The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

1

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

November  2014  

THE  FORENSICS  FILES   THE  PFD  FILE    

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

2

Table of Contents

Topic Overview 3

Definitions 4

Pro Cases 9

Con Cases 13

Pro Extensions 17

Con Extensions 27

Pro Blocks 37

Con Blocks 41

Preflows 45

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

3

Topic Overview Resolved: On balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms. The NSDA PFD topic for November 2014 is genetically modified (GM) foods. Genetic modification refers to a process that humans use to crossbreed plants and organisms that are not usually found together in nature. If you have taken Biology, you might be familiar with Punnett’s squares to help predict the outcome of cross-breeding, genetic modification is a similar process. However, scientists have found a way to speed up the process of genetic medication with new advances. Using genetic modification, scientists are able to prevent bad things that happen to crops, such as crop failures, which have historically caused people to starve to death. However, many people are “creeped out” by how fast scientists can genetically modify food. This has led to a lot of speculation of the years that GM foods might be harmful to humans. The genetic modification of foods is actually a very old topic of debate. It has been the subject of a college policy debate resolution, and the impact of many politics disadvantages in policy debate over the past decade. However, a new GM food known as “Golden Rice” has hit the markets and resparked debate over whether the benefits of GM foods outweigh the harms. Much of the new news coverage will simply reassert traditional criticisms in a new context. This enables debaters to access older evidence as directly relevant to the current issues surrounding Golden Rice. The wording of the resolution should lend itself to fewer topicality arguments and permit a good, in-depth debate on the nuances of GM foods. The topic squarely pits the benefits of GM foods against the harms, and asks the student competitors to present both sides for the judge to resolve the ultimate question of whether the benefits outweigh. Because the resolution requires debaters to do some sort of weighing of impacts for the judges, Public Forum debaters would benefit from an argumentation model utilized in cross-examination debate. When effectively weighing impacts, debaters might look at the timeframe for impacts to occur, the probability that impacts could occur considered in light of the probability that a policy proposal would solve the impacts, and the magnitude of the impacts. Although the timeframe-probability-magnitude model is not directly analogous for topical debates under this resolution, the weighing in terms of magnitude and probability will be essential to picking up judges’ ballots in November. We have provided some of the most basic arguments for and against GM foods in this File. We also included sample cases that could be used to get practice debates in immediately and direct further research on more of the specific nuances of the GM debate. TFF wishes you the best of luck this November!

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

4

Definitions Balance

1 An even distribution of weight enabling someone or something to remain upright and steady 2 A condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions 3 A usually earnest attempt: Make an effort to arrive promptly. 4 An apparatus for weighing, especially one with a central pivot, beam, and a pair of scales. 5 A counteracting weight or force. 6 A predominating weight or amount; the majority

Source: Oxford Dictionary 2014 Balance

1 A weighing device, especially one consisting of a rigid beam horizontally suspended by a low-friction support at its center, with identical weighing pans hung at either end, one of which holds an unknown weight while the effective weight in the other is increased by known amounts until the beam is level and motionless. 2 A state of equilibrium or parity characterized by cancellation of all forces by equal opposing forces.

3 The power or means to decide. 4 A stable mental or psychological state; emotional stability. 5 A harmonious or satisfying arrangement or proportion of parts or elements, as in a design. 6 An influence or force tending to produce equilibrium; counterpoise. 7 The difference in magnitude between opposing forces or influences.

Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2014 Balance 1 the state of having your weight spread equally so that you do not fall

2 the ability to move or to remain in a position without losing control or falling 3 a state in which different things occur in equal or proper amounts or have an equal or proper amount of importance

Source: Merriam-Webster 2014

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

5

Benefits

1. a helpful or good effect, or something intended to help 2. the money given by the government to people who need financial help, for

example because they cannot find a job Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2013

Benefits

1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage 2. a payment or gift, as one made to help someone or given by a benefit society,

insurance company, or public agency 3. to do good to; be of service to

Source: Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2013 Benefits

1. a helpful or good effect Source: Cambridge Dictionary of American English 2013 Genetically

1. of, or relating to, or involving genes; 2. relating to or determined by the origin, development, or causal antecedents of something 3. of, relating to, or involving genetics 4. of, relating to, caused by, or controlled by genes

Source: Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary 2014 Genetically 1. Of or relating to genes or heredity:

2. Of or relating to genetics 3. Of or relating to origin; arising from a common origin:

Source: Oxford Dictionary Online 2014

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

6

Genetically

1. belonging or relating to genes (= parts of the DNA in cells) received by each animal or plant from its parents:

Source: Cambridge Dictionary Online 2014 Modified 1. to change some parts of (something) while not changing other parts 2. to make less extreme 3. to limit or restrict the meaning of especially in a grammatical construction

4. to make basic or fundamental changes in often to give a new orientation to or to serve a new end

Source: Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary 2014 Modified

1. Make partial or minor changes to (something), typically so as to improve it or to make it less extreme: 2. Transform (a structure) from its original anatomical form during development or evolution.

Source: Oxford Dictionary Online 2014 Modified 1. to change something slightly, esp. to improve it or make it more acceptable or less extreme Source: Cambridge Dictionary Online 2014 Genetically Modified

1. (Of an organism or crop) containing genetic material that has been artificially altered so as to produce a desired characteristic:

Source: Oxford Dictionary Online 2014 Foods 1. the things that people and animals eat

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

7

2. a particular kind of food 3. substances taken in by plants and used for growth 4. material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate, and fat used in the body of an organism to sustain growth, repair, and vital processes and to furnish energy; also : such food together with supplementary substances (as minerals, vitamins, and condiments) 5. inorganic substances absorbed by plants in gaseous form or in water solution

Source: Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary 2014

Foods

1. Any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth

Source: Oxford Dictionary Online 2014

Foods

1. something that can be taken in by an animal and used to keep it alive and allow it to grow or develop, or such things considered as a whole: 2. Sometimes food means only the solid material eaten by animals, and not liquids:

Source: Cambridge Dictionary Online 2014 Outweigh

1. be heavier, greater, or more significant than Source: Compact Oxford English Dictionary 2011 Outweigh

1. To weigh more than. 2. To be more significant than; exceed in value or importance

Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011 Outweigh

1. to be more important, useful, or valuable than something else Source: Macmillan Dictionary 2011

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

8

Outweigh

1. to exceed in weight, value, or importance to exceed in weight, value, or importance

Source: Cambridge Dictionary of American English 2011 Harms

1. to hurt someone or damage something Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2011 Harms

1. physical injury or mental damage; hurt 2. moral injury; evil; wrong

Source: Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2011 Harms 1. physical or other injury or damage

Source: Cambridge Dictionary of American English 2011

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

9

Pro Cases

PRO CASE #1 [Tiebreakers — 1 of 2]

We believe that the following resolution is true: “Resolved: On balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms.” The thesis of our case is that although the science on both sides of whether GM foods are safe is biased and untrustworthy, there are two tiebreakers that make the benefits of GM Foods outweigh the harms. First, the studies on health effects are biased and untrustworthy. A. The studies in favor of health benefits are biased and untrustworthy. Jeffrey M. Smith, University of Maharishi University, Company Research On Genetically Modified Foods Is Rigged 2007, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, November 20071: In 2004, four advocates of genetically modified (GM) foods published a study in the British Food Journal that was sure to boost their cause [1]. According to the peer-reviewed papin a Canadian farm store were confronted with an informed and unbiased choice between GM corn and non-GM corn, most purchased the GM variety. This finding flew in the face of worldwide consumer resistance to GM foods, which had shut markets in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere. It also challenged studies that showed that the more information on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) consumers have, the less they trust them.[2] The study, which was funded by the biotech-industry front group, Council for Biotechnology Information and the industry's trade association, the Crop Protection Institute of Canada (now Croplife Canada), was given the Journal's prestigious Award for Excellence for the Most Outstanding Paper of 2004 and has been cited often by biotech advocates. B. The health studies against GM Foods are biased. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 20002: Genetically-modified foods (GM foods) have made a big splash in the news lately. European environmental organizations and public interest groups have been actively protesting against GM foods for months, and recent controversial studies about the effects of genetically-modified corn pollen on monarch butterfly caterpillars1,2 have brought the issue of genetic engineering to the forefront of the public consciousness in the U.S. In response to the up swelling of public concern, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held three open meetings in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Oakland, California to solicit public opinions and begin the process of establishing a new regulatory procedure for government approval of GM foods.3 I attended the FDA

1 http://www.responsibletechnology.org/fraud/rigged-studies/Company-Research-On-Genetically-Modified-Foods-Is-Rigged-November-2007 2 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

10

PRO CASE #1 [Tiebreakers — 2 of 2]

meeting held in November 1999 in Washington, D.C., and here I will attempt to summarize the issues involved and explain the U.S. government's present role in regulating GM food. This means that we cannot trust health studies on either side. Thus, we must look to the non-health benefits and harms and the ability to feed people. Any argument the Con side makes about weighing health harms is irrelevant. This is fair because we are also admitting health benefits cannot be proven either. Thus, when the harms and benefits of health are indeterminate, we must decide on other issues. GM Foods have two advantages that outweigh: 1. GM foods help to solve the housing crisis of a growing population. Whitman continues: As the world population grows and more land is utilized for housing instead of food production, farmers will need to grow crops in locations previously unsuited for plant cultivation. 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. 2. The net economic benefits of GM foods for farmers, including poor and small farmers, almost a hundred billions dollars. According to a PG Economics Press Release on April 22, 20133: The net economic benefit at the farm level in 2011 was $19.8 billion, equal to an average increase in income of $133/hectare. For the 16 year period (1996-2011), the global farm income gain has been $98.2 billion; Of the total farm income benefit, 49% ($48 billion) has been due to yield gains resulting from lower pest and weed pressure and improved genetics, with the balance arising from reductions in the cost of production; The insect resistant (IR) technology used in cotton and corn has consistently delivered yield gains from reduced pest damage. The average yield gains over the 1996-2011 period across all users of this technology has been +10.1% for insect resistant corn and +15.8% for insect resistant cotton; A majority (51%) of the 2011 farm income gains went to farmers in developing countries, 90% of which are resource poor and small farms. Cumulatively (1996-2011), about 50% of the benefit each went to farmers in developing and developed countries. Therefore, we win on two tiebreakers: global housing crisis and global economics. Thus, the resolution is true. I am now open for questioning.

3 www.pgeconomics.co.uk/page/35.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

11

PRO CASE #2 [The Debate Is Over — 1 of 2]

We believe that the following resolution is true: “Resolved: On balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms.” The thesis of our case is that the debate is over on GM Foods. The most recent scientific studies conclusively prove that the benefits of GM foods outweigh the harms. The Con side will rely on outdated studies, hyperbole (“hi – PER – bowl – E”), and unfounded attacks on science. Thus, you should vote Pro. First, The debate is over, at least in the scientific community, that the benefits of GM foods outweigh the harms. Michael White, systems biologist at the Department of Genetics and the Center for Genome Sciences and Systems Biology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, The Scientific Debate About GM Foods Is Over: They’re Safe, The Pacific Standard, writes in 20134: Within the scientific community, the debate over the safety of GM foods is over. The overwhelming conclusion is, 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.” Two, scientific studies have shown that GM foods have failed to produce any harmful health effects. White continues: The scientific literature backs this up. In February, the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry published a literature review covering 20 years of safety studies. The authors found “overwhelming evidence” that using biotechnology to genetically modify crops “is less disruptive of crop composition compared with traditional breeding, which itself has a tremendous history of safety.” An overview of safety studies appearing this month in Nature Biotechnology noted that, despite disagreement over a need for more long-term safety studies, both critics and proponents of GMOs agree that so far “genetically modified foods have failed to produce any untoward health effects.”

4www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/scientific-debate-gm-foods-theyre-safe-66711/

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

12

PRO CASE #2 [The Debate Is Over — 2 of 2]

Third, fears of GM foods are unfounded, and not based on actual evidence. We conclude with another card from White 2013 In other words, the scientific consensus is that GMOs do not pose risks to our health or the environment that are any different from the risks posed by the non-GM crops created with modern breeding programs. The discrepancy between the public debate over GM foods and the debate within the scientific community has left many scientists puzzling over the question: What evidence will it take to convince the public that GM foods are as safe as non-GM foods? Thus, the resolution is true. Now onto the Con’s case.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

13

Con Cases

CON CASE #1 [Precautionary Principle—1 of 2]

We believe that the following resolution is true: “Resolved: On balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms.” The thesis of our case is that we cannot know the benefits of GM foods and that there are significant health risks, thus we should use the precautionary principle to conclude that the harms outweigh the benefits until conclusively proven otherwise. First, doctors are calling for a moratorium against GMOs for their health risks including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the GI system. Jeffrey M. Smith, University of Maharishi University, Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food, Institute for Responsible Technology, May 20095: On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on "Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks."[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM's position paper stated, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation," as defined by recognized scientific criteria. "The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies." Second, the truth about GMOs is being suppressed by the scientific community and big corporations. Susan Johnson, J.D. Candidate, American University Washington College of Law, 14 Sustainable Development Law & Policy 34, 34 (2014): Despite persistent skepticism. GMOS dominate the domestic market, largely due to powerful initiatives that insulate the industry." Independent scientists who publish studies showing negative or abnormal phenomena implicating GM products have frequently endured criticism and backlash from scientific peers working to preserve GMO-friendly public policies. In this climate of debate. members of the biotech field aggressively defend industry practices and relentlessly contest any perceived opposition or legal violation. Industry giant Monsanto, for example. has sued more than 410 farmers in twenty-seven states.” in some instances destroying multi-generational farms in the

5www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/health-risk-articles-landing

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

14

CON CASE #1 [Precautionary Principle —2 of 2]

process." By contrast. anti-GMO activists have comparatively fewer and less powerful legal mechanisms at their disposal, limiting the ubiquity of their critical message. Third, we should adopt the precautionary principle and not accept the benefits of GM foods until they are proven beyond a reasonable doubt Les Levidow, Precautionary uncertainty: regulating GM crops in Europe. Social Studies of Science, 31(6), pp. 842–874, Social Studies of Science 31(6): 845-78, December 2001:6 Through the precautionary principle, governments acknowledge the limits of science as a basis for policy, while seeking to clarify scientific uncertainty. This tension is exemplified by the European risk regulation of genetically modified (GM) crops. The risk debate has been translated into various precautionary approaches, each with its own cognitive framing of the relevant uncertainties. Early safety claims took for granted intensive agricultural models; normative judgements served to downplay uncertainties which were not readily reducible, thus justifying commercial approval of products. In the late 1990s public protest strengthened broader accounts of uncertainty, for example through more stringent environmental norms and more complex causal pathways of potential harm. Fact-finding methods were debated as a value-laden choice for how best to generate more relevant knowledge. Thus, the resolution is false. I am now open for questioning.

6 http://oro.open.ac.uk/2856/1/ll_precuncertainty_sss_01.pdf

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

15

CON CASE #2 [Big Harms—1 of 2]

We believe that the following resolution is true: “Resolved: On balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms.” The thesis of our case is that the harms are big and the benefits will not be realized. First, GM foods are linked to cancer. Stephen Tan, Lawyer in Seattle, J.D. University of Colorado, Brian Epley, J.D. Candidate, University of Washington School of Law, Much Ado about Something: The First Amendment and Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods, Washington. Law. Rev. 301 (2014) With the introduction of a brighter red and slower ripening tomato known as the “Flavr Savr tomato.” the genetically modified organism (“GMO") industry exploded. The GMO industry has since left its mark on agriculture.‘ and in its wake, a shift in global biosafety regulation? In the past decade. the saying. “eat your vegetables," has taken on a whole new and daunting meaning. Scientists are now linking some of the most basic crops consumed around the world to serious health complications)‘ A recent study conducted by French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini and his colleagues revealed massive tumors, as well as liver and kidney damage, on rats that had consumed genetically modified organisms.‘ Second, GM foods cause unintended harm to other organisms Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Last year a laboratory study was published in Nature21 showing that pollen from B.t. corn caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Monarch caterpillars consume milkweed plants, not corn, but the fear is that if pollen from B.t. corn is blown by the wind onto milkweed plants in neighboring fields, the caterpillars could eat the pollen and perish. Although the Nature study was not conducted under natural field conditions, the results seemed to support this viewpoint. Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kill many species of insect larvae indiscriminately; it is not possible to design a B.t. toxin that would only kill crop-damaging pests and remain harmless to all other insects. This study is being reexamined by the USDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other non-government research groups, and preliminary data from new studies suggests that the original study may have been flawed22, 23. This topic is the subject of acrimonious debate, and both sides of the argument are defending their data vigorously. Currently, there is no agreement about the results of these studies, and the potential risk of harm to non-target organisms will need to be evaluated further.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

16

CON CASE #2 [Big Harms—2 of 2]

Third, the perceived harms undermine the realization of any possible actual benefits; people are literally revolting against GM foods. Matt McGrath, Environment correspondent, BBC News, 'Golden rice' GM trial vandalised in the Philippines, August 9, 2013:7 The plot in Bicol was guarded and fenced but the protestors broke through the security and uprooted and trampled the rice plants. The attackers who were members of a group called Sikwal-Gmo say they attacked the crop because they believe that GM technology is not the solution to malnutrition in the Philippines. The protestors argue that international agrochemical corporations and the US are behind the drive for Golden Rice. In a statement, they said they were concerned that the rice trial was both a danger to human health and biodiversity. Thus, the resolution is false. Now onto the Pro’s case.

7 , www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23632042

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

17

Pro Extensions Public opposition to GM foods is decreasing. Luis Acosta, Senior Legal Information Analyst, Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States, Library of Congress, March 2014, http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php Public opinion on GMOs in the US is mixed. A series of polls conducted over five years, from 2001 to 2006, found that public understanding of biotechnology was relatively low, and that consumers were relatively unaware of the extent to which their foods included genetically modified ingredients. Support for the introduction of genetically modified foods into the food supply held steady at 26 to 27% of respondents in favor over that time period, while opposition to the introduction of such foods fell from 58 to 46% over the period. The scientific and scholarly community agree that there is little to no risk of actual harms from GM Foods. Luis Acosta, Senior Legal Information Analyst, Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States, Library of Congress, March 2014, http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council,[12] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[13] and the American Medical Association.[14] Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations,[15] organic farming organizations,[16] and consumer organizations.[17] A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US’s approach to regulating GMOs. The US has not yet regulated GM Foods. Luis Acosta, Senior Legal Information Analyst, Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States, Library of Congress, March 2014, http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php The United States does not have any federal legislation that is specific to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Rather, GMOs are regulated pursuant to health, safety, and environmental legislation governing conventional products. The US approach to regulating GMOs is premised on the assumption that regulation should focus on the nature of the products, rather than the process in which they were produced.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

18

The methodologies for studies opposed to GM Foods are controversial. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Genetically-modified foods (GM foods) have made a big splash in the news lately. European environmental organizations and public interest groups have been actively protesting against GM foods for months, and recent controversial studies about the effects of genetically-modified corn pollen on monarch butterfly caterpillars1,2 have brought the issue of genetic engineering to the forefront of the public consciousness in the U.S. In response to the up swelling of public concern, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held three open meetings in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Oakland, California to solicit public opinions and begin the process of establishing a new regulatory procedure for government approval of GM foods.3 I attended the FDA meeting held in November 1999 in Washington, D.C., and here I will attempt to summarize the issues involved and explain the U.S. government's present role in regulating GM food. GM Foods with biotechnology is just a sped up version of natural cross-breeding of plants. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php The term GM foods or GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) is most commonly used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. The enhancement of desired traits has traditionally been undertaken through breeding, but conventional plant breeding methods can be very time consuming and are often not very accurate. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, can create plants with the exact desired trait very rapidly and with great accuracy. For example, plant geneticists can isolate a gene responsible for drought tolerance and insert that gene into a different plant. The new genetically-modified plant will gain drought tolerance as well. Not only can genes be transferred from one plant to another, but genes from non-plant organisms also can be used. The best known example of this is the use of B.t. genes in corn and other crops. B.t., or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that are lethal to insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes have been transferred into corn, enabling the corn to produce its own pesticides against insects such as the European corn borer.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

19

A benefit of GM Foods is that they will ensure food safety for the expected 12 billion people by 2050 by being pest resistant. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php The world population has topped 6 billion people and is predicted to double in the next 50 years. Ensuring an adequate food supply for this booming population is going to be a major challenge in the years to come. GM foods promise to meet this need in a number of ways: Pest resistance Crop losses from insect pests can be staggering, resulting in devastating financial loss for farmers and starvation in developing countries. Farmers typically use many tons of chemical pesticides annually. Consumers do not wish to eat food that has been treated with pesticides because of potential health hazards, and run-off of agricultural wastes from excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers can poison the water supply and cause harm to the environment. Growing GM foods such as B.t. corn can help eliminate the application of chemical pesticides and reduce the cost of bringing a crop to market. GM Foods can tolerate herbicides that threaten necessary food supply. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php For some crops, it is not cost-effective to remove weeds by physical means such as tilling, so farmers will often spray large quantities of different herbicides (weed-killer) to destroy weeds, a time-consuming and expensive process, that requires care so that the herbicide doesn't harm the crop plant or the environment. Crop plants genetically-engineered to be resistant to one very powerful herbicide could help prevent environmental damage by reducing the amount of herbicides needed. For example, Monsanto has created a strain of soybeans genetically modified to be not affected by their herbicide product Roundup. A farmer grows these soybeans which then only require one application of weed-killer instead of multiple applications, reducing production cost and limiting the dangers of agricultural waste run-off. GM foods have more resistance to plant diseases. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Disease resistance There are many viruses, fungi and bacteria that cause plant diseases. Plant biologists are working to create plants with genetically-engineered resistance to these diseases.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

20

GM foods could have an increased tolerance to frost. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Cold tolerance Unexpected frost can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold water fish has been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are able to tolerate cold temperatures that normally would kill unmodified seedlings10. (Note: I have not been able to find any journal articles or patents that involve fish antifreeze proteins in strawberries, although I have seen such reports in newspapers. I can only conclude that nothing on this application has yet been published or patented.). GM foods help to prevent malnutrition in third world countries. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Malnutrition is common in third world countries where impoverished peoples rely on a single crop such as rice for the main staple of their diet. However, rice does not contain adequate amounts of all necessary nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If rice could be genetically engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies could be alleviated. For example, blindness due to vitamin A deficiency is a common problem in third world countries. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences have created a strain of "golden" rice containing an unusually high content of beta-carotene (vitamin A)13. Since this rice was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation14, a non-profit organization, the Institute hopes to offer the golden rice seed free to any third world country that requests it. Plans were underway to develop a golden rice that also has increased iron content. However, the grant that funded the creation of these two rice strains was not renewed, perhaps because of the vigorous anti-GM food protesting in Europe, and so this nutritionally-enhanced rice may not come to market at all. GM foods can be used to distribute safe vaccines to solve diseases in third world countries. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Pharmaceuticals Medicines and vaccines often are costly to produce and sometimes require special storage conditions not readily available in third world countries. Researchers are working to develop edible vaccines in tomatoes and potatoes16, 17. These vaccines will be much easier to ship, store and administer than traditional injectable vaccines.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

21

Creating sterile male GM foods would prevent gene transfers to non-target species. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php There are several possible solutions to the three problems mentioned above. Genes are exchanged between plants via pollen. Two ways to ensure that non-target species will not receive introduced genes from GM plants are to create GM plants that are male sterile (do not produce pollen) or to modify the GM plant so that the pollen does not contain the introduced gene24, 25, 26. Cross-pollination would not occur, and if harmless insects such as monarch caterpillars were to eat pollen from GM plants, the caterpillars would survive. Buffer zones could prevent gene transfers to non-target species. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Another possible solution is to create buffer zones around fields of GM crops27, 28, 29. For example, non-GM corn would be planted to surround a field of B.t. GM corn, and the non-GM corn would not be harvested. Beneficial or harmless insects would have a refuge in the non-GM corn, and insect pests could be allowed to destroy the non-GM corn and would not develop resistance to B.t. pesticides. Gene transfer to weeds and other crops would not occur because the wind-blown pollen would not travel beyond the buffer zone. Estimates of the necessary width of buffer zones range from 6 meters to 30 meters or more30. This planting method may not be feasible if too much acreage is required for the buffer zones. The benefits of GM foods outweigh the harms. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Genetically-modified foods have the potential to solve many of the world's hunger and malnutrition problems, and to help protect and preserve the environment by increasing yield and reducing reliance upon chemical pesticides and herbicides. Yet there are many challenges ahead for governments, especially in the areas of safety testing, regulation, international policy and food labeling. Many people feel that genetic engineering is the inevitable wave of the future and that we cannot afford to ignore a technology that has such enormous potential benefits. However, we must proceed with caution to avoid causing unintended harm to human health and the environment as a result of our enthusiasm for this powerful technology.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

22

Governments can regulate GM foods to address safety concerns. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Governments around the world are hard at work to establish a regulatory process to monitor the effects of and approve new varieties of GM plants. Yet depending on the political, social and economic climate within a region or country, different governments are responding in different ways. In Japan, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has announced that health testing of GM foods will be mandatory as of April 200136, 37. Currently, testing of GM foods is voluntary. Japanese supermarkets are offering both GM foods and unmodified foods, and customers are beginning to show a strong preference for unmodified fruits and vegetables. India's government has not yet announced a policy on GM foods because no GM crops are grown in India and no products are commercially available in supermarkets yet38. India is, however, very supportive of transgenic plant research. It is highly likely that India will decide that the benefits of GM foods outweigh the risks because Indian agriculture will need to adopt drastic new measures to counteract the country's endemic poverty and feed its exploding population.  Golden Rice could be the key to solving malnutrition in developing countries; this malnutrition would cause 670,000 kids to die of hunger and 350,000 to go blind. Matt McGrath, Environment correspondent, BBC News, 'Golden rice' GM trial vandalised in the Philippines, August 9, 2013, www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23632042 The rice has been modified by adding extra genes that turn on the plant's ability to produce beta-carotene, which humans can convert into vitamin A. A lack of this vitamin increases the chances of blindness and susceptibility to disease. Vitamin A deficiency is a significant problem among children in developing countries. According to Helen Keller International, around 670,000 children will die each year from the problem, while 350,000 will go blind. It is estimated that one cup of Golden Rice could provide half an adult's recommended daily intake. New GM Foods are being tested for viability in solving food shortages. Matt McGrath, Environment correspondent, BBC News, 'Golden rice' GM trial vandalised in the Philippines, August 9, 2013, www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23632042 Golden Rice field trials are currently being carried out in the Philippines under the auspices of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), together with PhilRice, the local research body. Five small test plots have been planted with the idea that there would shortly be a submission to the regulatory authority of the Philippines. It was hoped that initial releases to farmers could happen in 2014.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

23

Proceeding with Golden Rice is necessary to the survival of 1.7 Philippine children. Matt McGrath, Environment correspondent, BBC News, 'Golden rice' GM trial vandalised in the Philippines, August 9, 2013, www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23632042 "It was certainly disappointing to have our field trial vandalised because our Golden Rice research aims to avoid the horrible plight of women and children suffering vitamin A deficiency." The researchers say that the development of the modified rice remains critical for the Philippines as 1.7 million children in the country aged under five are affected by vitamin A deficiency. They say they are determined to go ahead with the project. Golden Rice trial are proceeding with trial dispute destructive protests. Matt McGrath, Environment correspondent, BBC News, 'Golden rice' GM trial vandalised in the Philippines, August 9, 2013, www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23632042 The researchers say that the development of the modified rice remains critical for the Philippines as 1.7 million children in the country aged under five are affected by vitamin A deficiency. They say they are determined to go ahead with the project. "This is not a major setback, because it is just one trial of a series and just one of several sites. We remain completely committed to continuing our Golden Rice research to help improve people's nutrition," said Dr Tolentino. We need to change attitudes about GM foods. Michael White, systems biologist at the Department of Genetics and the Center for Genome Sciences and Systems Biology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, The Scientific Debate About GM Foods Is Over: They’re Safe, The Pacific Standard, 9-24-2013, www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/scientific-debate-gm-foods-theyre-safe-66711/ The editors at Nature Biotechnology argue that evidence is not the problem. The issue is that, so far, people have no reason to believe GM foods are being created for their benefit. Changing negative attitudes will “require a concerted and long-term effort to develop GM foods that clearly provide convincing benefits to consumers—something that seed companies have conspicuously failed to do over the past decade.” The question of benefits has been buried because the GMO debate has been framed around the unhelpful distinction between GM and non-GM foods. Instead of asking if GM foods in general are less safe, the editors argue, we should be focused on the specific risks and benefits of individual products, whether they are GM or not.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

24

The purported harms against GM foods are propaganda. Michael White, systems biologist at the Department of Genetics and the Center for Genome Sciences and Systems Biology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, The Scientific Debate About GM Foods Is Over: They’re Safe, The Pacific Standard, 9-24-2013, www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/scientific-debate-gm-foods-theyre-safe-66711/ A focus on the risks and benefits of all new crops could move the debate in a direction that would prompt scientists, companies, and regulators to more clearly justify the role GMOs play in our food supply. To date, consumers nervous about GMOs have been given little reason to think that companies like Monsanto are designing GM crops to solve any problem other than the one of patents and profits. As journalist Mark Lynas put it in his rousing defense of GM foods, for most people GMOs are about a “big American corporation with a nasty track record, putting something new and experimental into our food without telling us.” Researchers are finding way to have GM foods solve global hunger from many aspects. Michael White, systems biologist at the Department of Genetics and the Center for Genome Sciences and Systems Biology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, The Scientific Debate About GM Foods Is Over: They’re Safe, The Pacific Standard, 9-24-2013, www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/scientific-debate-gm-foods-theyre-safe-66711/ But many researchers working on GM crops are in fact trying to solve important problems, such as feeding a growing population, keeping food prices affordable worldwide, making healthier fruits and vegetables widely available, confronting the challenging growing conditions of a changing climate, saving Florida’s oranges or Hawaii’s papaya from pests, and fighting malnourishment in the developing world. For many of these problems, genetic engineering is faster, more cost-effective, and more reliable than conventional breeding methods.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

25

Fears about GM foods don’t reflect that GM foods are harmful, they reflect a lack of trust in food regulation. Michael White, systems biologist at the Department of Genetics and the Center for Genome Sciences and Systems Biology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, The Scientific Debate About GM Foods Is Over: They’re Safe, The Pacific Standard, 9-24-2013, www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/scientific-debate-gm-foods-theyre-safe-66711/ Our society’s unresolved controversy over GMOs is not about safety; it’s about whether we have an acceptable process in place to ensure that our health is not put at risk for the sake of biotech’s bottom line. Researchers, biotech companies, and regulators need to settle on an appropriately rigorous, transparent, and independent safety testing process for all new crops, one whose methods and results are publicly available. Currently, as the Nature Biotechnology review notes, safety assessments in the U.S. are a patchwork affair with weak legal underpinnings. But for GM solutions to our food challenges to be widely accepted, the public needs to know that they are not being coerced into eating something whose risks and benefits are unknown. There are coming food shortages: we are going to reach a population of 9 billion and we are low on resources including food. Robin McKie, science and technology editor for the Observer, GM food: we can no longer afford to ignore its advantages, The Observer, www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/13/gm-food-crops-genetic-modification Given the crises facing the planet, with the population set to reach the 9 billion mark by 2050 and increasing strains being placed on water, energy and food supplies, it would be wrong to hope there could be a single solution to the storms that lie ahead. As the government's chief scientific adviser, Sir John Beddington, once put it in an Observer interview: "There will be no silver bullet." However, the population biologist added a crucial caveat. It would also be foolish not to make the maximum use of the new technologies that we are developing in order to alleviate some of the worst dangers we will face in the decades that lie ahead. And among those scientific wonders, the use of genetically modified crops has a particularly rich potential, Beddington added. "Just look at the problems that the world faces: water shortages and salination of existing water supplies, for example. GM crops should be able to deal with that." It is a good point. Consider the simple issue of food that is lost before it can be harvested because it has been eaten by pests that humans have never learned to control. That loss comes to around 30%, agriculture experts calculate, a rate that cannot be allowed to continue. And GM crops are perfectly placed to solve that sort of problem.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

26

GM foods can be modified to attract pests causing crop failure and kill them. Robin McKie, science and technology editor for the Observer, GM food: we can no longer afford to ignore its advantages, The Observer, www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/13/gm-food-crops-genetic-modification The work of scientists at the Rothamsted research station in England provides a good example of the sort of benefits that can be achieved through genetic modification. They have engineered a strain of wheat so that it emits a chemical called E-beta-farnesene which is also emitted by aphids when they are threatened. In effect, it tells other aphids to fly away. For good measure, E-beta-farnesene also attracts aphid predators such as ladybirds and wasps. In short, it delivers a double whammy – and one with rich potential. Aphids cause an estimated £100m of damage to crops every year in the UK alone. We need to act now to solve issues of resource scarcity including food. Robin McKie, science and technology editor for the Observer, GM food: we can no longer afford to ignore its advantages, The Observer, www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/13/gm-food-crops-genetic-modification In the end, however, science can only delay the inevitable, as Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington has made clear. We need to act now to start to cope with crises over water supply, world population numbers and rising carbon emissions in the hope that advances in agriculture and genetics can give us time for such measures to be introduced and take effect. Or, as Beddington has made clear, there are almost a billion people today who are suffering from serious food shortages and who face starvation. "It is unimaginable that in the next 10 to 20 years there will not be a worsening of that problem unless we take action now, and we have to include the widest possible range of solutions." Studies overwhelmingly confirm the safety of GM foods. Michael Schulson, Whole Foods' Anti-GMO Swindle, September 15, 2014, www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/15/whole-foods-anti-gmo-swindle.html Their reasons are simple: Massive studies and reviews conducted by academic scientists, United States government researchers, and the much more GMO-skeptical European Union have found that GMOs, while not without risks, are relatively safe, and have the potential for significant social benefits. And labels warning about genetic engineering tend to scare consumers, and give the impression that GMOs are more dangerous than they are.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

27

Con Extensions GM foods are more widespread than we know. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php According to the FDA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of the federal requirements for commercialization (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/%7Elrd/biocon). Some examples of these plants include tomatoes and cantalopes that have modified ripening characteristics, soybeans and sugarbeets that are resistant to herbicides, and corn and cotton plants with increased resistance to insect pests. Not all these products are available in supermarkets yet; however, the prevalence of GM foods in U.S. grocery stores is more widespread than is commonly thought. While there are very, very few genetically-modified whole fruits and vegetables available on produce stands, highly processed foods, such as vegetable oils or breakfast cereals, most likely contain some tiny percentage of genetically-modified ingredients because the raw ingredients have been pooled into one processing stream from many different sources. Also, the ubiquity of soybean derivatives as food additives in the modern American diet virtually ensures that all U.S. consumers have been exposed to GM food products. GM Foods are particularly ubiquitous in the U.S. compared to other countries. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Thirteen countries grew genetically-engineered crops commercially in 2000, and of these, the U.S. produced the majority. In 2000, 68% of all GM crops were grown by U.S. farmers. In comparison, Argentina, Canada and China produced only 23%, 7% and 1%, respectively. Other countries that grew commercial GM crops in 2000 are Australia, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Mexico, Romania, South Africa, Spain, and Uruguay.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

28

Several societal groups have expressed numerous concerns about the various harms of GM foods. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Environmental activists, religious organizations, public interest groups, professional associations and other scientists and government officials have all raised concerns about GM foods, and criticized agribusiness for pursuing profit without concern for potential hazards, and the government for failing to exercise adequate regulatory oversight. It seems that everyone has a strong opinion about GM foods. Even the Vatican19 and the Prince of Wales20 have expressed their opinions. Most concerns about GM foods fall into three categories: environmental hazards, human health risks, and economic concerns. Insects evolve to get around genetic modification of foods. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that insects will become resistant to B.t. or other crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their own pesticides. Genetic modification result in gene transfers to non-target species. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Another concern is that crop plants engineered for herbicide tolerance and weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes from the crops into the weeds. These "superweeds" would then be herbicide tolerant as well. Other introduced genes may cross over into non-modified crops planted next to GM crops. The possibility of interbreeding is shown by the defense of farmers against lawsuits filed by Monsanto. The company has filed patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who may have harvested GM crops. Monsanto claims that the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed GM seeds from an unknown source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto. The farmers claim that their unmodified crops were cross-pollinated from someone else's GM crops planted a field or two away. More investigation is needed to resolve this issue.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

29

GM foods cause unintended harm to other organisms Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Last year a laboratory study was published in Nature21 showing that pollen from B.t. corn caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Monarch caterpillars consume milkweed plants, not corn, but the fear is that if pollen from B.t. corn is blown by the wind onto milkweed plants in neighboring fields, the caterpillars could eat the pollen and perish. Although the Nature study was not conducted under natural field conditions, the results seemed to support this viewpoint. Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kill many species of insect larvae indiscriminately; it is not possible to design a B.t. toxin that would only kill crop-damaging pests and remain harmless to all other insects. This study is being reexamined by the USDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other non-government research groups, and preliminary data from new studies suggests that the original study may have been flawed22, 23. This topic is the subject of acrimonious debate, and both sides of the argument are defending their data vigorously. Currently, there is no agreement about the results of these studies, and the potential risk of harm to non-target organisms will need to be evaluated further. Insects evolve to get around genetic modification of foods. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that insects will become resistant to B.t. or other crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their own pesticides. Children could develop new life-threatening allergies to GM foods. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Many children in the US and Europe have developed life-threatening allergies to peanuts and other foods. There is a possibility that introducing a gene into a plant may create a new allergen or cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals. A proposal to incorporate a gene from Brazil nuts into soybeans was abandoned because of the fear of causing unexpected allergic reactions31. Extensive testing of GM foods may be required to avoid the possibility of harm to consumers with food allergies.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

30

There is a growing concern about the unknown health effects of GM foods. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php There is a growing concern that introducing foreign genes into food plants may have an unexpected and negative impact on human health. A recent article published in Lancet examined the effects of GM potatoes on the digestive tract in rats32, 33. This study claimed that there were appreciable differences in the intestines of rats fed GM potatoes and rats fed unmodified potatoes. GM foods are too expensive to bring to small farms and third world countries. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process, and of course agri-biotech companies wish to ensure a profitable return on their investment. Many new plant genetic engineering technologies and GM plants have been patented, and patent infringement is a big concern of agribusiness. Yet consumer advocates are worried that patenting these new plant varieties will raise the price of seeds so high that small farmers and third world countries will not be able to afford seeds for GM crops, thus widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor. It is hoped that in a humanitarian gesture, more companies and non-profits will follow the lead of the Rockefeller Foundation and offer their products at reduced cost to impoverished nations. Patent enforcement would be difficult and be disastrous for farmers in the third world. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Patent enforcement may also be difficult, as the contention of the farmers that they involuntarily grew Monsanto-engineered strains when their crops were cross-pollinated shows. One way to combat possible patent infringement is to introduce a "suicide gene" into GM plants. These plants would be viable for only one growing season and would produce sterile seeds that do not germinate. Farmers would need to buy a fresh supply of seeds each year. However, this would be financially disastrous for farmers in third world countries who cannot afford to buy seed each year and traditionally set aside a portion of their harvest to plant in the next growing season.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

31

Brazil proves that regulations on GM foods are not effective. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Some states in Brazil have banned GM crops entirely, and the Brazilian Institute for the Defense of Consumers, in collaboration with Greenpeace, has filed suit to prevent the importation of GM crops39,. Brazilian farmers, however, have resorted to smuggling GM soybean seeds into the country because they fear economic harm if they are unable to compete in the global marketplace with other grain-exporting countries. GM food regulation is so complicated that the US is struggling with it. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php In the United States, the regulatory process is confused because there are three different government agencies that have jurisdiction over GM foods. To put it very simply, the EPA evaluates GM plants for environmental safety, the USDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to grow, and the FDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to eat. The EPA is responsible for regulating substances such as pesticides or toxins that may cause harm to the environment. GM crops such as B.t. pesticide-laced corn or herbicide-tolerant crops but not foods modified for their nutritional value fall under the purview of the EPA. The USDA is responsible for GM crops that do not fall under the umbrella of the EPA such as drought-tolerant or disease-tolerant crops, crops grown for animal feeds, or whole fruits, vegetables and grains for human consumption. The FDA historically has been concerned with pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and food products and additives, not whole foods. Under current guidelines, a genetically-modified ear of corn sold at a produce stand is not regulated by the FDA because it is a whole food, but a box of cornflakes is regulated because it is a food product. The FDA's stance is that GM foods are substantially equivalent to unmodified, "natural" foods, and therefore not subject to FDA regulation. The benefits of GM foods wont be realized because people don’t trust them. Matt McGrath, Environment correspondent, BBC News, 'Golden rice' GM trial vandalised in the Philippines, August 9, 2013, www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23632042 A trial plot of genetically modified rice has been destroyed by local farmers in the Philippines. "Golden Rice" has been developed by scientists to combat vitamin A deficiency, which affects millions of children in the developing world. The crop was just weeks away from being submitted to the authorities for a safety evaluation. But a group of around 400 protestors attacked the field trial in the Bicol region and uprooted all the GM plants. The project to develop Golden Rice was started 20 years ago in 1993 by German researchers with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

32

Doctors instruct patients not to eat GM foods because of heightened food allergies. Jeffrey M. Smith, University of Maharishi University, Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food, Institute for Responsible Technology, May 2009, www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/health-risk-articles-landing More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, "I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods." Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says "I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it." A review of 600 scientific journals concludes that GM Foods are unhealthy. Jeffrey M. Smith, University of Maharishi University, Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food, Institute for Responsible Technology, May 2009, www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/health-risk-articles-landing Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, "Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions." World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans. GM foods are resulting in children being treated as experimental animals. Jeffrey M. Smith, University of Maharishi University, Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food, Institute for Responsible Technology, May 2009, www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/health-risk-articles-landing Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that "children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems" related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become "the experimental animals."

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

33

GM foods kill baby animals. Jeffrey M. Smith, University of Maharishi University, Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food, Institute for Responsible Technology, May 2009, www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/health-risk-articles-landing The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy.[3] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[4] When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue.[5] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[6] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[7] Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal. GM foods kill livestock. Jeffrey M. Smith, University of Maharishi University, Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food, Institute for Responsible Technology, May 2009, www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/health-risk-articles-landing Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.[9] In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating. GM foods are designed to produce toxins more harmful than those they fight off. Jeffrey M. Smith, University of Maharishi University, Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food, Institute for Responsible Technology, May 2009, www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/health-risk-articles-landing GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing. The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,[10] has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

34

GM foods cause people to itch just as much as toxic sprays. Jeffrey M. Smith, University of Maharishi University, Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food, Institute for Responsible Technology, May 2009, www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/health-risk-articles-landing Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.[11],[12] The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[13] In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, "Victims of itching have increased massively this year…related to BT cotton farming." GM foods provoke negative immune reactions. Jeffrey M. Smith, University of Maharishi University, Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food, Institute for Responsible Technology, May 2009, www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/health-risk-articles-landing AAEM states, "Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation," including increase in cytokines, which are "associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation"—all on the rise in the US. According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are "a consistent feature of all the studies."[15] Even Monsanto's own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn.[16] A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.[17] GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties,[18] GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen,[19] and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.[20] Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

35

GM Foods cause animals to die in large numbers in other countries. Jeffrey M. Smith, University of Maharishi University, Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food, Institute for Responsible Technology, May 2009, www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/health-risk-articles-landing In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence "strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin.…most probably Bt-toxin."[21] In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy. In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.[22] Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.[23] In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks.[24] Monsanto's own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.[25] GM foods are literally colonizing our guts. Jeffrey M. Smith, University of Maharishi University, Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food, Institute for Responsible Technology, May 2009, www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/health-risk-articles-landing The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26] This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives. When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

36

Warnings from the government and scientists are ineffective. Jeffrey M. Smith, University of Maharishi University, Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food, Institute for Responsible Technology, May 2009, www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/health-risk-articles-landing Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests.[27] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists' concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto's vice president. The harms are not sufficiently tested and history proves the magnitude of possible harms outweigh even though the probability is unknown. Jeffrey M. Smith, University of Maharishi University, Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food, Institute for Responsible Technology, May 2009, www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/health-risk-articles-landing AAEM states, "GM foods have not been properly tested" and "pose a serious health risk." Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the "potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants" revealed "that experimental data are very scarce." The author concludes his review by asking, "Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?"[28] Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, "The experiments simply haven't been done and we now have become the guinea pigs." He adds, "Anyone that says, 'Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,' I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying."[29] Dr. Schubert points out, "If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop." If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

37

Pro Blocks A/T Opposition destroys GM Food Crops — Phillipines proves. 1. Despite revolts, companies are going through with GM foods. Matt McGrath, Environment correspondent, BBC News, 'Golden rice' GM trial vandalised in the Philippines, August 9, 2013, www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23632042 "It was certainly disappointing to have our field trial vandalised because our Golden Rice research aims to avoid the horrible plight of women and children suffering vitamin A deficiency." The researchers say that the development of the modified rice remains critical for the Philippines as 1.7 million children in the country aged under five are affected by vitamin A deficiency. They say they are determined to go ahead with the project. 2. Protests won’t stop GM foods. Matt McGrath, Environment correspondent, BBC News, 'Golden rice' GM trial vandalised in the Philippines, August 9, 2013, www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23632042 The researchers say that the development of the modified rice remains critical for the Philippines as 1.7 million children in the country aged under five are affected by vitamin A deficiency. They say they are determined to go ahead with the project. "This is not a major setback, because it is just one trial of a series and just one of several sites. We remain completely committed to continuing our Golden Rice research to help improve people's nutrition," said Dr Tolentino.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

38

Pro Blocks A/T Studies show GM foods are harmful. 1. The scientific and scholarly community agree that there is little to no risk of actual harms from GM Foods. Luis Acosta, Senior Legal Information Analyst, Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States, Library of Congress, March 2014, http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council,[12] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[13] and the American Medical Association.[14] Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations,[15] organic farming organizations,[16] and consumer organizations.[17] A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US’s approach to regulating GMOs. 2. The methodologies for studies opposed to GM Foods are controversial. Deborah B. Whtiman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Genetically-modified foods (GM foods) have made a big splash in the news lately. European environmental organizations and public interest groups have been actively protesting against GM foods for months, and recent controversial studies about the effects of genetically-modified corn pollen on monarch butterfly caterpillars1,2 have brought the issue of genetic engineering to the forefront of the public consciousness in the U.S. In response to the up swelling of public concern, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held three open meetings in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Oakland, California to solicit public opinions and begin the process of establishing a new regulatory procedure for government approval of GM foods.3 I attended the FDA meeting held in November 1999 in Washington, D.C., and here I will attempt to summarize the issues involved and explain the U.S. government's present role in regulating GM food.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

39

Pro Blocks A/T GM foods threaten nontarget species. 1. Creating sterile male GM foods would prevent gene transfers to non-target species. Deborah B. Whtiman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php There are several possible solutions to the three problems mentioned above. Genes are exchanged between plants via pollen. Two ways to ensure that non-target species will not receive introduced genes from GM plants are to create GM plants that are male sterile (do not produce pollen) or to modify the GM plant so that the pollen does not contain the introduced gene24, 25, 26. Cross-pollination would not occur, and if harmless insects such as monarch caterpillars were to eat pollen from GM plants, the caterpillars would survive. 2. Buffer zones could prevent gene transfers to non-target species. Deborah B. Whtiman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Another possible solution is to create buffer zones around fields of GM crops27, 28, 29. For example, non-GM corn would be planted to surround a field of B.t. GM corn, and the non-GM corn would not be harvested. Beneficial or harmless insects would have a refuge in the non-GM corn, and insect pests could be allowed to destroy the non-GM corn and would not develop resistance to B.t. pesticides. Gene transfer to weeds and other crops would not occur because the wind-blown pollen would not travel beyond the buffer zone. Estimates of the necessary width of buffer zones range from 6 meters to 30 meters or more30. This planting method may not be feasible if too much acreage is required for the buffer zones.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

40

Pro Blocks A/T GM foods have safety / health concerns. 1. This isn’t unique to GM foods. All foods whether GM or not have health and safety concerns. Thus: 2. Governments can regulate GM foods to address safety concerns. Deborah B. Whtiman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Governments around the world are hard at work to establish a regulatory process to monitor the effects of and approve new varieties of GM plants. Yet depending on the political, social and economic climate within a region or country, different governments are responding in different ways. In Japan, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has announced that health testing of GM foods will be mandatory as of April 200136, 37. Currently, testing of GM foods is voluntary. Japanese supermarkets are offering both GM foods and unmodified foods, and customers are beginning to show a strong preference for unmodified fruits and vegetables. India's government has not yet announced a policy on GM foods because no GM crops are grown in India and no products are commercially available in supermarkets yet38. India is, however, very supportive of transgenic plant research. It is highly likely that India will decide that the benefits of GM foods outweigh the risks because Indian agriculture will need to adopt drastic new measures to counteract the country's endemic poverty and feed its exploding population.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

41

Con Blocks A/T GM foods help with food security. 1. GM foods threaten food security by killing non-target species. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Another concern is that crop plants engineered for herbicide tolerance and weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes from the crops into the weeds. These "superweeds" would then be herbicide tolerant as well. Other introduced genes may cross over into non-modified crops planted next to GM crops. The possibility of interbreeding is shown by the defense of farmers against lawsuits filed by Monsanto. The company has filed patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who may have harvested GM crops. Monsanto claims that the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed GM seeds from an unknown source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto. The farmers claim that their unmodified crops were cross-pollinated from someone else's GM crops planted a field or two away. More investigation is needed to resolve this issue. 2. The benefits of GM foods wont be realized because people don’t trust them. Matt McGrath, Environment correspondent, BBC News, 'Golden rice' GM trial vandalised in the Philippines, August 9, 2013, www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23632042 A trial plot of genetically modified rice has been destroyed by local farmers in the Philippines. "Golden Rice" has been developed by scientists to combat vitamin A deficiency, which affects millions of children in the developing world. The crop was just weeks away from being submitted to the authorities for a safety evaluation. But a group of around 400 protestors attacked the field trial in the Bicol region and uprooted all the GM plants. The project to develop Golden Rice was started 20 years ago in 1993 by German researchers with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

42

Con Blocks A/T GM foods are herbicide and pesticide resistant. 1. Insects evolve to get around genetic modification of foods. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that insects will become resistant to B.t. or other crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their own pesticides. 2. GM foods are designed to produce toxins more harmful than those they fight off. Jeffrey M. Smith, University of Maharishi University, Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food, Institute for Responsible Technology, May 2009, www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/health-risk-articles-landing GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing. The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,[10] has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

43

Con Blocks A/T Government Regulations can address GM safety concerns. 1. Brazil proves that regulations on GM foods are not effective. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Some states in Brazil have banned GM crops entirely, and the Brazilian Institute for the Defense of Consumers, in collaboration with Greenpeace, has filed suit to prevent the importation of GM crops39,. Brazilian farmers, however, have resorted to smuggling GM soybean seeds into the country because they fear economic harm if they are unable to compete in the global marketplace with other grain-exporting countries. 2. GM food regulation is so complicated that the US is struggling with it. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php In the United States, the regulatory process is confused because there are three different government agencies that have jurisdiction over GM foods. To put it very simply, the EPA evaluates GM plants for environmental safety, the USDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to grow, and the FDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to eat. The EPA is responsible for regulating substances such as pesticides or toxins that may cause harm to the environment. GM crops such as B.t. pesticide-laced corn or herbicide-tolerant crops but not foods modified for their nutritional value fall under the purview of the EPA. The USDA is responsible for GM crops that do not fall under the umbrella of the EPA such as drought-tolerant or disease-tolerant crops, crops grown for animal feeds, or whole fruits, vegetables and grains for human consumption. The FDA historically has been concerned with pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and food products and additives, not whole foods. Under current guidelines, a genetically-modified ear of corn sold at a produce stand is not regulated by the FDA because it is a whole food, but a box of cornflakes is regulated because it is a food product. The FDA's stance is that GM foods are substantially equivalent to unmodified, "natural" foods, and therefore not subject to FDA regulation.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

44

Con Blocks A/T GM foods help third world countries. 1. GM foods are too expensive to bring to small farms and third world countries. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process, and of course agri-biotech companies wish to ensure a profitable return on their investment. Many new plant genetic engineering technologies and GM plants have been patented, and patent infringement is a big concern of agribusiness. Yet consumer advocates are worried that patenting these new plant varieties will raise the price of seeds so high that small farmers and third world countries will not be able to afford seeds for GM crops, thus widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor. It is hoped that in a humanitarian gesture, more companies and non-profits will follow the lead of the Rockefeller Foundation and offer their products at reduced cost to impoverished nations. 2. Patent enforcement would be difficult and be disastrous for farmers in the third world. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/editor.php Patent enforcement may also be difficult, as the contention of the farmers that they involuntarily grew Monsanto-engineered strains when their crops were cross-pollinated shows. One way to combat possible patent infringement is to introduce a "suicide gene" into GM plants. These plants would be viable for only one growing season and would produce sterile seeds that do not germinate. Farmers would need to buy a fresh supply of seeds each year. However, this would be financially disastrous for farmers in third world countries who cannot afford to buy seed each year and traditionally set aside a portion of their harvest to plant in the next growing season.

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

45

PRO CASE #1 PREFLOW

Tiebreakers The thesis of our case is that although the science on both sides of whether GM foods are safe is biased and untrustworthy, there are two tiebreakers that make the benefits of GM Foods outweigh the harms First, the studies on health effects are biased and untrustworthy. A. The studies in favor of health benefits are biased and untrustworthy. Jeffrey M. Smith, B. The health studies against GM Foods are biased. Deborah B. Whitman, CSA Senior Editor, B.S. in Biology, Mary Washington College, M.S. in Biotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000 This means that we cannot trust health studies on either side. Thus, we must look to the non-health benefits and harms and the ability to feed people. Any argument the Con side makes about weighing health harms is irrelevant. This is fair because we are also admitting health benefits cannot be proven either. Thus, when the harms and benefits of health are indeterminate, we must decide on other issues. GM Foods have two advantages that outweigh: 1. GM foods help to solve the housing crisis of a growing population. Whitman 2. The net economic benefits of GM foods for farmers, including poor and small farmers, almost a hundred billions dollars. According to a PG Economics Press Release on April 22, 2013

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

46

PRO CASE #2 PREFLOW

The Debate Is Over The thesis of our case is that the debate is over on GM Foods. The most recent scientific studies conclusively prove that the benefits of GM foods outweigh the harms. First, The debate is over, at least in the scientific community, that the benefits of GM foods outweigh the harms. Michael White 2013 Two, scientific studies have shown that GM foods have failed to produce any harmful health effects. White Third, fears of GM foods are unfounded, and not based on actual evidence. We conclude with another card from White 2013

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

47

CON CASE #1 PREFLOW The thesis of our case is that we cannot know the benefits of GM foods and that there are significant health risks, thus we should use the precautionary principle to conclude that the harms outweigh the benefits until conclusively proven otherwise. First, doctors are calling for a moratorium against GMOs for their health risks including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the GI system. Jeffrey M. Smith 2009 Second, the truth about GMOs is being suppressed by the scientific community and big corporations. Susan Johnson 2014 Third, we should adopt the precautionary principle and not accept the benefits of GM foods until they are proven beyond a reasonable doubt Les Levidow 2001

The Forensics Files © The PFD File November 2014 GM Foods

48

CON CASE #2 PREFLOW Big Harms The thesis of our case is that the harms are big and the benefits will not be realized. First, GM foods are linked to cancer. Stephen Tan 2014 Second, GM foods cause unintended harm to other organisms Deborah B. Whitman, 2000 Third, the perceived harms undermine the realization of any possible actual benefits; people are literally revolting against GM foods McGrath 2013