CreateDebate


Debate Info

23
10
Yes, it should be banned! No, it is perfectly fine!
Debate Score:33
Arguments:38
Total Votes:36
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, it should be banned! (22)
 
 No, it is perfectly fine! (10)

Debate Creator

SGeerts(12) pic



Using gmo's to produce food products should be banned

I am writing a report on the perception of genetically modified organisms (gmo’s), and would like to hear your opinion on this matter.

How do you feel about the usage of gmo's to produce food products? Do you agree with the statement that gmo's are dangerous and unsafe ór do you feel that using gmo's is beneficial for the quality and production of food products? Thank you in advance!  

Background information on gmo's: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/

 

 

Yes, it should be banned!

Side Score: 23
VS.

No, it is perfectly fine!

Side Score: 10
1 point

It should be banned (at least for now). I've looked up some information about GMO's and the following concerns me:

"Advocacy groups such as Greenpeace, The Non-GMO Project and Organic Consumers Association say that risks of GM food have not been adequately identified and managed". parties like Greenpeace wouldn't state something like that without any knowledge about the matter. Apparently the current promotion of GM products is dangerously misleading, where the actual benefits to the consumer are minimal. First do extensive research on gmo's in food products (monitored research), before I would feel comfortable with it.

Side: Yes, it should be banned!
1 point

Apparently the current promotion of GM products is dangerously misleading

Monsanto's GMO's are deemed safe by the FDA. The FDA based this conclusion exclusively on studies funded by Monsanto. Indepedent scientists who contradict notions of safety have been ridiculed publicly and have had their careers destroyed. It's been some time since I read anything about all this, but much of it is like it's taken straight out of a conspiracy theory - the difference being that it is veriable for any one who cares enough.

Side: Yes, it should be banned!
MuckaMcCaw(1970) Disputed
1 point

Monsanto's GMO's are deemed safe by the FDA.

As well as by USDA and sometimes the EPA.

The FDA based this conclusion exclusively on studies funded by Monsanto.

Are you referring to the voluntary consultation process? Also, since Monasanto is not the only producer of GMOs, I find this notion spurious. Please provide links to a neutral source.

Because otherwise, methods used to determine the safety of GMOs are conducted quite similarly to any other food product, the main difference being that many GMO products are subject to MORE scrutiny.

Indepedent scientists who contradict notions of safety have been ridiculed publicly and have had their careers destroyed.

Such as, say Gilles-Eric Seralini, whose poorly designed, cherry-picked and bias motivated research that claimed that GMOs gave rats cancer was debunked, retracted and hasn't been successfully duplicated?

Side: No, it is perfectly fine!
1 point

I am actually on the fence. I believe that food should be produced naturally, without genetically modifying it, but at the same time, humanity has introduced many new substances in the air and earth that affect our food and us as well. If GMO aim at addressing these issues, then I am all in. I can see the benefits in using it.

Unfortunately, my perception is that they are mostly used for price benefits and the technology is still unable to make them perfectly safe for us.

This is why I am leaning more towards forbidding them.

Side: Yes, it should be banned!

Why give so much control over our food supply to any one company? I wouldn't ;)

Side: Yes, it should be banned!
SGeerts(12) Clarified
1 point

Hi joecavalry! I understand you wouldn't want one company to control the food supply, but how do you feel about gmo's in general?

Side: Yes, it should be banned!

Natural reproduction is bad for short-term profits. The way to grow a consistent product at yields that achieve economies of scale is to stamp out the risks of diversity and imperfection that happens when genes reshuffle. To boost profit, you need to grow a specific crop and exclude less valuable species.

This is what’s called a “monoculture” or “monocrop,” the cultivation of a single plant species, usually on a massive, standardized scale. These things come at a cost, though. Just as their genetic similarity makes for cheap, large-scale production, it also prevents monocrops from adapting to attack from pests or disease. (Other disastrous consequences of monocrops include that farmers soak their crops in ever-increasing amounts of harmful chemicals and that this scale of growing is incredibly taxing on the environment.)

No episode in history illustrates this cost more nightmarishly than the Irish potato blight, “the biggest experiment in monoculture ever attempted and surely the most convincing proof of its folly,” as journalist Michael Pollan called it in his book Botany of Desire.

Holly crap..., a REAL argument ;)

Side: Yes, it should be banned!

Natural reproduction is bad for short-term profits. The way to grow a consistent product at yields that achieve economies of scale is to stamp out the risks of diversity and imperfection that happens when genes reshuffle. To boost profit, you need to grow a specific crop and exclude less valuable species.

This is what’s called a “monoculture” or “monocrop,” the cultivation of a single plant species, usually on a massive, standardized scale. These things come at a cost, though. Just as their genetic similarity makes for cheap, large-scale production, it also prevents monocrops from adapting to attack from pests or disease. (Other disastrous consequences of monocrops include that farmers soak their crops in ever-increasing amounts of harmful chemicals and that this scale of growing is incredibly taxing on the environment.)

No episode in history illustrates this cost more nightmarishly than the Irish potato blight, “the biggest experiment in monoculture ever attempted and surely the most convincing proof of its folly,” as journalist Michael Pollan called it in his book Botany of Desire.

Holly crap..., a REAL argument ;)

Side: Yes, it should be banned!
LittleMisfit(1745) Clarified
1 point

"Holly crap..., a REAL argument"

A real argument copied and pasted from here. Better run Joe, the plagiarism police are on their way to your house right now ;p

Side: Yes, it should be banned!

Uhm..., what difference does it make? ;)

Side: Yes, it should be banned!
MuckaMcCaw(1970) Clarified
1 point

Plagiarized or no, shouldn't this argument be on the other side?

Side: Yes, it should be banned!

It depends on what you mean by "perfectly fine." ;)

GMO's are vulnerable to enemies that are constantly evolving. GMO's put our food supply at risk. Not only because the company that holds the patents would control our food supply, but also because a "plague" attacking our uniform food supply could wipe it out. GMO's should be banned.

Side: Yes, it should be banned!
1 point

I do not want to be a try out bunny. I do not have any problems with gmo's themselves, but more with the point that there is so much that is not known about it scares me. They should continue testing and when they are sure that there will be no harm for people, animals or the environment they can continue distributing it to the world.

Side: Yes, it should be banned!

By its own admission Monsanto views its patented GM seeds similarly to the way the software industry views its proprietary technology. Like somebody buying a copy of Photoshop, Monsanto binds its customers to a terms-of-service agreement when they buy their “technology.” (It includes stipulations such as the inability to save and replant the seed.) In the past, if the company has learned those terms have been violated, they have sued, or threatened to sue, farmers. Monsanto even has a hotline that people can call to alert them to patent infringements.

Although this makes sense from a business perspective, it’s problematic from a public relations perspective. The “technology” they’re selling is seeds, which have rich cultural and even spiritual associations that Photoshop does not. Seeds have historically been a part of the natural world that belongs to everybody and nobody, like dirt or the ocean. The customers at liability risk aren’t corporate IT departments, but rather, farmers. (“The Daily Show” pilloried this in a bit last year entitled: “Aasif Mandvi learns that greedy farmers have threatened the livelihood of Monsanto’s heroic patent attorneys.” ;)

Side: Yes, it should be banned!

Every once in 20 years Joe surprises me and this is one of those moments.

Supporting Evidence: Copy of a Monsanto contract (thefarmerslife.files.wordpress.com)
Side: Yes, it should be banned!

I'm sure I plagiarized that argument ;)

Side: Yes, it should be banned!

Due to it being Genetically modified and in Natural, the Hominidae wouldn't be able to adapt to the organism. A disease can easily occur, and Mutation can easily Pop Up. The body isn't adapted to a Gmo.

Side: Yes, it should be banned!
MuckaMcCaw(1970) Disputed
1 point

Way too general.

Due to it being Genetically modified and in Natural, the Hominidae wouldn't be able to adapt to the organism

So you make GMOs that do not require adapting to. This is part of the preparation and testing process, and is no more important in this context than it would be for any of the highly processed foods we've been consuming.

Not all GMOs are created equal.

Side: No, it is perfectly fine!

I think one could argue that if it was labeled and it said on the label in CLEARLY UNDERSTANDABLE text HOW it was genetically modified, you would have an argument.

However, I don't agree with that argument because companies like Monsanto or Aquabound will ALWAYS find loopholes in the label. Unless there are specified ways of genetic modification, that can be verified as okay. Not only that, but verified that THAT's how the company modified it every time, I would maybe consider a mind change, except for one thing.

Once again, even if one type of way is allowed, that leaves room for them to loophole it and call a way that SHOULD be illegal, whatever the legal way is.

Side: Yes, it should be banned!
1 point

It should be banned. We are still not aware of all the side effects of GMO, until this is not completely researched, we should not easily allow it to be part of our lives.

Side: Yes, it should be banned!
1 point

Even at first sight this may be beneficial in order to avoid food scarcity and so on, I think GMOs are harmful for our bodies. The human body changed in time. Hundreds of years ago GMOs were not discovered yet, so people ate healthier and thus their figures remained uite slim (think about how obesity increased with years). Nowadays our bodies receive a lot of GMOs daily and I believe that in the future our bodies will 'grow' as well.

We may not be fully aware of how much 'damage' GMOs do to our bodies, as we are still consuming them without really thinking much about it. Yet I believe more awareness should be raised about this and slowly switch back to the natural, ecological products (even if they more expensive).

Side: Yes, it should be banned!
1 point

There is a reason why Monsanto has been banned from many countries around the world....& For those who think the FDA has your health in mind...wouldn't pass on or approve a bad product to its citizens for consumption then keep on eating GMO's and letting the FDA decide what you eat, it's a way for hem to "thin out the heard" some people just don't have a clue about how unhealthy and unsuitable GMO "food" is. Eating pesticides that is now part of mycorn,potato, green bean ect...ect...is unacceptable to me....If you want to educate yourself n GMO's and what it's really about, start off with the documentary "Food Inc" and it will open your eyes and lead you down a path that you'd never imagined. All it takes is an open mind.

Supporting Evidence: Food Inc Trailer (youtu.be)
Side: Yes, it should be banned!

GMO's are a vital component of ending world hunger. It's a step forward in food production technology. Yes they should be better research before, and practices concerning R&D;could have been a LOT better. Monsanto is a horrible company and their methods of production are just downright idiotic. However, use of GMO's should be regulated. Practices on HOW to produce GMO crops are criticised (I.E GMO crops get mixed into regular crops, so farmers legally have to switch to GMO crops) but this is a Legal issue. Banning of GMO crops entirely will not solve the real problem.

Side: No, it is perfectly fine!
1 point

As long as it is properly engineered and tested, it should not be a problem. As long as they are not dominant enough to take over ‘normal’ crops and food nearby. If foods can be made more nutritious, or more resistant against bad weather, why not apply these genetic modifications? Now, this is a discussion, in a few years, it will be the most normal thing in the world. Hell, in some countries there is already genetically manipulation being performed on humans, now that’s too far…

Side: No, it is perfectly fine!

I have no problem with the use of GMO's as they produce a more hardy plant (disease resistant, better germination,etc.) and have a tremendously better yield results.

What I do have a problem with, is the amount of control that companies such as Monsanto have in protecting their GMO seed. They have applied tech fees to the purchase price of seed and one has to sign a contract where one promises not use the seeds of the matured crop for personal gain.

Supporting Evidence: Copy of a Monsanto contract (thefarmerslife.files.wordpress.com)
Side: No, it is perfectly fine!
1 point

There are alway's positive and negative developments. The point is how we can solve a part of the upcoming food problem? Because there is not enough food in the world to feed the people, not even in Western countries.

Of course a big problem is how this distributable this product is, and how you are going to distribute the knowledge of it to different countries. There are certain considerations to be made, for example to prevent overcrowding. There will never be an ideal situation arise with the use of these resources, but there is never an ideal situation for nothing.

More research should be done, for example; how you could divide the products and who has access to it. It is not the intention that you are going to solve world hunger, or that everybody suddenly have access to food. But it is a start to prevent food shortages existing in Western economies. Sure everything needs to be regulated.

Side: No, it is perfectly fine!
1 point

Definitely no. People have been crossing food families, genetically modifying them, since ancient times. GMO's are food modified for improvement and in that sense a vital ingredient for feeding the world population. I acknowledge that there is a degree in modification, but in general the concept is necessary to feed everyone on earth.

Side: No, it is perfectly fine!
ghostheadX(1105) Disputed
1 point

Then they COULD have a LIST of APPROVED WAYS to genetically modify food. That would mean that they would have to restrict it, and then you could be right. I'll admit that's a good argument when people say that companies like Monsanto and Aquabound, BULLY farmers and possibly even health companies.

But I digress, there are always loopholes if you make that legal. And big companies who are bullies WILL find those loopholes.

Side: Yes, it should be banned!

im sure there are pros and cons...to fuck if i know what they are though. but i like dusty's take on it....

(i will be 88yo in three weeks)

LOGIC
Side: No, it is perfectly fine!