Questions to ask an affirmative team about GMO's?

Question

So i am in a speech and debate class and our topic is genetically modified organisms. My team is against them, and for cross examination we have to ask the team that is for GMO's questions, what kinds of questions should i ask?

Answer 1

GMO's themselves and superior to organics in every way(taste, quality, end yield, size, etc.). They are specifically engineered that way.



The only good points you can make against them are relating to how they are treated. One think I can think of right now is because of its increased durability, farmers usually put an increased amount and stronger pesticides on them compared to organic.

Answer 2

Alfred is full of misinformation.



You could ask if any long term human studies have ever been done. The answer is no.

You could ask if any truly independent studies have ever been done. The answer is no.

You could ask if biotech lobby groups have influence over government decisions. The answer is yes.

You could ask if horizontal gene transfer is safe. The answer is unknown.

You could ask if food is supposed to be made in a lab. The answer is no.

You could ask how farmers plan to prevent cross-pollination between gmo and non-gmo plants. There is no way they can control this.

You could ask why corporate interest and profit has been placed above human health. The answer is unknown.

Answer 3

The Declaration of Helsinki was developed as a code of ethics for human experimentation. It states, "All medical research involving human subjects must be preceded by careful assessment of predictable risks and burdens to the individuals and groups involved in the research in comparison with foreseeable benefits to them and to other individuals or groups affected by the condition under investigation." as well as, "Participation by individuals capable of giving informed consent as subjects in medical research must be voluntary." http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/



According to the British Medical Association, "the evidence for real benefit is not yet sufficiently persuasive to grow GM crops at the expense of conventionally derived alternatives that can be grown at least as effectively." http://web.archive.org/.../a.../Content/GMFoods/$file/GM.pdf



The Public Health Association of Australia states, "The precautionary principle should be applied in developing GM food as it is not certain whether there are serious risks to the environment or to human health involved in producing or consuming GM foods or their products." http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/policy/GMFood.pdf



Viennese Doctors' Chamber states "The release of transgenic species in nature must still be strictly opposed as the results can neither be estimated nor reversed." http://www.wallstreet-online.de/.../6412156-genetically...



Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment(CAPE) : "CAPE has grave concerns about the environmental release of genetically modified (GM) crops and products; we call for the immediate suspension of all such releases" http://www.cape.ca/resources/documents/gmo_statement.html



So, if numerous medical groups acknowledge that there is no known direct medical benefit for humans from currently grown GE crops, then isn't it a human rights violation to release GE crops on the human population, when there is only risk and many people do not consent to this release?



second question

Argentina has heavily cultivated roundup ready (RR) soy planting 50 million acres. They experienced a 447% rise in birth defects. The only thing substantially different was the RR crops. Argentina tested the crops to find they contained 200ppm of glyphosate (the active ingredient in roundup). They then tested the glyphosate for toxicity. They found that at .1ppm it feeds Cancer, at .2ppm it disrupts the endocrine system, at .5ppm it causes infertility, at 2.03ppm it causes birth defects. De Dell Seeds did a nutritional analysis of the RR corn and found that the RR corn is coming in at 13ppm and contained 200ppm of formaldehyde, and had a significant drop in nutrition.

http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/biotech-lies-exposed-gmo-corn-contains-practically-no-nutrients-loaded-with-chemical-poisons/

If the roundup is systemic meaning it goes right inside the plant and can not be washed off and it is designed to be a chelating agent meaning it is designed to make nutrients unavailable and we put that together with De Dell's proof of drop in nutrition and toxicity content and Argentina"s proof of toxicity at extremely high levels how can the industry say without financial bias that these crops are safe?



question 3

Roundup does not kill weeds. Roundup is a systemic chelating agent meaning it goes right inside the plant and makes the nutrients unavailable to the plant therefore weakening the plant causing it to be unable to fend off diseases. Roundup is also registered as an antibiotic. when it goes into the ground it kills off all of the good microbes in the soil allowing the fungi to take over and infect the weakened plant which then sucumbs and dies. When the natural way for the soil and the plants to be healthy is the plant's by products leach into the soil which then feeds the microbes making them healthy and the microbes emit their byproducts into the soil which then feeds the plant creating the perfect symbiotic relationship keeping each other health enough to fend off illness and disease. Once the microbial balance of the soil is disrupted it takes 3-5 years to recover. If a farmer is spraying his fields multiple times a year with roundup what is that doing to the health of the soil? and how does that affect the crops over the long run if the yield is directly dependant on the health of the plant and the health of the plant is directly related to the health of the soil but the soil health which takes 3-5 years to recover is being decimated multiple times a year?