 30, no. 2, p. 66)
As in much of the developing world, small-holder Indian farmers (those with less than two hectares of land) are
most vulnerable to the vagaries of weather and climate change. They also have little access to institutional
credit. As the World Bank has noted: "While India has a wide network of rural finance institutions, many of the
rural poor remain excluded, due to inefficiencies in the formal finance institutions, the weak regulatory
framework, high transaction costs, and risks associated with lending to agriculture." Consequently, when
purchasing seed, fertilizer, and other crop-related items, poor farmers often turn to private money lenders who
charge high loan rates.
This financial burden is commonly cited for the wave of farmer suicides that the mediaparticularly in India
have been reporting the past decade. However, researchers studying the phenomenon also note that it has struck
unevenly in cotton-growing regions of central and southern India, where the social and economic Stressors
vary. For example, a 2012 paper in The Lancet that surveyed India's suicide mortality rate noted: "Studies from
south India have shown that the most common contributors to suicide are a combination of social problems,
such as interpersonal and family problems and financial difficulties, and pre-existing mental illness."
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 21
Pro- AT: Unsafe

Consensus of studies conclude that GMOs are safe to eat
Bennett, staff-writer @ Bloomberg Business Week, 7-7-14 (Drake, Bloomberg Business Week, p. 54-55)
While the debate about the impact of GM crops on the environment continues, the question of their effect on
human health looks increasingly settled. The National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical
Association, the World Health Organization, Britains Royal Society, the European Commission, and the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, among others, have all surveyed the substantial
research literature and found no evidence that the GM foods on the market today are unsafe to eat. One of the
few dissenting research papers, a 2012 study in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology that found tumors in
rats fed modified maize, was retracted by the journal last fall after questions were raised about the researchers
methodology.
On balance, science community agrees that benefits of GMOs outweigh the risks
Kariyawasam, Senior Lecturer in Business Law, Griffith University & Adjunct Research Fellow, July
2010 (Kanchana, Pacific Rim Law Journal, vol. 19, no. 3, p. 467)
Despite the negative publicity that genetic engineering has received, many people are strongly supportive of
genetically modified crops and believe the benefits gained from the technology outweigh the associated risks.
One commentator has argued that, "[m]any of the issues that determined the GM debate did not in fact originate
from risk based on a scientific understanding, but rather from a plethora of other arguments." That same
commentator points out that, "risk and its perception is a social phenomenon rather than a scientifically
determinable factor."
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 22
Pro- AT: Unsafe

GMOs already ubiquitous, scientific community confirms there is no risk
Charlebois, Associate Dean of the College of Management and Economics at the Univ. of Guelph, 11-13-
12 (Sylvain, The Kitchener-Waterloo (Ontario) Record, p. A11)
Genetically modified organisms exist for a number of legitimate reasons, and the outright ban of
these organisms in food, as some have suggested, would be unwise. First, current estimates suggest between 50
and 70 per cent of food sold in Canadian grocery stores contain some genetically engineered ingredients. In
short, they are everywhere, and the reason for this is quite simple; evidence shows
that genetically modified seeds make agriculture more efficient, and therefore significantly impacts food prices.
Some studies suggest that the average grocery bill for Canadians could go up as much as $400 per year should
the use of genetically modified ingredients becomes prohibited. Such a threshold keeps many Canadians from
being food insecure.
Second, to suggest genetically modified ingredients pose a threat to consumers is scientifically precipitous.
Most studies that draw this conclusion are either methodologically unsound or contain flawed data sets. Thus
far, science has demonstrated that products containing genetically modified organisms are perfectly safe for
human consumption. Since they have only been on the market since 1994, however, more research is obviously
warranted.
We should not be surprised by numerous interest groups which remain adamantly against the biotechnology
industry and their products. For years, companies in this sector were only focused on selling the virtues of their
technology to farmers. As a result, consumers were completely left out of the learning curve, and were left to
deal with the spectre of the biotechnological unknown on their own.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 23
Con- Biodiversity
Wild salmon genetic diversity is threatened nowtransgenic salmon would magnify risks
Vandelac and Caron, Univ. of QuebecMontreal, April 2009 (Louise and Joseph, Environmental Science and
Policy, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 172)
According to World Wildlife Fund and the Atlantic Salmon Federation (WWF and ASF, 2003), wild salmon
stocks and biodiversity are in danger. Migrations for reproduction in rivers are increasingly disturbed by
installations, pollution and the genetic drift due to escaped farmed salmon. In the outer Hardanger fjord on the
west coast of Norway, 86% of the fish caught during 2003 were escaped farmed fish (WWF, 2005). The waste
from salmon in marine cages or in fresh water hatcheries presents major problems, some of which are of the
same type as those foreseeable with transgenic salmon.
Wild salmon traits show great genetic variability, a source of biodiversity which manifest in the form of many
quite distinct populations in sea areas and in rivers. Farmed salmon, on the contrary, are raised and reproduced
with an objective of genetic standardization, based on an aquacultural trait of interest such as better growth, less
aggressiveness, or reduced resistance to pathology (Gausen and Moen, 1991). The crossing of wild populations
with farmed salmon thus introduces new genetic combinations, the net effect of which may harm adaptation to
the particular conditions of each geographic area, even of each river (Skaala, 1995). Genetic selection by
stockbreeders in general produces salmon much less adapted for the search of food and reproduction in natural
environments (DFO, 1999). Fitness reduction and the potential extinction of wild populations of Atlantic
salmon are the result of interactions with escaped farm salmon, if only because the former are 48 times fewer in
number than the latter (McGinnity et al., 2003). In wild salmon found in rivers in the Northwest of Ireland, two
genetic markers showed a crossing with Atlantic salmon escaped from marine cages anchored in a remote area
(Clifford et al., 1998).
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 24
Con- Chemicals
Most GMOs have not been proven safe and they lead to even higher uses of pesticides and herbicides
Smith, nutrition writer, Oct. 2014 (Melissa Diane, Better Nutrition, vol. 76, no. 10, p. 52)
The FDA doesnt conduct safety studies on GM foods; it leaves that up to the companies that make them. But
animal research points to serious health risks from eating GM foods, including infertility, immune system
problems, gastrointestinal problems, organ changes, and tumors.
Plus, GMOs threaten our environment, food security, and agricultural system. Most genetically modified crops
on the market are sprayed with large amounts of herbicide, which pollute our land and water and get into our
food. Chemical companies have been purchasing more of the worlds seeds, genetically modifying them, and
patenting them, so a handful of companies control our seed and food supplyand farmers can no longer save
and pass down those patented seeds.
There are many health, environmental, farmers rights, and food security reasons to avoid GMOs. Perhaps tops
on the list are that GM foods benefit the chemical companies that make them, not us, and the only reason most
of us have been eating them is because we didnt know we were!
Pesticide-resistant genes only create the need for more toxic pesticides
The explosion of the Roundup Ready market may have environmental upsides. One biotech researcher I spoke
with noted that the use of Roundup Ready seed has reduced reliance on even more toxic agricultural chemicals,
and US Department of Agriculture data concur. Roundup is considered more benign than many herbicides: it
tends not to linger in the soil and is sometimes used even in places like nature preserves to beat back aggressive
weeds. But few chemicals intended to poison plants or pests are entirely harm-free, and new research indicates
that Roundup could be more damaging than previously thought: it may contribute to miscarriages and interfere
with fetal development. And around the country, weeds that are resistant to Roundup are proliferating. Dow
Agrosciences, a division of Dow Chemical and another major player in agribusiness, is about to release a new
generation of genetically modified crops that tolerate a more powerful and persistent herbicide 2,4-D, a
potential neurotoxin.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 25
Con- Democracy
Citizens have been excluded from the decision-making process regarding GM food
The FDAs GMO labeling policy is illustrative. Despite overwhelming support for labeling of GMOs, the
regulatory scheme has not and cannot integrate these public opinions into policy because GMOs are
substantially similar to conventional foods under the adopted standard. The regulatory schemes reliance on
specialized perspectives has prompted the observation that laypeople have been cut out of the debate, despite
their stakeholder status. The problem lies in the fact that the government has implicitly or covertly adopted a
set of normative views, sidestepping the democratic process by using policy documents like the Framework to
direct agency regulation.
Regulation process deflects public scrutiny

As long as regulatory agencies can frame their decisions as science-based, agency experts can simply preclude
non-experts and non-scientists from participating in government decision-making. The public cannot hold these
scientists accountable for misinformed, under-informed, or biased decisions. Even well-intentioned scientists
are ill-qualified to make determinations about the types and levels of risk acceptable to the public because non-
scientific issues lie outside of their training and expertise.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 26
Con- Dependency
Transgenic foods, like fish, only increase monocultures and food dependency
Policy, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 179)
Last but not least, appropriation of ownership over life forms, through patents, is contributing to widespread
debate which should integrate of course ethical considerations. Patents on life forms promote the
artificialization of ecosystems and the possibility of establishing monopoly control over parts of it. Moreover,
such biotechnologies support a two-speed aquaculture, which in the long run will be unfavourable to small-scale
farms and the poor countries. Whereas these farmers should continue polyculture, with the objective of
maintaining their self-sufficiency, the adoption of aquatic GMOs would push these farmers towards dependency
on multinationals, as observed with agriculture farmers (Friends of Earth, 2007). This could be especially true if
sterilization was systematically adopted as one solution to environmental threats, a scenario which some
companies and countries have adopted in agriculture, with the sterile seeds known as terminator or the
genetic use restriction technologies (GURTS).
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 27
Con- Environment
GMOs pose a laundry list of environmental hazards
Khan, Biotechnology and Food Research Centre, 6-1-2012 (S. J., Pakistan Journal of Science, vol. 64, no. 2, p 7)
Toxicity to Soil: The industrys marketing pitch to the public is that bioengineered seeds and plants will help the
environment by reducing toxic herbicide/pesticide use (Benbrook, 2009). Isolated examples are given, but the
overall reality is exactly opposite. According to an article by Goldburg (1992) scientists predict that herbicide
use will triple as a result of GM products.
Soil sterility and Pollution: In Oregon, scientists found GM bacterium (klebsiella planticola) meant to break
down wood chips, corn stalks and lumber wastes to produce ethanol - with the post-process waste to be used as
compost - rendered the soil sterile. It killed essential soil nutrients, robbing the soil of nitrogen and killed
nitrogen capturing fungi. Professor Guenther Stotzky of New York University conducted research showing the
toxins that were lethal to Monarch butterfly (a beneficial insect) are also released by the roots to produce soil
pollution (Nathan, 2009). The pollution was found to last up to 8 months in soil with depressed microbial
activity (Conner et al., 2003).
Extinction of Seed Varieties: A few years ago Time magazine referred to the massive trend by large
corporations to buy up small seed companies, destroying any competing stock, and replacing it with their
patented or controlled brands as "the Death of Birth." Monsanto additionally has had farmers sign contracts not
to save their seeds - forfeiting what has long been a farmer's birthright to remain guardians of the blueprints of
successive life. (Taylor and Tick, 2003)
Superweeds: It has been shown that genetically modified Bt endotoxin remains in the soil at least 18 months
(Lappe and Bailey, 1998) and can be transported to wild plants creating superweeds - resistant to butterfly,
moth, and beetle pests potentially disturbing the balance of nature. Another study showed 20 times more
genetic leakage with GM plants or a dramatic increase in the flow of genes to outside species.
Destruction of Forest Life: Monsanto has developed plans with the New Zealand Forest Research Agency to
create still more lethal tree plantations. These super deadly trees are non-flowering, herbicide-resistant and with
leave exuding toxic chemicals to kill caterpillars and other surrounding insects destroying the ecology of
forest life. This kind of development has been called "death-engineering" rather than "life-" or "bioengineering."
More ominously pollen from such trees, because of their height, has traveled as much as 400 miles or 600
kilometers - roughly 1/5 of the distance across the United States.(Losey et al.,1999)
Superpests: Lab tests indicate that common plant pests such as cotton boll worms will evolve into Superpests
immune from the BT sprays used by organic farmers (Bates et al., 2005). The recent epidemic in North Carolina
and Georgia seems linked to bioengineered plants that the bugs love. Now seed companies like Monsanto, on
their Farm source website, is recommending spraying stink bug affected areas with methyl parathion, one of the
deadliest chemicals. (Pollack, 2003)
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 28
Con- Farming
GMOs hurt farms and food production, multiple reasons
2, p. 9)
General Economic Harm to Small Family Farms: GM seeds sell at a premium, unless purchased in large
quantities, which creates a financial burden for small farmers. Many GM products, such as rBGH, seem to offer
a boom for dairy farmers - helping their cows produce considerably more milk. But the end result has been a
lowering of prices, again putting the smaller farmers out of business (Bucchini and Goldman, 2002).
Losing Purity: At the present rate of proliferation of GM foods, within 50-100 years, the majority of organic
foods may no longer be organic. (Nathan, 2009).
Terminator Technology: Plants are being genetically produced with no annual replenishing of perennial seeds
so farmers will become wholly dependent on the seed provider. (Nathan, 2009)
Less Diversity, Quality, Quantity and Profit: One of the most misleading hopes raised by GM technology firms
is that they will solve the worlds hunger. Some high technology agriculture does offer higher single crop
yields. But organic farming techniques, with many different seeds inter-planted between rows, generally offer
higher per acre yields. This applies best to the family farm, which feeds the majority of the Third World. It
differs from the large-scale, monocrop commercial production of industrialized nations. Even for commercial
fields, results are questionable (David, 2001).
Economic, Political and Social Threats
Monopolization of Food Production: The rapid and radical change in the human diet was made possible by
quick mergers and acquisitions that moved to control segments of the US farming industry. Although there are
approximately 1500 seed companies worldwide, about two dozen control more than 50% of the commercial
seed heritage of our planet. (Nathan, 2009)
Impact on Long -Term Food Supply: If food production is monopolized, the future of that supply becomes
dependent on the decisions of a few companies and the viability of their seed stocks. (David, 2001)
Biocolonization: In past centuries, countries managed to overrun others by means of fierce or technologically
superior armies. The combined control of genetic and agricultural resources holds a yet more powerful weapon
for the invasion of cultures. For only when a person loses food self-sufficiency do they become wholly
dependent and subservient? (Taylor and Tick, 2003)
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 29
Con- Genetic Pollution

Genetic pollution means that the effects of GM crops are invisible, irreversible, and unnatural
2, p. 9)
Genetic Pollution: Carrying GM pollen by wind, rain, birds, bees, insects, fungus, bacteria the entire chain of
life becomes involved. Once released, unlike chemical pollution, there is no cleanup or recall possible. Pollen
from a single GM tree has been shown to travel 1/5th of the length of the United States. Thus there is no check
for such genetic pollution. Experiments in Germany have shown that engineered oilseed rape can have its pollen
move over 200 meters. As a result German farmers have sued to stop field trials in Berlin. A recent study in
England showed that despite the tiny amount of GM plantings there (33,750 acres over two years compared to
70-80 million acres per year in the US) wild honey was found to be contaminated. This means that bees are
likely to pollinate organic plants and trees with transgenic elements. Many other insects transport the by-
products of GM plants throughout our environment. (Nathan, 2009).
Disturbance of Natures Boundaries: Genetic engineers argue that their creations are no different than
crossbreeding. However, natural boundaries are violated crossing animals with plants, strawberries with fish,
grains, nuts, seeds, and legumes with bacteria, viruses, and fungi; or like human genes with swine. (Nathan,
2009)
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 30
Con- Health
GM crops pose myriad health hazards
2, p. 7-8)
Debates over the transformation technology have been, and still are, in many parts of the world very controversial and address ethical,
human and animal health related concerns, food safety and the possible impact on the environment. To reap the many potential benefits from transgenic
crops providing food security these crops must be safe to humans and the environment ensuring food safety (Jaffe, 2004). Some of the major health and
environmental hazards, genetic uncertainties, impact on farming, control and dependency, economic, political and social threats created by GM food/crops are as
listed below.
Recorded Deaths: In 1989, dozens of Americans died and several thousands were afflicted and impaired by a genetically altered version of the food supplement
L-tryptophan. A settlement of $2 billion dollars was paid by Showa Denko, Japans third largest chemical company (EmslieSmith et al., 1994).
Near-deaths from Allergic Reactions: In 1996, Brazil nut genes were inserted into soybeans by a company called Pioneer Hi-Bred. Some individuals,
however, are so allergic to this nut; that they go into anaphylactic shock (similar to a severe bee sting reaction) which can cause death. Animal tests confirmed the peril
and fortunately the product was removed from the market before any fatalities occurred. (Jeffery, 2007)
Direct Cancer and Degenerative Disease Links: In 1994, FDA approved Monsanto's rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone), a genetically
produced growth hormone, for injection into dairy cows even though scientists warned the resulting increase of IGF-1 (Insulin-like Growth Factor-1), a potent
chemical hormone, is linked to 400-500% higher risks of human breast, prostate, and colon cancer. The contention was that the hormone may be killed by
pasteurization. But in research conducted by two Monsanto scientists, Ted Elasser and Brian McBride, only 19% of the hormone was destroyed despite boiling milk for
30 minutes when normal pasteurization is 30 seconds. Canada, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand have banned rBGH. The UN's Codex Alimentarius, an
international health standards setting body, refused to certify rBGH as safe. (Spiroux et al.,2009, Codex Alimentarius, 2004)
Antibiotic Threat via Milk: Cows injected with rBGH have a much higher level of udder infections and require more antibiotics. This leaves unacceptable
levels of antibiotic residues in the milk. Scientists have warned of public health hazards due to growing antibiotic resistance. (Mazza et
al. 2005).
Antibiotic Threat via Plants: Much of genetic implantation uses a marker to track where the gene goes into the cell. GM maize plants use an ampicillin
resistant gene. In 1998, the British Royal Society called for the banning of this marker as it threatens a vital antibiotics use. The
resistant qualities of GM
bacteria in food can be transferred to other bacteria in the environment and throughout the human body. (Benbrook,2004).
Birth Defects and Shorter Life Spans: As we ingest transgenic human/ animal products there is no real telling of the impact on human evolution. It is
reported rBGh in cows causes a rapid increase in birth defects and shorter life spans. (Mead et al.,1999).
Lowered Nutrition: A study in the Journal of Medicinal Food conducted by Lappe and Bailey (1998) showed that certain GM foods have lower levels of vital
nutrients especially phytoestrogen compounds thought to protect the body from heart disease and cancer. Other studies show that if GM foods are fed to animals, GM
material can appear in the resulting products (Sharma, 2006; Agodi, 2006; Ran et al., 2009) and affect the animals health (Tudisco et al., 2010; Heinemann, 2009).
Radical Change in Diet: Humanity has evolved for thousands of years by adapting gradually to its natural environment - including nature's foods. Within past
few years a fundamental transformation of the human diet has occurred. In short, the human diet, from almost every front, is being radically changed - with little or no
knowledge of the long-term health or environmental effects.( Jeffery, 2007).
Poisonous to Mammals: In a study with GM potatoes, spliced with DNA from the snowdrop plant and a viral promoter (CaMV), the resulting plant was
poisonous to mammals (rats) damaging vital organs, the stomach lining and immune system (Kuiper et al., 2001). CaMV is a pararetrovirus. It can reactivate dormant
viruses or create new viruses - as some presume have occurred with the AIDES epidemic. CaMV is promiscuous, therefore biologist Ho (1998) concluded that "all
transgenic crops containing CaMV 35S or similar promoters which are recombinogenic should be immediately withdrawn from commercial production or open field
trials. All products derived from such crops containing transgenic DNA should also be immediately withdrawn from sale and from use for human consumption or
animal feed."
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 31
Con- Health
GM crops increase the risk of cancer and allergies while being less nutritious
Wald, doctor and health care expert, 3-1-2014 (Michael, The Original Internist, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 34)
Genetic modification of our food supply has the potential to cause devastating health risks. Some of the ways in
which GMOs may cause illness and chronic disease include:
Ingestion of foods our bodies have not adapted to because of their recent introduction into the human food
chain
Indirect health risks and serious environmental impacts, as cross-contamination between GMOs and
unintended plants and animals in the surrounding and distant environment can and have already occurred
Increased cancers and various autoimmune diseases such as Alzheimer's disease. Multiple Sclerosis and
Lupus; inflammatory bowel diseases such as Crohn's Disease and ulcerative colitis; and hormonal problems
stemming from effects upon our DNA (genetic material) and immune system.
Nutritional content is dozens to thousands of times lower in farm-grown crops as opposed to the wild-type food
counterparts. GMOs are all farm-grown and therefore are significantly inferior to non-GMO wild type plants.
GMOs, as I have described throughout my book, are more nutrient deficient compared to the wild type organic
plants, carry potentially greater toxins and allergens and may promote antibiotic resistance and these health
impacts are just the "tip of the iceberg."
Too many health risks associated with GM tech, SQ fails to solve

Policy, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 175)
Health risks may arise if the transgenic organism produces a new substance or an anticipated substance at
higher concentration, compared to the non-transgenic equivalent species; this could therefore result in allergenic
or toxic characteristics (Berkowitz, 1993). The GMO may also tolerate a new toxic compound or be sensitive to
a pathogen (Seralini, 2000, 2004). Furthermore, in particular in the case of a hormonal substance, a complete
change in many metabolic pathways could arise, rendering the aquatic GMO markedly different in chemical
composition and thus contributing to unexpected risks which would need to be assessed (Malarkey, 2003).
It remains a problem that in some countries like USA and Canada, in contrast to the European Union and most
countries that have signed and applied the Carthagena protocol, it is supposed in regulation that the whole GMO
is equivalent to the corresponding wild species, necessitating no labelling nor mid- or long-term toxicity tests.
This approach presumes that if only one new trait has been added, this will result in the production of only one
new substance that does not change significantly the composition. For example the transgenic growth hormone
salmon could be considered as a banal salmon that has only the particularity of producing more GH or a normal
level of GH but all year round. This approach called substantial equivalence is risky because it is based on
an oversimplified understanding of the complexities entailed in transgenic modification.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 32
Con- Health
Transgenics increase the risk of toxins in the food supply, status quo checks fail
Policy, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 175)
Within major international organizations the concept of substantial equivalence has been presented as a useful part of a
safety evaluation framework (now increasingly known as comparative safety assessment (Kok and Kuiper, 2003)), based
on the idea that existing foods can serve as a basis for comparing the properties of GM foods with the appropriate
counterpart (Kuiper et al., 2001). This approach is not appropriate in evaluation of the safety of an organism modified for
its metabolism like the described aquatic GMOs and should be changed, as suggested, for instance, by the Royal Society
of Canada (Expert Panel, 2001), because nothing predicts that all the characteristics of transgenic salmon remain exactly
equivalent to its non-transgenic counterpart (Blier et al., 2002). This is also considered true for all whole GMOs in a
majority of countries, requesting mid- and long-term toxicity tests (Directive European Community 2001/18/EC), at least
theoretically, until this Directive is scientifically applied as for pesticides and drugs.
Because of the random insertion and the genome complexity described previously, transgenesis can modify some
biochemical pathways and/or physiological regulations in an aquatic GMO, which may then become, for example, a larger
bio-accumulator of a pollutant that it tolerates (Kapuscinski and Hallerman, 1994). For instance polybromnated diphenyl
ethers used as flame-retardants in several products of daily life, are now sometimes measured at levels averaging 1.46
ng/g wet weight in farmed Atlantic salmon in Chile (Montory and Barred, 2006). It was also often measured in human
blood. Nothing guarantees that this rate could not increase in GH salmon that grows faster and have less time to eliminate
this kind of toxic chemical.
Empirically, consuming GM foods alters the biochemistry of humans and other consumers
Policy, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 176)
Some examples of GM agricultural products show that unexpected effects should be prospected. When mice in gestation
are fed with rations containing 14% of soy genetically modified to be glyphosate tolerant (the active ingredient of many
weedkillers), modifications were observed in hepatic cells: irregularly shaped nuclei, a lowering in the concentrations of
certain nucleolar and nucleoplasmic factors participating in the nucleic splicing process, as well as an abnormal
accumulation of perichromatic granules (Malatesta et al., 2002a). (Transgenic salmon, in aquaculture, could also be fed
with this GM soya.) This suggests a reduction of post-transcriptional processes (modification of RNA) and, thus,
reduction of nucleic flow of acids from the core towards the cytoplasm. Elsewhere, the same GM food reduces zymogene
granules and digestive enzyme secretions in mouse pancreatic cells (Malatesta et al., 2002b). A diet containing genetically
modified soybean also showed some effects on mouse testis (Vecchio et al., 2004), maybe due to the traces of contained
herbicide to which the soybean was tolerant. The immune=labelling of some specific targets as the RNA Polymerase II
showed a decrease notably in Sertoli cells of young GM-fed mice. Furthermore a few cytological details were found
modified in GM-fed mice of all ages: the number of perichromatin granules was higher, the nuclear pore density lower
and the smooth endoplasmic reticulum of the Sertoli cells was enlarged (Vecchio et al., 2004). This could be explained by
the fact that the herbicide Roundup containing glyphosate has been demonstrated to directly induce cellular toxicity in
human embryonic and placental cells (Richard et al., 2005; Benachour et al., 2007) at doses that could be present in GM
food or feed (dilutions 1/10,000). Furthermore, a commercialized GM maize called Bt MON863 has shown signs of
hepatorenal toxicity after rat consumption for 90 days (Se ralini et al., 2007).
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 33
Con- Media
Biotech industry has incentive to control or influence media narrative
Johnson, American Univ. College of Law, 1-1-14 (Susan, Sustainable Development Law and Policy, vol. 14 no. 1,
p. 34)
Genetic modification (GM) is the alteration of an organisms DNA through the synthetic introduction of new
traits that allow manufacturers increased control over genetic structures, purportedly strengthening the final
products viability and appeal. In turn, GMO seeds appeal to farmers for their promise of economically
beneficial higher crop yields. Consumers may similarly benefit, as engineered fruits and vegetables are created
to have longer shelf lives and smaller price tags than their unaltered counterparts. Given the fact that U.S.
biotech companies produce approximately half of the worlds GMO crop seeds, generating billions of dollars in
annual revenue, the biotech industry has much to gain from scientific confirmation and public acceptance of
these purported benefits.
Biotech industry skews the debate over GMOs with enormous financial involvement
Johnson, American Univ. College of Law, 1-1-14 (Susan, Sustainable Development Law and Policy, vol. 14 no. 1,
p. 34)
Despite persistent skepticism, GMOs dominate the domestic market, largely due to powerful initiatives that
insulate the industry. Independent scientists who publish studies showing negative or abnormal phenomena
implicating GM products have frequently endured criticism and backlash from scientific peers working to
preserve GMO-friendly public policies. In this climate of debate, members of the biotech field aggressively
defend industry practices and relentlessly contest any perceived opposition or legal violation. Industry giant
Monsanto, for example, has sued more than 410 farmers in twenty-seven states, in some instances destroying
multi-generational farms in the process. By contrast, anti-GMO activists have comparatively fewer and less
powerful legal mechanisms at their disposal, limiting the ubiquity of their critical message.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 34
Con- Monoculture
Over-reliance on chemicals creates a cycle that eliminates genetic diversity
Farmers of GM crops use pesticides to suppress the insects that the GM transgenes do not control and use broad
spectrum herbicides, like Monsantos Roundup, to eliminate all vegetation in the fields besides the herbicide-
tolerant GM crops. Such overreliance on biotechnological fixes can accelerate pest resistance and disturb
natural balances in the ecosystem, promoting a cycle that leads to the need for more pesticides and herbicides
and ultimately creates monocultures. For example, farmers who rely on Roundup to kill weeds limit themselves
to a few varieties of GM-protected plants. Planting only a few types of crops can lead to soil exhaustion and
create an environment that is harmful to the natural enemies of pests such as birds and insects that rely on a
variety of weeds, seeds, and microhabitats that are not available in monocultures. Decreases in the number of
natural enemies of pests in turn foster the need for more GM products and pesticides.
Monocultures empirically increase the risk of crop failures

GM monocultures can also increase the risk of large-scale crop failures. Decreased biodiversity increases the
vulnerability of crops to disease and pests, meaning that a single blight or pest could potentially decimate
hundreds of thousands of acres of crops. The most obvious example of the potential for disaster is the Irish
Potato Famine. The same potato blight had much less impact in the Andes because farmers there had cultivated
forty-six varieties of potato.
Monocultures decrease nutrition

Monocultures could also contribute to poor nutrition by reducing the food choices available to consumers. For
example, corn, which in the United States is mostly GM, has permeated just about everything we eat. If
scientists are correct that our spiking consumption of high fructose corn syrup and uniform diet rich in
carbohydrates contribute to obesity and heart disease, then the adoption of GMOs may be hurting our health
even though GMOs are nutritionally identical to conventional crops.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 35
Con- Monoculture
GM crops create monoculture by crowding out traditional farmers
Curry, freelance writer, April 2013 (Andrew, Discover Magazine, vol. 34, no. 3, p. 41)
Humans have done their part, too -- it's taken millennia of deliberate interference to shape the crops we grow.
Modern corn resembles teosinte, its wild ancestor, the way a teacup Chihuahua resembles a gray wolf. "The
agricultural environment in which we produce our food doesn't exist in nature," says Swiss plant ecologist
Bernhard Schmid.
But ecologists, in particular, express misgivings about transgenic crops because from their perspective,
molecular biologists have a narrow view of how plants work outside the lab. By ignoring the potential that
transgenic crops have to crossbreed with wild relatives, they risk imposing a monoculture on the diverse
biological world. By encouraging farmers to continue planting just a handful of crop strains, critics say
widespread use of a few varieties of GMO crops might limit genetic diversity and thus the ability to survive in
altered form when pests or other hazards unexpectedly arrive.
Genetically-modifying crops is not an extension of natural selective breeding

Curry, freelance writer, April 2013 (Andrew, Discover Magazine, vol. 34, no. 3, p. 41)
On top of that, critics say, GMO crops have not been proven universally safe, and they must be evaluated one
by one. Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C., and a
former regulator for the Environmental Protection Agency, likens traditional breeding to rearranging the deck
chairs on a familiar ship. "In most cases we're working with varieties where the genes and their products have
been consumed for millennia," he says, although even then, dangerous traits can emerge.
Genetic engineering, on the other hand, can introduce genes that have never been in the food supply, with
unknown consequences. "Genetic engineering is fundamentally different. It's disingenuous to say this is a new
and more precise way to do breeding," Gurian-Sherman says. "I don't think it's as inherently risky as some
people say, but I do think the risks are higher."
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 36
Con- North/South
Transgenic aquaculture entrenches North-South colonial relationship
Policy, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 172)
Protein is of course, for a carnivorous fish such as salmon, an important part of the diet. This could make
transgenic salmon a contestable choice in regard to the lack of food supply within the world. Lipid requirements
are higher than for other marine species, around 25% of feed weight in adult food and even more in young
stages. Although the conversion rate of this food into salmon flesh is high, sometimes attaining a figure near 1.5
kg food to obtain 1 kg salmon flesh (the rate depends on food quality, temperature, fish age, etc.) (Chamberlain,
1993), yet it should be recalled that millions of tons of small fish and crustaceans are transformed and through
flour and oil enter the composition of food pellets destined to aquaculture. Most of the time, for each kilogram
of flesh, salmon farmers use between 1.2 and 1.4 kg dry pellets, that is to say 4 or 5 kg of fresh fish and
shellfish (Naylor et al., 2000).
In any case, there are increasing doubts regarding the long-term sustainability of farming systems based entirely
upon these fishery resources (Naylor et al., 2000), in particular concerning the efficiency and ethics of feeding
potentially food-grade fishery resources back to animals rather than feeding them directly to humans (Best,
1996; Hansen, 1996; Pimentel et al., 1996; Rees, 1997). It should be noted also that herring and sardines,
important nutritional sources in salmon farming feed, are themselves excellent protein sources including sources
of omega-3. This then poses a double set of socio-economic and ethical issues: the loss of food-grade fishery
resources, and the transfer of these resources from the South (Africa and South America) towards the North
(principal commercial outlet for salmon farming products).
GM tech does not solve for food shortages in developing countries

Policy, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 178)
In general, the cultivation of GMOs is currently associated solely with large-scale production. In most cases,
this production does not benefit countries where the greatest food needs prevail. Rather than bringing food
products and food diversity to local communities, GMO technology has on the contrary tended to bring the fruit
of its production to world markets and this patented technology has not been financially accessible to small-
scale farmers whose focus is rather farming as a ready source of subsistence. Similar scenarios are foreseeable
for aquatic GMOs. Elsewhere, it could be questioned if transgenic pollution sprayed in aquatic environments
could perturb the supply in wild salmon for traditional salmon farming. Conflicts could appear similar as
between transgenic agriculture farmers and organic farmers (Conner et al., 2003).
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 37
Con- Patents Bad

Gene-patenting fuels the growth of industrial agriculture
The patentable status of GMOs has played a crucial role in precipitating a shift in the agriculture industry
towards large agribusiness. Increasingly, multinational corporations with little connection to local farmers or
consumers control the food supply. Patents and other intellectual property rights have facilitated this process by
enabling companies to control GM seeds and herbicides designed for use with GM crops. In the 1970s, for
example, the Plant Variety Protection Act spurred an important merger and acquisition movement that left a
predominant share of intellectual property rights over plants in the hands of a few corporations, including
Cargill, Monsanto, Occidental Petroleum, and Shell Oil.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 38
Con- Pollution Impacts

Genetic pollution threatens other species while creating super weeds, viruses and pests
Godheja, Dept of Biotechnology at Raipur Institute of Technology in Raipur, India, May 2013 (Jai, Recent
Research in Science & Technology, vol. 5, no. 5, p. 27)
For instance, the Bt corn produces wind-borne pollen (able to be spread 1km from farms) that kills the
caterpillars of the Monarch butterfly. When the life cycles of this butterfly are disrupted, the beautiful Monarch
butterflies can only be found in our memory and photographs.
Gardening job will be tougher as the weeds acquire the modified genes to become super competitive weeds that
rampage through the countryside and destroy other life forms in the process. Would you want your beautiful
garden to turn into a mess of green weeds that you can never get rid of?
The risk of the evolution of common plant viruses to become more resistant or form new strains will be greatly
increased. Microbiologists have come up with an important point that if genetic modification is carried out
extensively, new viruses with greater potential to harm mankind may evolve anytime, and the probability of this
occurring can be quite high. A research paper commissioned by the British government supports this point. It
concludes that crops genetically altered to be resistant to common plant viruses cold risk creating mutant strains
that could wipe out the entire forms.
The resurgence of the pests from primary pest outbreak to a more destructive secondary outbreak may occur.
After a pest has been virtually eliminated by any means, the pest population not only recovers, but also explodes
to higher and more severe levels. This phenomenon is known as resurgence. To make matters worse, small
populations of pests that used to be of no concern due to their significant numbers may suddenly rocket,
creating new problems. This phenomenon is known as secondary pest outbreak. Do you think it is safer and
more logical to sacrifice a small portion of your crops in exchange for the insurance that you can enjoy the
destruction of all your available crops?
Abnormalities, mutation, and extinction of species may become widespread and cause a biological havoc that
either takes ages to return back to equilibrium or enters a stage of no return. Genes produces proteins in the cells
that they are programmed to work in, but when transferred into another system, the proteins may act differently,
thus resulting in the outbreak of allergies and the disasters mentioned above. This will be a great blow to Gaia,
as the harmony that the Earth's closely-linked ecosystems that have settled down to will vanish, leaving the
Earth's inhabitants to reorganize themselves to build up the balanced structures. And this might take a few
centuries, or even forever.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 39
Con- Problems Snowball

Genetic contamination means that genetic risks are invisible and multiply without detection, empirically
can cause huge financial losses
Weiss, Brooklyn Law School, June 2014 (Hillary, Brooklyn Journal of Intl Law, vol. 39, no. 2, p. 880)
Unlike conventional pollution that breaks down over time, "genetic contaminationthe flow of undesirable
genes from one plant to anotheris permanent and can spread endlessly through a species." GMOs have
contributed to increased incidences of food and crop contamination. In 2000, StarLink Corna GMO that is not
approved for human consumption by federal regulatorswas found in over 300 products and subsequently
recalled, leading to massive economic losses for producers using this product. The aftermath of the StarLink
scandal is still plaguing countries today as this strand of corn continues to appear in their food supplies.
Because their effects are irreversible and unknown, on balance GMOs should not be used
Weiss, Brooklyn Law School, June 2014 (Hillary, Brooklyn Journal of Intl Law, vol. 39, no. 2, p. 880)
GMO contamination threatens consumer health, the environment, and the farming industry.''2 GMOs have
repeatedly contaminated organic or non-GM crops across the world.^3 The United States Department of
Agriculture ("USDA") purports to take organic farmers' concern for contamination to heart, noting the
compounding challenges they face, however, no resolutions that protect these farmers' interests have been
reached to date.''* Wariness toward GMO consumption has taken a particular toll on organic or conventional
farmers who risk economic loss and injury from contamination of non-GM crops, making their products
unmarketable.''^ In addition, concerns regarding the unknown effects associated with long-term exposure to
GMOs have been evident in consumers' attitudes toward food.
Although the future of GMO use influences and affects various fields of interest, the organic farmer is "on the
front lines of the GMO battlefield. Apart from the usual problems farmers faceforeign subsidies, low
commodity prices, and nature itselfthey must now tackle a new set of issues elicited by GMOs. The
production, cultivation, and use of GMOs presents a unique challenge different from the challenges with other
internationally traded goods, as they can inadvertently pervade various political spheres through the undetected
contamination of seeds and harvests.' As the European Commission noted, "[o]nce a GMO is released into the
environment, it could be impossible to recall it or prevent its spread and therefore adverse effects must be
avoided as they might be irreversible.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 40
Con- Risks
Because long-term risks are unknowable and irreversible, must err against GMOs
Policy, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 177)
In particular, environmental impacts should be studied in depth, as the release of genetically modified animals
would, as for genetically modified plants, be irreversible. The introduction of new species in a given
environment could be considered as similar to the introduction of a cocktail of new substances into a body:
interactions and impacts are very complex and thus not subject to systematic predictability. Thus, as for
toxicity, tests, and notably long-term tests, are necessary (Seralini, 2003; Seralini et al., 2007). These are
conditions to maintain food quality for a high level of human health. Respect for protection against serious or
irreparable harm is called for in Article 15 of the Declaration of Rio, even in the absence of scientific certitude.
The description, albeit complete, of a single function of an inserted gene cannot reveal unpredictable
characteristics brought about by random insertions. In addition, given the knowledge we gain constantly of the
complexity of genes, metabolic pathways and physiological functions, it seems reasonable to propose that risk
evaluation should not be limited to the sole transgene but rather to the whole organism, understood as a wholly
new organism, indeed one about which we may have relatively little or no knowledge.
November: GMOs
Final Focus
Page 41
Con- Soil
Approaches that focus on improving soil solve drought best; GMOs trade-off
Today, CalCAN has no formal position on GMOs, but simply says that it wants, in Brillingers words, shovel
ready solutions to deal with the drought right now. Most of these are about managing soil. Rich, organic soil
the kind that can be developed by using manure and compost more and tilling lessholds water better than
poor soil. In a drought, plants grown in rich soil are less thirsty; in a deluge, such soil absorbs and slows the
flow of water, thereby decreasing flooding and erosion. Organic matter is also high in carbon, and storing it in
the soil keeps it out of the atmosphere, helping to address the problem of climate change itself. CalCAN has
focused on statewide policy, including efforts to wring funding from the California budget to promote soil- and
water-conservation practices and climate-change strategies for farmers. To Brillinger, GMO research looks
costly and difficult; managing the soil is immediate, cheap and much easier.
Soil-based, holistic approach boosts profitability for farmers 12-fold empirically

Down the road, in Sebastapol, I found a small organic farm that made this convincing. Paul Kaiser drove up to
meet me in front of his barn in a small green tractor, then walked me through the densely planted rows spanning
his two acres of crop fields, filled with roughly 150 varieties of vegetables. We earn over $100,000 per crop
acre per year, he says. (By contrast, the average revenue from an acre of California cabbages or cucumbers in
2012 was about $6,000 to $8,000, according to the states Department of Food and Agriculture.) Kaiser credits
his soil-management practices for his financial success.
Before farming, he worked in agroforestry, restoring fields in the tropics that were so overgrazed they could
barely grow grass. To Kaiser, the question of engineering any single plant is unimportant compared with a
larger picture involving soil, water, bees, and the various other insects and birds that can thrive on an organic
farm and provide natural pest control. Kaiser supports the ban in Sonoma County: Unless we can prove that a
GMO crop is fully safe and beneficial to everything that it touchesthe pollinators, the soil its grown in, the
watershed and our bodywe shouldnt be using it, he says.

Nov14 - GMOs - PFDebate Final Focus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nov14 - GMOs - PFDebate Final Focus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

November: GMOs

Creating hysteria about the risks of rDNA tech is a discursive trick

rDNA just represents the next logical step in human agriculture

Hundreds of thousands of Ugandans have vitamin A deficiency.

Pro- Energy and Environment

Pro- Farming & Health

Studies prove that GM crops increase efficiency and farmers profits

Pro- Food Shortages Now

Pro- Opposition Bad

GM opposition gives control of research to multinationals which stifles innovation

Pro- Pests Now

On balance, GMOs offer better solution than organics

Pro- Staph Infections

Pro- AT: Allergens

Status quo procedures check spread of allergens

Pro- AT: Indian Cotton

Pro- AT: Unsafe

Pro- AT: Unsafe

Regulation process deflects public scrutiny

Con- Genetic Pollution

Too many health risks associated with GM tech, SQ fails to solve

Monocultures empirically increase the risk of crop failures

Monocultures decrease nutrition

Genetically-modifying crops is not an extension of natural selective breeding

GM tech does not solve for food shortages in developing countries

Con- Patents Bad

Con- Pollution Impacts

Con- Problems Snowball

Soil-based, holistic approach boosts profitability for farmers 12-fold empirically

You might also like