Aff Case

On balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms.

Definitions:

Genetically Modified Foods: (GMOs) can be defined as organisms in which the

genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating
and/or natural recombination.

Framework:

The long-term benefits of GMOs should always outweigh short-term costs, because
long-term benefits affect a greater number of people over a longer period of time.
Thus if at the end of the round Pro establishes a long term benefit, and con
demonstrates a short term cost, you should prefer the long-term benefit.

Contention One: GMOs are the only feasible way to solve the growing populations food crisis.
A. As humans used technology in the form of skyscrapers to satisfy their housing needs, we
need to turn to technology in the form of GMOs to satisfy our food needs. Creating
plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high salt content in soil and
groundwater will help people to grow crops in formerly inhospitable places. Food
production uses a significant quantity of arable land and natural resources, and GMOs
hold promise to alleviate this burden on the Earth. The efficiency of land use is a
significant issue: by 2050, the global population is expected to rise above 9 billion, and
the existing amount of arable land is expected to decrease significantly due to
anthropogenic climate change and urbanization (Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations)

B. GM crops have been grown commercially since 1996. Since then, the area planted with
GM crops has increased over 100 fold from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to around 175.2
million hectares worldwide in 2013 (International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications). The projected population expansion and rise of food consumption
per person in China and India makes efficient land use essential to food security in the
next 100 years. Biotechnology firms claim that transgenic crops promise more food with
less land. GMO crops have been found to increase yields, with a 10 percent change to a
genetically modified herbicide tolerant crop (Bt crops) yielding a roughly 1.7 percent
increase in productivity (USDA).
As the population of the world inevitably rises, GM crops are the most ready solution to
preventing long-term and wide-spread famine due to their efficiency and promise.
Contention Two: Implementation of GMO crops is actually beneficial for the environment and
individual health
A. Use of GMO plants increases yields and decreases the need for pesticide use, thereby
preventing significant ecological damage. GM pesticide-producing crops are engineered
to produce Bt toxins, a crystal protein naturally synthesized by the bacterium bacillus
thuringiensis. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has found that these
toxins do not activate in the human gut, and pose no risk to human health (EPA).
Herbicide-resistant crops are engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, an herbicide with
relatively low toxicity levels, which allows for the spraying of glyphosate on crops to kill
weeds. An example of such a plant is the Roundup Ready soybean produced by
Monsanto, and the EPA has labeled glyphosate with a low toxicity rating (EPA).

B. The European corn borer, a widespread crop pest, claims 7 percent of the world's corn
supply each year. Use of Bt corn has saved US farmers in Iowa and Nebraska alone up to
1.7 billion dollars in fighting this pest over the past 14 years, when compared to non-Bt
variants (University of Nebraska, Department of Entomology). Along with increasing
yields, Bt crops also decrease pesticide usage. Some estimates indicate that if 50% of
maize, rape seed, sugar beet, and cotton grown in the EU were GM varieties, pesticide in
the EU/year would decrease by 14.5 million kg of formulated product, and there would
be a reduction of 7.5 million hectares sprayed, which would save 20.5 million liters of
diesel and result in a reduction of approximately 73,000 tons of carbon dioxide being
released into the atmosphere (Crop Life International).
Contrary to many popular yet ill-advised beliefs, many prominent GMOs benefit the
environment while also posing no real harm to human diet. It is for this and the above
reasons that my partner and I offer the affirmative ballot.
Thank you