Are genetically modified foods (GM foods) beneficial?

Background and context

GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, is a term that can apply to plants, animal, or
microorganisms that have undergone genetic modification. The predominant areas of
analysis in the debate of GMOs include the application of genetically modified crops as a
food source. Additionally, GMOs are also used for the production of pharmaceuticals and
enzymes as well as enhancing cellular function for the purpose of study. An examination of
the acceptability and medical ramifications of GMOs requires specific analyses in each
sphere of biotechnology research: plants, animals, and microorganisms (which include
pharmaceuticals and industrial enzymes).

Consumer safety: Are GM foods safe/healthy for consumers?

[]
Yes

There is no evidence that GM foods are unsafe "The real GM food scandal". Prospect. Novembe

Brazilian, French and American academies as well as the Royal Society, which has published four separa

Millions have been consuming GM foods for some time and are OK. Shereen Jegtvig. "Are Ge
have probably been consuming genetically modified foods for quite some time."

GM crops can be fortified with vitamins and vaccines This means that specific diseases and/or

Foods with poisonous allergens can be modified to reduce risks Shereen Jegtvig. "Are Geneti
who suffer from this dangerous allergy."

Conventional foods have always involved genetic tampering The most common forms of alter

mutations, from which desirable variations are selected. Both are legal and are not considered "genetic m

Genetic modification is considered safe in medicine; why not in foods? "The real GM food sc

engineered: the human gene that codes for insulin has been transferred into bacteria and yeast, a proce
people from hunger?"

GM food products should be judged; process should not be judged. "The real GM food scand

takes much longer and costs at least ten times as much to bring a new GM crop to market as an equival

The anti-GMO principle that genetic tampering is bad is erroneous Many anti-GMO advocate

be evil. Conventional foods have always been produced and refined with such tampering. This moral arg

GM foods present risks that are tolerable and should be taken.

Concerns surrounding private controls of GM foods can be addressed. Richard Strohman, Ph

safety but privatized food as part of a global, corporate managed-market then the issue is not genetic m

distributed to farmers for free, or be a part of a non-profit agricultural system geared toward sustainabili
the corporate take-over of food production."

Pesticides: Do GM foods require fewer pesticides?

[]
Yes

GM crops are more pest-resistant and require fewer pesticides. "The real GM food scandal".

1996 to 2005. They concluded that the "environmental impact" of pesticide and herbicide use in GM-gro

GM crops require fewer pesticides; lowers rate of food poisoning.

GM crops require fewer pesticides; keeps water sources clean.

Health risks of GM foods should be weighed against risks of conventional foods.

GM crops require less pesticides; healthier for farmers. "The real GM food scandal". Prospect.

GM crops are easier to manage; less labor needed to spray crops.

Socio-economics: Are the socio-economic impacts of GM crops positive?

[]
Yes

GM crops are made disease-resistant, which increases yields

GM crops have lower production costs; higher gross margins

GM crops generate greater wealth for farming communities Muffy Koch. "The case for GMOs i
more stable food supply.

The lower crop production costs of GM foods reduce prices Muffy Koch. "The case for GMOs in
more stable food supply.

GM crops increase income with less effort; higher living standards.

The use of GM crops increases local research

GM crops can be tailored to local growing conditions. Muffy Koch. "The case for GMOs in the d

conditions. Existing experience with GM crops indicates that appropriate, improved planting material has

GM crops can respond better to fertilizer; grow better "Monsanto makes the case for GM crop

concentrate the plant's energy into producing bigger ears and thus more grain. At the time, these genes

GM crops can have a boosted tolerance of drought.

GM food companies are being strangled by opposition, regulation. "The real GM food scanda

takes much longer and costs at least ten times as much to bring a new GM crop to market as an equival

large companies or the most richly funded charities can and the only projects companies are likely to ba

Environment: Are GM foods good for the environment?

[]
Yes

GM foods reduce the damage caused by pesticides to wildlife. Muffy Koch. "The case for GMO

GM foods help keep waters clean of pesticides.

GM crops improve yields, lowering land-use; environmentally friendly Muffy Koch. "The case

GM crops reduce the need for plowing, increase the life of soil and land. "The real GM food

from using less energy, avoiding the plough has many environmental advantages. It improves soil qualit

GM crops reduce need for plowing; reduces methane/other emissions. "The real GM food sca

using less energy, avoiding the plough has many environmental advantages. It improves soil quality, cau

GM crop production is more efficient, saves energy, cuts emissions. "The real GM food scand

fossil fuels in their production and reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. And by improving yields, t

Many factors combine with GM crops to dramatically reduce emissions.

Environmental risks of GM crops should be weighed against risks of conventional crops. "

Sciences in Trieste and the Royal Society produced the report after a year-long study. It says that worries
taken to maintain a diversity of crops, conventional and transgenic."

GM crops can be mismatched with ecosystems, as can conventional crops."The real GM foo

arguing that GM crops destroy biodiversity. It would be wrong to claim that the planting of GM crops cou

GM animals can be made sterile. According to The Economist ["Dawn of the Frankenfish", Techno

perfectly viable, but they are sterile. (...) The company [that carries out this research] claims a 99% succ

GM animals are designed to be "food",not "breeding machines". GM creatures breeding in th

have been engineered into them are ones designed to make them into better food, rather than lean, me

Poor: Do GM crops help the poor and third-world?

[]

[Edit]
Yes

GM foods help meed nutrition deficiencies of poor countries. With more than 800 million peo

packs more and iron and Vitamin A, helping the more than 100 million children worldwide who suffe

"Sir David King, a former scientific adviser to the British government, argues that the unjustified vilifi
February 25th 2010

GM crops can combat specific nutrient deficiencies in the third-world Third World Coul

vitamin A. The iron content of rice has also been increased by GM. Vitamin A deficiency causes

Developing countries already benefit from transgenic crops. According to The Economi
farmers now benefiting from the technology, perhaps 90% live in poor countries."

Multinational do not exploit their crop patents. "As developing countries develop GM cro

drought-resistant technology to a coalition called Water Efficient Maize for Africa, for example."

Food shortages: Are GM crops an important part of responding to global food shortages.

[]
[Edit]
Yes

GM foods are essential to responding to global food shortages Genetically modified cro

World Bank Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research estimated that biotechno

GM foods are important to supplying growing populations/demand

GM food meets threat of growing demand on less land

GM crops are more reliable, creating a more stable supply of food. Muffy Koch. "The ca
communities and a more stable food supply.

Alternatives: Are the alternatives to GMOs insufficient?

[]
Yes

Assessing benefits/costs: Is it possible to fully assess benefits and costs now?

[]
[Edit]
Yes

GM cotton, maize, soya, and others have been global successes. "The real GM foo

Anti-GM protesters make it difficult to access/assess benefits. Muffy Koch. "The ca

The first is the current, strong and targeted anti-GM campaign being waged by activist gro
small farmers with public funding."

Over-precaution with GM foods makes risk assessments difficult

GM crop production has been hampered by opposition, regulations. "The real GM

because GM crops, unlike conventional crops, must overcome costly, time-consuming and

Scientific community: Where does the scientific community stand on GM foods?

[]

Yes

A 2000 report by seven major scientific bodies supported GM foods. "Seven Scien
employment in rural areas, a report from seven respected scientific academies, including

Public opinion: What is the public opinion on GMOs?

[]
[Edit]
Yes

People do not oppose "random" mutation, then why should they oppose scientific ge
breeding] at a premium."

THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED

ORGANISMS

In the last decade, the development of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) has emerged
as a highly controversial topic. This is a difficult topic because a basic grasp on the scientific
issues is necessary to take the debate beyond the level of media headlines. Here is a very
brief summary of some of the key concepts: Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) DNA, the complex
molecule that genes are composed of, is frequently likened to a computer program - an
information-bearing code. One of the things that the DNA in genes codes for is the
production of proteins - chemicals that regulate many of the processes that occur inside
cells.
Genetic Modification will typically do one of two things: either add new sections of DNA to
the genes of a particular plant or animal to code for new proteins, or remove stretches of
DNA so that a particular protein is not produced. A section of DNA coding for one particular
protein is called a gene. There are an enormous number of changes that can be made to
organisms with genetic modification. These range from the introduction of fish genes into
plants to lead to better frost resistance, to modifications leading to rice plants producing
more vitamin A.[1] The 'Terminator' Gene is one of the most controversial additions since it
is a stretch of DNA that renders the seeds produced by the plant infertile; this makes the

plant unable to reproduce (and is used by seed companies to force farmers to buy new
supplies of the seed each year.[2]
In the past varieties of crops and their seeds have not been owned by anyone and have not
been patented. There is an increasing trend for biotechnology companies to patent GM crop
varieties and thus own the exclusive right to produce and sell their seeds. This means that
farmers in developing (and developed) countries will become dependent on these
multinational seed-producing firms who will be able to charge high prices for patented
varieties. The leader in GMO patenting (and profiting out of it) is the company Monsanto.
Farmers explain that many times, they have to pay fees to Monsanto, as the company
believes they have planted (2nd generation) soybeans in violation of the companys patent
not paying for them.[3]
Currently, the EU has a strict regulation on genetically modified crops, as of July 2011, a type
of maize called MON 810 is the only GM food cultivated commercially in the EU, the EU
Commission proposed that the EU should decide on approvals or bans on environmental or
health grounds for any crop with genetic modifications.[4]
Currently legislation in the US allows the cultivation and also distribution of GMO as food.
The official position of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is that GMOs are no different
from other natural organisms and therefore do not need special labeling or treatment. So in
the US, status quo is that GMO used for food are not labeled and are in no way a threat to
health.[5]
In 2001 the EU has decided to pass the so-called 'safeguard clause' (Art. 23 Dir.
2001/18/EC), which allows member states to prohibit the use and/or sale of the GM products
on its territory. In 2011 6 countries within the EU apply this clause: Austria, France, Greece,
Hungary, Germany and Luxembourg.[6] Within the whole EU, food and feed must carry a
label which refers to the presence of GMOs, commercialization of GMO corps have to
approved by EU bodies. The requirements for labeling, do not apply to food/feed which
contains, consists of, or is produced from GMOs in a proportion no higher than 0.9 % (for
example: imported food from the US).[7]
Possible debate topics include whether or not GM food should be limited in distribution and
commercial use. Other topics include the mandating of labeling of GM food and whether
animal feed should be allowed to be GM.
Genetically modified food is too new and little researched to be allowed for public use.

POINT
There are two problems associated with scientifically testing the impact of genetically
modifying food. The first is that 'Peer review' (the checking of scientific test results by fellow
scientists) is often made impossible by the unwillingness of biotechnology companies to give
up their results for review.[1]

Furthermore, government agencies are often unwilling to stop GM foodstuffs reaching the
shelf because of the clout that the companies have with their government. So in regards to
research, there have not yet been unbiased findings showing that GMO crops are safe.
It is true, that in the US, there have been no adverse consequences from over 500 field
releases in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) evaluated in 1993 data
on genetically modified organisms regarding safety claims. The Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS) believes that the USDA evaluation was too small scale, to actually asses the
risks. Also many reports also failed to mention or even measure any environmental risks
connected with GM food commercialisation.[2]
Also, there are a number of dangers associated with the food itself, even without scientific
evaluations. For example, the addition of nut proteins to soybeans caused those with nut
allergies to go into shock upon eating the soybeans. Although this was detected in testing,
sooner or later a transferred gene will cause risk to human health because the scientists did
not conceive it could be a problem.[3] This will become a greater problem as more
modifications are introduced. There are also possible dangers associated with the scientific
technique itself by which the DNA is modified, an example is the spread of antibiotic
resistance.

COUNTERPOINT
This debate should be decided on the basis of hard facts, not woolly assertions and
environmental sentiment. Until scientific tests show there to be some real risk of harm from
farming and eating GM food there is no case for a ban or a moratorium.
Not only is genetically modification well understood but extensive testing is applied to every
new GM foodstuff before it is placed on the market.
The European Food Safety Authority explains that tests of GMOs include a comparative
assessment between the GMO and its non-GMO counterpart and there is a case by case
evaluation of every single GMO entering the market however, because products are so
different there is no by the book procedure for testing.[1]
Researcher Nina Fedoroff from the Penn State University explains: Genetically modified
foods are as safe to eat as foods made from plants modified by more traditional methods of
plant breeding. In fact, they are very probably safer, simply because they undergo testing
that has never been required for food plants modified either by traditional breeding
techniques or by mutagenesis, both of which can alter a plant's chemical composition.[2]

Genetically modified food is a danger to eco-systems.

POINT
GM foods also present a danger to the environment. The use of these crops is causing fewer
strains to be planted. In a traditional ecosystem based on 100 varieties of rice, a disease
wiping out one strain is not too much of a problem. However, if just two strains are planted
(as now occurs) and one is wiped out the result is catastrophic. In addition, removing certain
varieties of crops causes organisms, which feed on these crops, to be wiped out as well,
such as the butterfly population decimated by a recent Monsanto field trial.[1] This supports
the concerns that GM plants or transgenes can escape into the environment and that the
impacts of broad-spectrum herbicides used with the herbicide tolerant GM crops on the
countryside ecosystems have consequences. One of the impacts was that the Bacillus
Thuringiensistoxin was produced by Bt crops (GMOs) on no-target species (butterflies),
which lead to them dying.[2]
Another concern is also that pollen produced from GM crops can be blown into neighboring
fields where it fertilizes unmodified crops. This process (cross-pollination) pollutes the
natural gene pool.[3] This in turn makes labeling impossible which reduces consumer choice.
This can be prevented with the terminator gene. However, use of this is immoral for reasons
outlined below. Furthermore, not all companies have access to the terminator technology.
COUNTERPOINT
The fears about GM food have been nothing more than a media spin. The media have
created a story about nothing due to headlines such as 'Frankenfood'. Simply because
people are scared they assert that there are not enough testing of the benefits of GM foods.

The proposition is mainly falling into a media trap because at the moment all reasonable
precautions are being taken for ensured safety. There is no reason why many different
strains of GM crops cannot be produced and planted - where this is not happening at
present, it should be.
However, the need for many different strains is not an argument against some or all of those
being GM. Adding or removing genes from natural varieties does not make the rest of their
DNA identical. Furthermore, there is no concrete scientific evidence of what harm is done by
the spreading of GM pollen.

GMOs would create too much dependency on biotechnology companies

POINT
The legislative framework and historical behavior governing and guiding the operation of big
business is geared towards maximizing shareholder returns. This propensity has been
demonstrated time and again and might suggest that the GM companies are not modifying
the food in the interests of better health, but of better profit. This is reinforced by the nature
of many of the GM modifications, including terminator seeds (infertile seed requiring a repurchase of seed stock each season), various forms of pest and herbicide resistance
potentially leading to pests (and weeds) resistant to the current crop of chemical defenses.
One of the more disturbing manifestations of this is the licensing of genes that are naturally
occurring and suing those who dare to grow them, even if they are there because of cross
contamination by wind-blown seeds or some other mechanism.[1] One has only to look at
the history of corporations under North American and similar corporations law to see the
effect of this pressure to perform on behalf of the shareholder. The pollution of water
supplies, the continued sale of tobacco, dioxins, asbestos, and the list goes on. Most of those
anti-social examples are done with the full knowledge of the corporation involved.[2]
The example of potato farmers in the US illustrates big company dependence: "By ''opening
and using this product,'' it is stated, that farmers only have the license to grow these
potatoes for a single generation. The problem is that the genes remain the intellectual
property of Monsanto, protected under numerous United States patents (Nos. 5,196,525,
5,164,316, 5,322,938 and 5,352,605), under these patents, people are not allowed to save
even crop for next year, because with this they would break Federal law of intellectual
property.[3]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Genetically modified food is no different from any other scientific advance, thus should be
legal to use.

POINT
Genetic modification is entirely natural. The process of crop cultivation by selective
breeding, which has been performed by farmers for thousands of years, leads to exactly the
same kind of changes in DNA as modern modification techniques do. Current techniques are
just faster and more selective. In fact, given two strands of DNA, created from the same
original strand, one by selective breeding and one by modern modification techniques it is
impossible to tell which is which. The changes caused by selective breeding have been just
as radical as current modifications. Wheat, for example, was cultivated, through selective
breeding, from an almost no-yield rice-type crop into the super-crop it is today.[1]

COUNTERPOINT
Genetic modification is unnatural. There is a fundamental difference between modification
via selective breeding and genetic engineering techniques. The former occurs over
thousands of years and so the genes are changed much more gradually. Genetic
modification will supposedly deliver much but we have not had the time to assess the longterm consequences.[1] A recent study by the Soil Association actually proves that many of
the promises companies gave were false. GM crops did not increase yield. Another example
is a frost-resistant cotton plant that ended up not ripening. [2] GMOs do not reliably produce
the benefits desired because we do not know the long term effects of utilizing them. Given
the risks, we should seek to ban them.

Genetically modified organisms can solve the problem of food supply in the developing
world.

POINT
The possible benefits from GM food are enormous. Modifications which render plants less
vulnerable from pests lead to less pesticide use, which is better for the environment. Other
modifications lead to higher crop yield, which leads to lower food prices for all. However,
This technology really comes into its own in developing countries. Here where water is at a
shortage, modifications (which lead crops to needing less water), are of vital importance.
The World Health Organization predicts that vitamin A deficiency, with the use of GMOs,
could be wiped out rapidly in the modern world. The scientists developed the strain of rice,
called golden rice, which produces more beta-carotene and this way produces 20 times
more vitamins than other strains, creating a cure for childhood blindness in developing
countries.[1]
The fact that it has not is illustrative of the lack of political and economic will to solve these
problems. GM food provides a solution that does not rely on charity from Western
governments. As the world population increases and the environment deteriorates further
this technology will become not just useful but necessary.
COUNTERPOINT
GM food will do nothing to help solve the problems in developing countries. The problem
there is not one of food production but of an inability to distribute the food (due to wars, for
example), the growing and selling of cash crops rather than staple crops to pay off the
national debt and desertification leading to completely infertile land. Bob Watson, the chief
scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), has stated that

GM technology is oversold. The problem is not that there is not enough food, but that the
food that is available is not being distributed. Today the amount of food available per capita
has never been higher, how costs are still low, and yet still around 900m people go to bed
hungry every night[1]. Instead of money being invested into genetic modification, what
should be looked at is which areas allow food to go to waste and which areas need food, and
then a redistribution needs to occur. Better transport and roads is where money should be
invested. Not with potentially hazardous GM crops.
In addition, the terminator gene prevents the farmer from re-growing the same crop year
after year and instead must buy it annually from the producer. Abolishing the terminator
gene leads to the other problem of cross-pollination and companies demanding reparations
for the re-use of their crops.
Genetically modified organisms will prevent starvation due to global climate changes.

POINT
The temperature of the earth is rising, and the rate of increase is itself increasing. As this
continues, foods that grow now will not be acclimatized to the hotter conditions. Evolution
takes many years and we simply do not have the time to starve while we wait for this to
occur. Whilst there may be a vast supply of food now, we need to look to the future and how
our current crops will withstand our changing environment. We can improve our food supply
for the future if we invest in GM crops now. These crops can be made specifically to deal with
the hotter conditions.
Moreover, Rodomiro Ortiz, director of resource mobilization at the International Maize and
Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico, is currently conducting trials with GM crops to get
them to grow is drought conditions.[1] This has already in 2007 been implemented by
Monsanto in South Africa and has shown that genetically modified maize can be grown in
South Africa and so prevent starvation.[2]
In other countries, this would also mean that foods could be cultured where organic foods
would not be able to. This would mean those in third world countries could grow their own
crops on their low nutrient content soil. This has the additional benefit of not impacting on
the environment as no transport would be needed to take the food to the places where it is
needed; this would have to occur with organic foods grown in areas of good soil and weather
conditions.[3]