Resolved: On balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms. Definitions: On balance- all things considered Genetically modified food- crops and animals that are consumed by people and have and their genetic structure changed in some way. Outweigh- more benefits than harms Observations: 1-The resolution states that the benefits outweigh the harms, meaning that both sides must acknowledge that there are harms and benefits to gmfs. 2- 3- It is not the cons job to show that the harms outweigh the benefits, just that the benefits do not outweigh the harms. Resolved: On balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms. today up to 70% of foods found in kitchens are genetically modified in some. many problems arise with the issue of genetically modified organisms leading my partner and I to C1 many of the health effects of genetically modified foods are not well known says http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_11361.cfmThey have been linked to thousands of toxic and allergenic reactions, thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock. in 1992 the Food and Drug Administration claimed that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different from conventionally grown foods and therefore were safe to eat. But internal memos made public by a lawsuit reveal that their position was staged by political appointees under orders from the White House to promote GMOs. FDA scientists, on the other hand, warned that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. Recent studies have even shown that some genetically modified plants could lead to breast cancer. the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutriotional harms

1 GM potatoes damaged rats

1. Rats were fed potatoes engineered to produce their own insecticide.

2. They developed potentially precancerous cell growth in the digestive tract, inhibited development of their brains, livers and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, enlarged pancreases and intestines and immune system damage.

katie@thepattons.nameTypewritten textfirmly negate the resolution On balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods out weigh the harms.

3. The cause was not the insecticide, but in all likelihood was the process of genetic engineering.

4. GM foods on the marketwhich were created with the same processhave not been subject to such an extensive testing protocol.

1.2 Rats fed GM tomatoes got bleeding stomachs, several died

1. Rats were fed the GM FlavrSavr tomato for 28 days.

2. Seven of 20 rats developed stomach lesions (bleeding stomachs); another 7 of 40 died within two weeks and were replaced in the study.

3. The tomato was approved despite unresolved safety questions by FDA scientists.

1.3 Rats fed Bt corn had multiple health problems

1. Rats were fed Monsanto's Mon 863 Bt corn for 90 days.

2. They showed significant changes in their blood cells, livers and kidneys, which might indicate disease.

3. Although experts demanded follow-up, Monsanto used unscientific, contradictory arguments to dismiss concerns.

C2 Contractual issues

https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/aglaw/Impacts_of_Genetically_Modified.pdf The contracts that

seed companies require that buyers of their GM seeds sign when obtaining those seeds may

disadvantage farmers. Seed companies have invested significant funds in the research and

development of GM seeds, and they protect this investment through their contracts with

agricultural growers. These contracts aggressively protect the biotechnology company's rights

to the seeds, meaning that even if the slightest thing goes wrong, a farmer does not have the

opportunity to sue for money back. Contracts between seed companies and farmers sometimes

contain a clause that limits the "liability of [the seed company] to or any seller for any and all

losses, injury or damages resulting from the use or handling of a product containing [the seed

company's] gene technology shall be the price paid by the grower for the quantity of such

product involved, or at the election of [the seed company] or any seller, the replacement of such

quantity. In no event shall [the seed company] or any seller be liable for any incidental,

consequential, special or punitive damages. Under such a clause, if the use of GM seed has a

negative impact on another aspect of the farmer's operations, this clause precludes the farmer

from recovering any damages from the company in the event the use of the product causes

harm.on a farm in northwest Indiana, where he and his family grow wheat, corn, soybeans,

and popcorn. He recently paid $119 an acre for his GM corn (for the seed alone) as opposed

to $87 an acre for conventionally bred corn. The yields, he said, are pretty well equal.

Farmers earn an annual income of $61,000 in 2010, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics. The top 10 percent of earners in the field made about $107,000 a year, while the

bottom 10 percent made less than $30,000. Farmers income fluctuates as prices of their crops

change with weather conditions, oil prices and currency-exchange rates, among other factors.

C3 Monopolizing the market with patent seeds

While the yield may be increased by genetically modifying organisms, the money made from the

sales goes to a small number of people who mostly already have money. The companies with

genetic structures and patents on them have the ability to monopolize the market. One of the

ways they do this is that they purposefully breed seeds to be sterile so that the small farms they

sell to will have to buy new seeds every year. Sometime the farmers do not even know the

monopolizing is happening. According to Hilary Weiss Biotech companies have developed

terminator technology designed to create edible but infertile GM seeds. The terminator

technology harms farmers who employ traditional methods of reusing seeds from one years

crop for the following years harvest by forcing them to buy new seeds annually. Additionally,

because GM crops can be grown in first world environments previously unable to produce such

crops, the export markets of developing nations are hindered. Furthermore, small farms are

confronted with the burdensome task of competing with big business farms that can more

easily assume production costs and other expenses that accompany the use of GMO crop

production. A bag of Monsanto soybean seeds is $70. That is a 143% increase from the cost of

that same bag in 2001. These seeds often produce sterile seeds, but if a seed isnt sterile and is

used again, Monsanto can sue the farmer who has reused seeds instead of buying new ones.

The contracts are often tricky to understand and many of the farmers in poor areas cannot afford

a lawyer to read over it before they sign. Also, non-gmo seeds are more profitable than gmo

seeds. The seeds can cost 3 to eight times more for genetically modified ones than regular and

many people are willing to pay more for non modified such as grain dealer Clarkson Grain who

pays a dollar extra for every non genetically modified bushel of corn. According to Bloom, a farm

consultant, planting convention corn can save farmers an average of $81 per acre per season.

Thats a difference of $81,000 for a farm of 1,000 acres.

Con ideas:

health effects not well known some large companies have patents on the genetic structures making it easier to

monopolize playing field When plant seed move, they are carrying their genetic material making it an issue when

another farmer cultivates and sells a plant that has a patent on the genetic structure. Must show benefits do not outweigh harms, not that harms outweigh benefits

In the U.S, 3 agencies are responsible with the release of GM food plants. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).