INTRO:
feed containing G.M.O.s, with no evidence of harm. In fact,
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We will be
defending the positive side of Genetically modified (GM)
foods which are defined by the World Health Organization
as foods derived from organisms whose genetic material
has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally,
for example, through the introduction of a gene from a
different organism. Most genetically modified crops have
been modified to be resistant to plant diseases or to increase
tolerance of herbicides.
Humans have been modifying plants for
thousands of years. Selective breeding and many other
techniques have evolved into powerful tools for developing
innumerable varieties of cultivated plants. The new
techniques of genetic modification that have been
developed during the last twenty years by research
scientists and the biotechnology industry differ in the
methods used, and the extent and speed of the changes that
can be produced. But, to date, they do not differ
fundamentally in their broad objectives. Hence, this house
agrees to eat GMO with all the evidences gathered through
thorough research providing number of impressive benefits
that have been well established.
*Robert Wager, Faculty in the Biology Department at
Vancouver Island University, provided details about the
testing in his response to another question on GMO
Answers.  Here is an excerpt:  “Most people are not
aware of the extensive pre-market testing that must be done
before any GE crop is allowed to be commercialized.  In
reality, GE crops are tested 10-50 times the level of non-GE
crops.  The testing examines potential hazards and the
likelihood of exposure to determine the overall risks for GE
crops and derived foods."
In the words of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, that "consuming foods containing
ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than
consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop
plants modified by conventional plant improvement
techniques." Major scientific and governmental
organizations agree. The U.S. National Academy of
Sciences found that "no adverse health effects attributed to
genetic engineering have been documented in the human
population," and a report issued by the European
Commission made the same claim. The World Health
Organization has concluded that GM foods "are not likely,
nor have been shown, to present risks for human health."
*In the spring of 2016, The National Academies of
Science, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) issued a
comprehensive report where a panel of more than 20
scientists, researchers, agricultural and industry experts
reviewed over 20 years of data since GMOs were
introduced, including nearly 900 studies and tests and
European and North American health data. They concluded
– as other previous research concluded – that genetically
modified crops are safe to eat, have the same nutrition and
composition as non-genetically modified crops and have no
links to new allergies, cancer, celiac or other diseases.
*A number of impressive benefits have been well
established. For example, an analysis of 76
studies published in February in Scientific Reports by
researchers in Pisa, Italy, found that genetically engineered
corn has a significantly higher yield than non-genetically
modified varieties and contains lower amounts of toxins
commonly produced by fungi.
*By engineering resistance to insect damage, farmers have
been able to use fewer pesticides while increasing yields,
which enhances safety for farmers and the environment
while lowering the cost of food and increasing its
availability. Yields of corn, cotton and soybeans are said to
have risen by 20 percent to 30 percent through the use of
genetic engineering.
*Billions of edible animals are raised in US each year on
animal health and growth efficiency actually improved on
the genetically engineered feed, according to a 2014
review in the Journal of Animal Science.
*Wider adoption of genetic engineering, especially in
African and Asian countries that still spurn the technology,
could greatly increase the food supply in areas where
climate change will increasingly require that crops can
grow in dry and salty soils and tolerate temperature
extremes. I continue to be distressed by the
resistance to Golden Rice, a crop genetically engineered to
supply more vitamin A than spinach that could prevent
irreversible blindness and more than a million deaths a
year.
In 2005, Golden Rice 2 was announced, which produces up
to 23 times more beta-carotene than the original golden
rice.[9] To receive the USDA's Recommended Dietary
Allowance(RDA), it is estimated that 144 g of the high-
yielding strain would have to be eaten. Bioavailability of
the carotene from golden rice has been confirmed and
found to be an effective source of vitamin A for
humans. Golden Rice was one of the seven winners of the
2015 Patents for Humanity Awards by the United States
Patent and Trademark Office. In 2018 came the first
approvals as food in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and
the USA. (Golden rice is a variety of rice (Oryza sativa)
producedthrough genetic engineering to biosynthesize beta-
carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, in the edible parts of
rice)
* FEED THE WORLD- By 2050, the world’s population is
expected to expand from today’s 7 billion to way beyond 9
billion. To keep pace, the United Nations say global food
production will have to double over the next 35 years. Yet
the amount of farm land is shrinking. Biotechnology is the
only way to feed that growing population, by increasing
yields to get more food from less land. GMOs mean
cheaper, more plentiful food to fight hunger in the Third
World. It also cuts costs for consumers and raises
livelihoods for farmers in developed countries.
*STRONGER CROPS = LESS PESTICIDES- Through
genetic modification, scientists can give crops built-in
resistance to pests. That means less need for pesticides that
are potentially harmful to the environment. Studies show
the introduction of GMO soybean and corn in the United
States led to a 13 million kilo reduction in pesticide use in
the 12 years up to 2009. By reducing the need to spray,
GMOs also cut farmers’ fuel emissions, helping to fight
global warming.
AMPERING FOR TASTE- Foods can be genetically
modified to improve flavour and texture – peppers made
spicier, corn given enhanced sweetness. In blind tastings,
testers regularly rate GM foods higher than naturally grown
alternatives. One, in 2007, found 60 percent preferred GM
tomatoes. Genetic modification can also give food a longer
shelf-life – meaning consumers get fresher taste and the
environment benefits from less waste.
ENHANCED HEALTH- Biotech can make food healthier,
giving lettuce a greater concentration of nutrients, reducing
starch in potatoes or lowering the saturated-fat content of
cooking oils. Studies suggest genes introduced into GMO
tomatoes can increase their natural production of
antioxidants that might help prevent cancer or heart disease.
Improving the nutritional values of foods can be
particularly significant in boosting diets for developing
countries.
GMO crops can be tailored to provide better health
benefits. 
GMO foods can be modified so that they provide a
complete nutritional profile. Multiple vitamins and minerals
can be built into the crops as they grown by adjusting the
genetic profile of the plant, making it possible for people to
get what they need with fewer foods and lower costs. That
makes it possible to provide more people who are living in
poverty with the food resources they need to maintain their
health.
2. There is the possibility of an increased shelf life.  gluten-containing foods or other triggers are also being
GMO crops can be engineered to last longer once
harvested, which makes it possible to extend the
distribution life of the food product. That makes it possible
to use the existing infrastructure for food distribution to
send healthy foods further around the world. That means
locations which are experiencing food deserts or shortages
can still receive affordable foods that can benefit the
general population.
3. It takes less land to grow more food.  Soybeans, rice, and potatoes all saw decreases of at least
GMO crops can be engineered to produce higher yields
from the same croplands. In some instances, the crop yields
can potentially double when the transition from traditional
crops to GMO crops is completed by local farmers. That
makes it possible to meet the food demands that future
generations are going to face. By 2050, upwards of 10
billion people are expected to be living on our planet.
Oxfam currently estimates that global food production is
enough to feed about 8 billion people.
4. Genetically modified crops can conserve energy, soil,
and water resources.  combustion with tractors, combines, and other farming
That allows our food distribution networks to make less of
an impact on the environment. Food can be grown in areas
that receive very little rainfall and have zero irrigation with
proper genetic modifications. Crops can be grown on fields
with little soil. Because the crops have an increased
resistance to disease, weeds, and pests, there is greater
consistency in the yields that can be produced. That makes
it easier to budget food resources for a larger population
base.
5. Simple changes to certain crops can have a major
impact.  in children, any food at any time has the potential of
The United Nations, through their Food and Agriculture
Organization, suggests that the easiest way to decrease
vitamin A deficiencies is to genetically modify rice to have
higher levels of this nutrient. Because half of the world’s
population consumes rice on a daily basis, the high rates of
this vitamin deficiency could be resolved with this one
simple change. Bananas in Uganda are being looked at for
this vitamin enhancement as well, while soybeans provide
higher levels of Omega-3s without trans-fats.
6. Fewer harmful agents need to be applied to crops.  there are stories of shepherds letting loose sheep into Bt
GMO crops are more resistant to pests, weeds, and other
threats. That means farmers have less of a need to apply
pesticides or herbicides to their crops, which saves them
money and potentially increases the health benefits of the
food being grown. Farmers can also make more money
from their existing croplands because there are greater
yields with GMO crops. Even the sustainability benefits,
such as drought-resistance, can maintain yields so that
fewer subsidies are required.
7. It can save core crops from extinction.  potential to do much good in the world provided that proper
Many of the foods we eat today are products of a single
initial resource. Every naval orange, for example, is
essentially a clone of one original tree that was grafted to
created additional trees. That lack of genetic variation puts
the crop at-risk should a virus or bacteria be able to attack
the basic genome of the crop. We’ve already seen that
happen with the Hawaiian Rainbow Papaya and genetic
engineering helped to save the industry. Something similar
could happen to naval oranges or any other crop.
8. Farmers can use better ground-care methods.  original golden rice, more plentiful food to fight hunger,
Because GMO crops have a greater overall tolerance, no-
till farming methods become a possibility. Even if tilling is
required, less may be necessary to successfully plant a crop.
That means less irrigation may be necessary. Less nutrient
runoff may be experienced. Soil erosion can be reduced. At
the same time, the safety and nutritional value of the crops
are not placed at-risk.
9. Future GMOs could eliminate food allergies or
intolerance issues.  of change. With this technology, we have the potential to
Current genetic engineering research is focused on
removing the allergen triggers that are present in common
foods, like peanuts. Intolerance issues that are caused by
examined. The future of food science in the world of
GMOs could make it possible for people with food allergies
or intolerance issues be able to safely eat foods they love in
the future.
10. GMO crops use less water. 
From 1980 to 2011, the amount of irrigation water required
for fields planted with corn decreased by 53%. For cotton
fields the amount of irrigation water decreased by 75%.
38%. Even wheat fields saw a 12% decrease in irrigation
water consumption when planted with GMO crops
compared to traditional crops.
11. There may be a positive environmental impact with
GMO crops. 
In general terms, GMO crops require fewer in-field
operations and applications to maintain the quality of the
yield. Because of this, fewer passes over the field are
required. That reduces the amount of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases that are created through fossil fuel
equipment. Carbon dioxide is also stored in the soil, so
fewer passes means less of a release occurs there as well.
12. GMO foods must meet the same standards as
traditional foods. 
For GMO food products to be sold in the United States,
they must meet the same quality and safety standards as
any other food product. When compared to organic foods,
Stanford University has even found that there are no
additional health risks when eating GMO foods or organic
foods. Although there are food allergy concerns, especially
creating an allergy. From a pure nutritional standpoint,
GMO foods are equal or greater than what is found at the
average grocery store.
13. GMOs can even safe beneficial insects. 
When Bt proteins are used in genetic engineering, it targets
a specific group of insect pests that are dangerous to that
specific crop. Other beneficial insects that would be killed
when spraying a general pesticide are saved. Those
included proteins have a minimal effect on them. Although
fields and losing thousands of head of livestock because of
it, there are often more positives than negatives to find
here.
Conclusion:
Ladies and gentlemen, we have talked about GMO and
given the facts and circumstances provided in this debate,
this house reaffirm the view that GM crops represent an
important new technology which ought to have the
safeguards are maintained or introduced. Hence, GMO is
safe to be eaten by human, provided that all those who are
involved in developing the new technology, whether they
are researchers in the public sector, in agrochemical or
agricultural businesses or farmers, or food manufacturers
and retailers need to recognise and accept a very broad
responsibility to the public. The scope of improvements
offered by genetic modification in the future is much wider
and consumer benefits are much more evident. GMO
produces up to 23 times more beta-carotene than the
give food a longer shelf-life – meaning consumers get
fresher taste, significant in boosting diets for developing
countries, make it possible for people with food allergies or
intolerance issues be able to safely eat foods they love in
the future, makes it possible to use the existing
infrastructure for food distribution to send healthy foods
further around the world and the likes. At some point, we
must figure out how to feed our growing population levels.
New farming methods can only produce a limited amount
maximize our resources. Thank you.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity
or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some
policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because
"it's always been done that way." This is an extremely
popular fallacy in debate rounds; for example, "Every great
civilization in history has provided state subsidies for art
and culture!" But that fact does not justify cont

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the

person). This is the error of attacking the character or
motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the
idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is
when one debater maligns the character of another debater

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance).

This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false
simply because a proof or argument that someone has
offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because
there may be another proof or argument that successfully
supports the proposition. 

Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to

pity). The English translation pretty much says it all.
Example: "Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian
children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?"
The problem with such an argument is that no amount of
special pleading can make the impossible possible, the false
true, the expensive costless, etc.

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of

disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to
prove something by saying it again and again. But no
matter how many times you repeat something, it will not
become any more or less true than it was in the first place.
Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and
again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to
substitute for real arguments.

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to

numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something
by showing how many people think that it's true. But no
matter how many people believe something, that doesn't
necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of
all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions."
Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to

authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to
demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some
person who agrees, even though that person may have no
expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like
to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to
have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a
political philosopher rather than a physicist.

Naturalistic fallacy. This is the fallacy of trying to derive

conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about
values) from statements of fact alone. This is invalid
because no matter how many statements of fact you
assemble, any logical inference from them will be another
statement of fact, not a statement of value. If you wish to
reach conclusions about values, then you must include
amongst your assumptions (or axioms, or premises) a
statement of value.

Slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is not always a

fallacy.  A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says
adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a
series of other policies or actions also being taken, without
showing a causal connection between the advocated policy
and the consequent policies. A popular example of the
slippery slope fallacy is, "If we legalize marijuana, the next
thing you know we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack
cocaine." This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur,
because no reason has been provided for why legalization
of one thing leads to legalization of another.