Champion Briefs
November 2014
Public Forum Brief
Resolved:On balance, the
benefits of genetically modified
foods outweigh the harms.
Copyright 2014 by Champion Briefs, LLC
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or by an information storage or retrieval system, without the prior
written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher.
The Evidence Standard
November 2014
The Evidence Standard
Speech and Debate provides a meaningful and educational experience to all who are involved.
We, as educators in the community, believe that it is our responsibility to provide resources that
uphold the foundation of the Speech and Debate activity. Champion Briefs, its employees,
managers, and associates take an oath to uphold the following Evidence Standard:
1. We will never falsify facts, opinions, dissents, or any other information.
2. We will never knowingly distribute information that has been proven to be inaccurate,
even if the source of the information is legitimate.
3. We will actively fight the dissemination of false information and will provide the
community with clarity if we learn that a thirdEparty has attempted to commit deception.
4. We will never support or distribute studies, news articles, or other materials that use
inaccurate methodologies to reach a conclusion or prove a point.
5. We will provide meaningful clarification to any who question the legitimacy of
information distributed by ourselves or by any thirdEparty.
6. We will actively contribute to students’ understanding of the world by using evidence
from a multitude of perspectives and schools of thought.
7. We will, within our power, assist the community as a whole in its mission to achieve the
goals and vision of this activity.
These seven statements, while seemingly simple, represent the complex notion of what it means
to advance students’ understanding of the world around them, as is the purpose of educators.
Champion Briefs
3
Table of Contents
November 2014
Table of Contents
The Evidence Standard
3
Topic Analyses
7
Topic Analysis by Anna Waters
Topic Analysis by Justin Katz
Topic Analysis by Tim Perevozchikov & Zach Kirsch
8
20
34
General Information
42
Possible Frameworks
55
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
59
Decreasd Herbicide Use
A2: Decreased Herbicide Use
Increased Agricultural Capacity
A2: Increased Agricultural Capacity
Increased Vitamin Access
A2: Increased Vitamin Access
Increased Agricultural Productivity
A2: Increased Agricultural Productivity
Increased Nutrition
A2: Increased Nutriton
GMOs Save the Ocean
A2: GMOs Save the Ocean
GMOs Save Resources
A2: GMOs Save Resources
GMOs Create Economic Benefits
A2: GMOs Create Economic Benefits
GMOs can cure Deadly Diseases
60
65
68
73
79
82
85
89
93
97
101
104
107
110
113
116
119
Champion Briefs
4
Table of Contents
A2: GMOs can cure Deadly Diseases
GMOs Can Be Used as Ethanol
A2: GMOs Can Be Used as Ethanol
Precautionary Principle
A2: Precautionary Principle
Regulations
A2: Regulations
Scientific Concensus
A2: Scientific Concensus
Immune Reaction
A2: Immune Reaction
Consumer Willingness
A2: Consumer Willingness
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
GMOs Hurt Farmers
A2: GMOs Hurt Farmers
Loss Of Biodiversity
A2: Loss Of Biodiversity
Alternatives are Preferable
A2: Alternatives are Preferable
Dependence
A2: Dependence
Industrial Agriculture
A2: Industrial Agriculture
Unknown Risks
A2: Unknown Risks
Genetically Modifying Humans
A2: Genetically Modfying Humans
Human Health Risks
A2: Human Health Risks
GMO Industry Drives Out Competition
Champion Briefs
November 2014
122
125
128
131
135
140
146
149
153
157
160
164
168
172
173
176
179
184
187
195
199
205
209
215
220
227
231
238
243
247
250
5
Table of Contents
A2: GMO Industry Drives Out Competiton
Pesticide Resistant Crops Decrease Diversity
A2: Pesticide Resistant Crops Decrease Diversity
Death Of Honey Bees
A2: Death Of Honey Bees
GMOs Are Ethically Unsound
A2: GMOs Are Ethically Unsound
Pesticide Resistance
A2: Pesticide Resistance
GMOs Harm The Environment
A2: GMOs Harm The Environment
GMOs Harm Farmer Psychology
A2: GMOs Harm Farmer Psychology
Champion Briefs
November 2014
255
258
262
265
269
272
275
278
283
286
289
292
296
6
Chatnpion Briefs
November 2014
Public Forum Brief
Topic Analyses
Topic Analyses by Anna Waters
November 2014
Topic Analysis by Anna Waters
Initial Thoughts
Welcome to the month of November, a month that I personally believe has had some of
the best topics and tournaments over the past few years. From the Electoral College to foreign
policy in the Middle East and NSA surveillance, November topics have a history of being hotly
contested and beloved by the circuit. This topic will hopefully not change that trend.
I am personally excited about this topic not only because its broadness allows for
extensive creativity in argumentation, but because it truly is an important and relevant debate to
have. Though all Public Forum topics try to be “ripped from the headlines”, this one closely
tracks with public policy actions around the country. For example, measures designed regulate
the labeling of GMOs were recently defeated in California and Washington while Vermont,
Maine, and Oregon may implement GMO labeling laws in the near future1. This topic also hits
home for me, as my mother’s side of the family runs a major soybean farm in central Illinois and
has considered whether to adopt GMOs for years.
Because I am will be judging at least one national tournament on this topic, I am excited
to see how correct my predictions end up. My first main hope for this topic is that debaters
actually attempt to understand the scientific arguments they are making, but do not get so bogged
down in the science that they never properly explain it in a clear way to a layperson. Secondly, I
Harkinson, Josh. “Is 2014 the "Tipping Point" for the GMO Labeling Movement?” Mother Jones. September 29
2014. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/gmoMfoodMingredientsMlabelingMoregonM
initiativeM92McoloradoMbronner
1
Champion Briefs
8
Topic Analyses by Anna Waters
November 2014
hope debaters have fun with the wide scope of the resolution and surprise me with their ingenuity
in argumentation.
Major Tournaments
The first major tournament of the month comes on my birthday in the adorable town of
Apple Valley, Minnesota. I went to the Minneapple every year of my debate career, and it is
without a doubt the best-run tournament I have ever attended. I have never even heard legends of
another national tournament that ends ahead of schedule, or is single-flighted despite its massive
size. They normally have great food, something I will continue to comment on in my analysis of
major tournaments regardless of its actual relevance to debate. I have many fond memories of
this tournament and their fantastic apple trophies.
Debaters who hope to come home with the golden apple should hone their adaptation
skills, as some of the best ex-debaters will be judging alongside traditional Midwestern coaches
and very lay parents. It is absolutely imperative that debaters figure out judging preferences
before the round, either by asking or looking up their judges online. In general, however, judging
quality is above par and the field is tough. Debaters should be wary of dismissing teams simply
because they do not feature prominently on the national circuit; there are many powerhouse
Midwestern teams that succeed at this tournament even if they do not travel nationally. That
being said, there will absolutely still be major national circuit teams at this tournament, as there
are at any octafinal bid tournament. Only having to win one outround to bid is tempting enough
to warrant a flight out to Minnesota for many teams from California to Florida.
Champion Briefs
9
Topic Analyses by Anna Waters
November 2014
The second major national tournament this month is also in the Midwest, though in a
slightly more metropolitan area than Apple Valley. The Glenbrooks are in the lovely city of
Chicago, so I, along with the plethora of other first-year-outs at Chicago area schools will be
there to judge. Perhaps this is part of why Glenbrooks is well known for being one of the most
heavily circuit-style tournaments in Public Forum. Regardless of why, debaters attending should
be cognizant of the fact that debaters will run unique arguments, speak quickly (though hopefully
not spread), and go hard for the flow even if they must sacrifice lay appeal. The Glenbrooks is
generally known as a good predictor for the best teams on the circuit, as its late outrounds are
often filled the same teams who populate outrounds at the Tournament of Champions. However,
that pressure should not daunt debaters; this tournament will be lots of fun, and if I end up as
their judge, they should absolutely say hi and ask me for my preferences.
Resolution Analysis and Background
The first two words of this resolution, “on balance”, should sound familiar to anyone who
debated September/October. It makes me curious if the NSDA has just decided to ban
deontology from Public Forum altogether, and will start inserting “on balance” into every topic
from now on. No longer is the utilitarian weighing of impacts implied in Public Forum; this is
either a coincidence or a new trend from the NSDA. We will have to wait and see. I will discuss
this further in the framework strategy section, but these words—no matter how bored we are
with saying them—are significant to the resolution.
“Benefits” and “harms” go hand in hand with on balance in that they essentially just
imply a framework of utilitarianism, leaving only the phrase “genetically modified foods” to
Champion Briefs
10
Topic Analyses by Anna Waters
November 2014
analyze. Though as a debater and now judge I was often bored by definition debates, those may
become relevant depending on how debaters interpret this phrase. The National Institute of
Health, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, defines genetically engineered
foods as foods that: “have had foreign genes (genes from other plants or animals) inserted into
their genetic codes.”2 The World Health Organization has a similar though slightly broader
definition: “Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from organisms whose genetic
material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g. through the
introduction of a gene from a different organism.”3 The Cambridge Dictionary very generally
defines them as “food from crops whose genes have been scientifically changed.”4
Though all of these definitions are relatively similar, they do show the variance in scope
and specificity that this phrase can have. Though I listed none of them here, I am certain that
there are significantly more unique, and potentially disreputable, definitions that could allow
debaters to get away with arguments that would not normally fall under the definition of GMO
foods. It is imperative that debaters find multiple definitions for this world and can warrant why
their definition should be preferred. If debaters use definitions from a government or
international organization, they can use that source to warrant why their definition should be
preferred over one from a less authoritative source.
Along with that definition, debaters should have some background knowledge on the
history and implementation of genetically modified organisms. Though the domestication of
plants and animals by humans has been occurring for thousands of years of human history, the
2 “Genetically engineered foods.” National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services.
<http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002432.htm>
3 “Food, genetically modified.” World Health Organization.
<http://www.who.int/topics/food_genetically_modified/en/>
4 “GM Food.” Cambridge Dictionaries. Cambridge University Press.
<http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/gmMfood>
Champion Briefs
11
Topic Analyses by Anna Waters
November 2014
actual practice of genetic modification was not invented until the early 1970s5. Before that,
scientists used selective breeding to choose certain traits, like docility for domestication, to
emphasize in their organisms. This selective breeding – which is also referred to as artificial
selection when contrasted with Darwin’s natural selection – is still used today and does not fall
under the umbrella of genetic modification because scientists are not actually inserting or
manipulating the genes of organisms6. This is an important distinction, as debaters on the Con
may argue that selective breeding is preferable.
In the status quo, genetically modified organisms are prevalent globally, but are
especially prevalent in the United States. Nearly 80% of all soybeans are genetically modified
globally, along with almost one third of maize7. Debaters should look in-depth at the ways
GMOs use differs between developed and developing nations to make specific arguments about
their benefits to one or both of those groups.
Framework Strategy
As I mentioned earlier with regard to “on balance” and the harms versus benefits in this
resolution, the main framework employed on this topic will be a utilitarian one. This means that
the consequences, or harms and benefits mentioned in the resolution, will be weighed in terms of
the magnitude, probability, timeframe, and reversibility (among other methods of impact
calculus). Many debaters will use the fact that “on balance” is in the resolution to limit their
5 “Genetics and Genomics Timeline.” Genome News Network.
<http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/timeline/1973_Boyer.php>
6 Noel Kingsbury. “Hybrid: The History and Science of Plant Breeding.” University of Chicago Press. Oct 15,
2009. <http://books.google.com/books?id=dGSjMCFxkMQC>
7 “Genetically modified plants: Global cultivation on 174 million hectares.” April 9 2014, GMO Compass.
<http://www.gmoMcompass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/gmo_planting/257.global_gm_planting_2013.html>
Champion Briefs
12
Topic Analyses by Anna Waters
November 2014
opponents if they attempt to make moral or deontological arguments. I would personally
recommend that if debaters who choose to make moral or rights-based arguments do so in a
manner that still allows them to weigh that rights infringement or moral harm against more
tangible impacts. Otherwise, many judges will disregard those arguments.
One principle that will certainly come up in debate rounds on this topic and I personally
believe could fit well in framework is the precautionary principle. It essentially says that if
something could damage humans or the environment, the burden of proof lies with those who
support the policy to demonstrate it will not cause harm. In other words, policymakers must
prove that something will not hurt, rather than opponents having the need to prove that it will,
before that policy is enacted. The theory is relatively intuitive; for example, I would like my
doctor to prove that a new pill will not kill me, rather than needing proof that it will kill me
before I stop taking it. The principle is commonly used in environmental and health science,
partially due to reversibility.
Debaters could run a framework arguing that GMOs could potentially harm both the
environment and human health, and therefore the burden of proof is on the Pro to prove that
neither of those things will be irreparably harmed. Some debaters may consider this abusive, as it
skews the ground significantly, but there are definitely judges who would like the framework and
buy it intuitively.
Though this type of weighing will most likely show up in later speeches rather than
framework, I think it is important to mention the probability versus magnitude debate for the
human health argument. Debate topics do not often relate to sickness - especially sickness that is
unproven - but the weighing analysis that typically applies to international security theorizing
Champion Briefs
13
Topic Analyses by Anna Waters
November 2014
applies almost identically to this topic. Debaters should make sure to take advantage of that
analysis.
For example, if debaters are making the argument that there is a chance that GMOs could
severely harm human health, the massive magnitude of sickness justifies weighing it heavily,
even if there is a low probability it will actually occur. This could fit into a framework outlining
that magnitude should be emphasized even if there is a low probability, and will definitely apply
in summary and final focus. Weighing analysis is great and necessary, and your judges will
appreciate it.
Affirmative: Strategy and Major Arguments
It is absolutely imperative that debaters on the Pro side of the debate have a deep
understanding of every study they use and know the historical background of every argument
they make. The most common Pro arguments are based on theories that many Con teams will
argue do not actually come to fruition in reality. Pro teams should be aware of the apparent
inconsistencies in many of their stock arguments and preempt them.
The first and most common Pro argument will most likely impact to increased crop
yields. This can come in many ways, though the five main links between higher yield and GMO
foods are higher levels of resistance to drought, salt, insects, disease, and low temperature.
Debaters can choose one, some, or all of these links, but the impacts will generally be the same;
higher crop yields can feed more people. This is especially important in a world where
population is skyrocketing, global temperatures are rising, and arable land is limited. Even
debaters who are hesitant to run stock arguments should consider some variation of this
Champion Briefs
14
Topic Analyses by Anna Waters
November 2014
argument, because the impact is almost unbeatable. Solving the global food crisis is imperative
and will only become more necessary as time passes.
The link is the most difficult aspect of this argument, as the science is not conclusively
Pro in terms of GMOs actually increasing crop yield at all. Though some studies, like this one8,
do show conclusive benefits for drought resistant crops, Pro teams should seek out as many
studies as possible to back up the claim that these crops could feasibly feed millions.
One type of resistance that can also increase crop yields – resistance to herbicides – is
separate from the others because I personally think its other impacts are more beneficial. Though
I will explain the other half of this coin in the “superweeds” section of the major Con side, there
is evidence to show that herbicide resistant crops decrease the use of herbicide overall9, which
has a plethora of positive economic and environmental impacts. This can be especially beneficial
to counter claims of environmental or economic harm coming from the Con side.
Though I believe that those will be two of the most common Pro arguments, two others
that will probably also be discussed relate to vitamins and pharmaceuticals. Though separate,
these arguments both center on scientists using genetic modification to add vitamins and
medicine or vaccines to the foods. There is some evidence that vitamins rich GMO food could
decrease malnutrition10, but it is hotly contested11.
8 Castiglioni, Paolo. “Bacterial RNA Chaperones Confer Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Plants and Improved Grain
Yield in Maize under WaterMLimited Conditions.” American Society of Plant Biologists, 2008. Web. October 2
2014.
<http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/147/2/446.full?ijkey=b970fa04b3768583aeafa3964fc772898fd2a9f
0&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha>
Madsen, Katherine. “Benefits and risks of the use of herbicideMresistant crops.” Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (2002). Web. October 3 2014.
<http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y5031e/y5031e0i.htm>
10 Tang, G. “Researchers Determine That Golden Rice Is an Effective Source of Vitamin A.” American Society
for Nutrition. (2009). Web. Oct 2 2014. <http://asnMcdnM
remembers.s3.amazonaws.com/1247eb83af3c2c77fb8cf75d5e158f1f.pdf>
9
Champion Briefs
15
Topic Analyses by Anna Waters
November 2014
Negative: Strategy and Major Arguments
The negative strategy on this topic should center on taking down the “myths” propagated
by the Pro. Con teams should phrase responses and rebuttals as if their opponents are only
thinking theoretically and not looking at how their ideas or arguments apply in the real world.
Con debaters may want to argue that their opponents are relying on the propaganda that GMO
companies distribute. They should also emphasize that the potential harms are worse and more
likely than the potential benefits, or should be weighed more heavily due to theories like the
precautionary principle that I mentioned back in the framework section.
The first main argument about potential health harms relates directly to that principle and
weighing mechanism. There is scientific evidence that GMOs may create new allergens, espouse
allergic reactions, change hormone levels, cause cancer12, and cause intestinal damage. This
threat is uncertain but plausible, and Con teams should not allow the Pro to shrug it off. Con
teams should phrase the vagueness and lack of scientific consensus on health harms as proof that
the world should wait before it implements GMOs, rather than a low probability of their own
impact actually occurring.
Another major area of argumentation that Con teams should definitely explore relates to
GMO companies themselves. A vote for the Pro, translated to real world impacts, would either
bring increased prevalence of genetically modified foods or increased funding for them. Either of
11 Robbins, John. “Can GMOs
Help End World Hunger?” Huffington Post. Aug 1 2011. Web. Oct 2 2014.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johnMrobbins/gmoMfood_b_914968.html>
12 Thongprakaisang, S. “Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors.”
September 2013. US National Library of Medicine. < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170>
Champion Briefs
16
Topic Analyses by Anna Waters
November 2014
those things would benefit the companies that create GMOs, and the Con can argue that
benefitting those companies is harmful. Many GMO companies use patents to raise the price of
their products, which may actually increase poverty and hurt farmers rather than helping them.
Using GMOs promotes the monopoly which already plagues the industry, which is especially
troubling because many of the practices employed by these companies are ethically questionable.
Con teams should frame these companies as putting profit over people to rebut the
potential charity impacts. During cross-x, Con debaters should ask the Pro why these companies
would give away the seeds they have spent millions producing. Even if it would defeat poverty
or malnutrition, these companies have arguably thus far only been out to earn money, and Con
teams should put the burden on the Pro to prove that this will somehow change.
Another major argument on the Con is also the rebuttal to herbicide resistance:
“superweeds”. Weeds can become resistant to the herbicides in GM plants, which means that the
herbicides already developed are rendered useless. This is substantiated by studies13 that show
an overall increase in herbicide use directly because of these “superweeds”. The current solution
to these herbicide-resistant weeds is to create new herbicides that can kill the weeds – but the new
herbicides also threaten existing crops, so the crops must be further fortified genetically, which
again transfers further resistance to weeds, creating a downward spiral of more herbicide and
lower crop yield.
Benbrook, Charles. “Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. MM the first sixteen
years.” Environmental Sciences Europe. September 28, 2012.
<http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24>
13
Champion Briefs
17
Topic Analyses by Anna Waters
November 2014
Final Thoughts
Though this makes two resolutions in a row without apparent links to nuclear war, I am
definitely still excited to see how debaters get creative with the broad scope and, in my opinion,
relatively even ground. Debaters are lucky enough to have two incredible national tournaments
on this topic, and will come out of the month significantly more educated about a topic that
lawmakers are currently debating. The key piece of advice I have for this topic is to break down
the complex science for judges who have not spend hours a day reading scientific studies on crop
yields. Even if debaters have judges who are more experienced than lay judges, it does not
necessarily follow that they are well-educated about agricultural science.
Many judges will also come into this topic with clear biases, though that should hopefully
not affect how they cast their ballots. For this reason, debaters should not malign either side,
painting GMO producing companies as villains or people concerned about health harms as antiscience.
On a separate note, for all senior debaters applying early to college, I wish you all the
best of luck with your applications this month and try not to stress too much between now and
the dreaded mid-December. I hope to see you all at Glenbrooks, and have a great month.
Good luck!
Anna Waters
Champion Briefs
18
Topic Analyses by Anna Waters
November 2014
About Anna Waters
Anna attended and debated for Presentation High School in Northern California. She
began her Public Forum career in her sophomore year and earned eight TOC bids, qualifying to
the Tournament of Champions in both her junior and senior years, when she made it to the
octofinal round. She also won the 2014 Berkeley Invitational and advanced to elimination rounds
at Harker, Apple Valley, Arizona State University, James Logan, Stanford, and the Berkeley
Round Robin. She is excited to work at the Champion Briefs Institute this summer to share her
passion for debate with others. Anna will be studying journalism at Northwestern University in
the fall.
Champion Briefs
19
Topic Analyses by Justin Katz
November 2014
Topic Analysis by Justin Katz
Introduction
This month’s topic lies at the sometimes odd intersection between scientific and public
debate. Genetic modification (GM) is incredibly important as both a formative element of food
science and a policy matter. As such, the topic will provide a range of perspectives from the
scientific community as well as the national media. The debate resembles discourse on climate
change in that the public debate constraints the sort of argumentation that each side should make.
The topic makes it easy for one side to take a purely scientific approach while the other spends
most of the time fear mongering. It is essential to break out of that framework and adopt a more
nuanced understanding of how GMOs affect the world, particularly when arguing against them.
The massive amount of scholarship on this topic should make it easy to find a perspectives that
go beyond the headlines in major news syndicates.
The size of the literature requires caveats as well. This topic attracts a proliferation of
posts by anonymous people on the Internet who make bold, unsubstantiated claims. Debaters
should ensure that their sources are reputable. The rants of anti-industrial bloggers are neither
credible evidence nor valuable in learning about the topic. The same is true of the corporate
world: the hack mouthpieces for corporate sponsors who lean on public discussions of the GM
industry should not make it into the card file.
The topic is generally pretty broad and the arguments on each side are relatively deep,
which should encourage engaging and high-quality debates. The resolution confronts a defining
issue of our time, and so the month should be exciting.
Champion Briefs
20
Topic Analyses by Justin Katz
November 2014
Background and Definitions
Humans have been genetically modifying other organisms in some form or another for
literally thousands of years. Almost all of the fruits, vegetables, and livestock which feed the
global North have been gradually selected for certain traits through selective breeding, which
resulted in the present state of agriculture. Over the last three decades, genetic modification
moved to clinical settings and become more direct, as scientists directly manipulate specific
genes within organisms to select for various desirable qualities. The work is not uninteresting:
for example, researchers at the National University of Singapore spliced the fluorescent genes of
a jellyfish and inserted them into a species of Zebra fish indigenous to Bangladesh. The result
was the GloFish, a species that can be found in almost any pet store around the world.
The most intense debates over genetic engineering occur over agriculture. Genetic
modification has created an ongoing process of revolution in agriculture. Scientists have created
strains of produce with resistant to pesticides and insects, a longer shelf life, greater nutritional
value, and the ability to grow in harsh conditions. Genetically modified crops quickly dominated
the market as large corporations like Monsanto invested heavily in research and development
and churned out an accelerating number of patented seeds for profit.14 Genetically modified
crops have been adopted more quickly than any other agricultural innovation in human history,
with a 94-fold increase in cultivation between 1996 and 2011.15 Globally, about 10 percent of
cropland is devoted to genetically modified crops. 81% of all soybeans, 64% of cotton, 29% of
14 McAleen, Shannon. "GMO History." The Great GMO Debate. Accessed October 4, 2014.
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall07/mcaleenan/history.html.
15 International Service for the Acquisition of Agra-Biotech Applications, 2014. 'Executive
Summary: Global Status Of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops’. Accessed October 5
2014.
http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/
Champion Briefs
21
Topic Analyses by Justin Katz
November 2014
corn and 23% of canola globally were from genetically modified seeds.16 That produce feeds
both people livestock.
Genetically modified crops have been widely adopted largely because they offer financial
advantages for industrial agribusiness. GMOs which are genetically resistant to pests offer a
financial advantage to producers by eliminating the need for pesticides. These GMOs may also
increase in total crop yielded as a result of greater resistance to adverse weather or soil
conditions. Proponents of genetic modification suggest it as a way to increase food production
and prevent global hunger crises.
Genetically modified crops are not without resistance, which has become increasingly
widespread in the last several decades. The resistance manifests in part from an instinctive
resistance to unnatural, untested products being integrated into the basic chemistry and
nourishment of the human body. That reflexive resistance to GMOs is compounded by growing
evidence suggesting short term harms from GMOs, and the absence of any studies examining the
long-term health effects of consuming GMOs. Many countries, particularly in Europe and the
developing world, have responded to both the citizen outcry and the health hazards by passing
regulations limiting or proscribing genetically modified crops.
Framing the Round
This topic is pretty straightforward. It asks debaters to weigh the benefits and costs of
GMOs, and so debaters should argue under a cost-benefit framework. However, the resolution is
not specific to any given country, which raises some potentially important questions.
16 Weise, Elizabeth, 2014. 'More Of World's Crops Are Genetically Engineered USATODAY.Com'. Accessed October 5 2014.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/biotech/2011-02-22-biotech-crops_N.htm.
Champion Briefs
22
Topic Analyses by Justin Katz
November 2014
Debaters should first ask where the impacts of GMOs occur. Although the resolution
opens up the debate to worldwide costs and benefits, GMOs affect different countries to different
degrees. For example, although the vast majority of crops in the US are genetically modified,
much of the developing world lacks access to genetically modified seeds. Therefore, it might
make sense to focus the round on developed countries, where the technology has been in place
for about two decades.
Conversely debaters might also utilize a framework that looks at a world in which GMOs
are widely adopted versus a world in which they do not exist. In that case, the largest impacts
probably would occur in the heavily agriculturally based economies of developing countries.
Such considerations can potentially direct the scope and magnitude of impacts on either side.
The second question debaters should ask themselves is how benefits to different countries
should be compared. Analysis could simply look for a strict comparison based on magnitude: for
example, a ten million dollar benefit to India would outweigh a five million dollar cost to the US.
Alternatively, a framework could prioritize the benefits that certain countries receive. For
example, benefits to developing countries should be weighed most heavily because of their
particular vulnerability.
In industrialized nations, consumers have a choice of foods: they can either eat GMOs or
buy natural food. In many parts of the world, however, the choice is between GMOs and
starvation. Alternately, debaters that assert that GMOs degrade human health could note the
comparable absence of medical infrastructure and access to care in the developing world. In that
case, it would make sense to place the impacts to developing countries above all else, since the
populace in those nations cannot insulate themselves from costs and enjoy benefits to a much
greater degree.
Champion Briefs
23
Topic Analyses by Justin Katz
November 2014
Arguments – Pro
Arguments on the Pro will fall into two categories: direct or indirect benefits of GMOs.
Direct benefits focus on how genetic modification succeeds in achieving its goal.
Particularly for GM crops, the aim of scientists was to provide a greater amount of better food.
Genetic modification maximizes crop yield in a number of ways. By increasing crops’ resistance
to pests and harsh conditions while squeezing the greatest possible production out of each plant,
modification ensures that crops fail less frequently. When crops are hardier, then farmers spend
less time planting and caring for each individual plant, increasing their income either by allowing
them to plant more fields or by giving them time to devote to other pursuits. In addition, genetic
modification has increased the concentration of various vitamins and other nutrients that bolster
human health. For developed countries, a longer shelf life reduces waste by preventing foods
from spoiling. For developing countries, greater food production can contribute to reduced
starvation and malnutrition due to greater yield, while longer-lasting produce prevents food from
spoiling when potentially inefficient transportation networks increase the time it takes farmers to
bring their crop to market. Greater supply also lowers prices, making food more affordable for
the impoverished. Even when farmers use GM seeds for non-food crops like cotton, higher yield
and more consistent return on investment substantially increases profits. In fact, about 15 million
farmers have been lifted out of poverty due to genetic modification.17 For everyone, a higher
nutritional value improves health, while new advances in GM technology can provide additional
supplements, like Omega-3 fatty acids, that have added health benefits.18
International Service for the Acquisition of Agra-Biotech Applications, 2014. 'Executive
Summary: Global Status Of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops’. Accessed October 5
2014.
http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/
17
18
Herper, Robert. 2009. 'The Planet Versus Monsanto'. Forbes. Accessed October 5 2014.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0118/americas-best-company-10-gmos-dupont-planetversus-monsanto.html.
Champion Briefs
24
Topic Analyses by Justin Katz
November 2014
Another direct benefit can, at first glance, seem peripheral to the debate. Genetic
modification furthers the pursuit of scientific discovery in an earth-shattering way. It helps
researchers understand the genetic foundation for a multitude of traits, a pursuit that could
eventually contribute to lifesaving medical breakthroughs, including finding cures for the genetic
diseases that affect millions worldwide.19 Perhaps more importantly, GMOs can reduce the
stigma surrounding genetic modification in a way that enables genetic research that can benefit
humans.
The indirect benefits of GMOs focus primarily on improvements in farming techniques
that increase efficiency and benefit the environment. GM crops eliminate the need for pesticides,
thereby preventing hundreds of thousands of poison from being poured onto food and into the
soil. Greater productivity per hectare reduces the total amount of land under cultivation,
preventing deforestation and other farmland-related ecological catastrophes. Since GM crops
grow more independently and reliably, farmers contribute fewer resources to cultivation. As a
result, farmers spend fewer hours on the tractor and less energy irrigating the soil, both
conserving water and saving fuel equal to taking nine million cars off the road.20
Another, potentially more unique line of argumentation might focus on other types of
genetically modified organisms; since most debates will likely focus on GM crops, I will leave
that side of the resolution alone. However, I would encourage debaters to look into this line of
argumentation, because it could potentially yield some interesting impacts.
Nature.com. 2014. 'The Use Of Animal Models In Studying Genetic Disease’. Accessed
October 6 2014. http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-use-of-animal-models-instudying-855.
19
International Service for the Acquisition of Agra-Biotech Applications, 2014. 'Executive
Summary: Global Status Of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops’. Accessed October 5
2014.
http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/
20
Champion Briefs
25
Topic Analyses by Justin Katz
November 2014
Arguments – Negative
There are four main arguments for the Con: the potential health dangers of GMOs, their
adverse effects on agriculture, how the GM industry hurts the world, and backlash.
Genetically modified organisms have only been around for less than 20 years. Any study
that purports to deny any adverse health effects can be cast into doubt, considering that the effects
might only manifest themselves in the long-term. More than anything, GMOs introduce a level
of uncertainty as to whether food is safe to consume. Skepticism about GMO safety extends
beyond just crazy bloggers on the Internet. Recent developments in genetic science indicate that
gene expression is highly contextual – that is, a gene might cause different expressions
depending on whether it is present in seaweed or corn. Genetic engineering, by taking genes out
of their context, creates biochemical cross talk between genes that induces combinations not seen
in nature. Those combinations may prove dangerous, awakening various viruses or producing
unknown allergens.21 The bottom line is that we do not know how genetic modification will
affect our health going into the future.
The second argument against GMOs focuses on the unintended consequences of GM
crop cultivation. In the short term, the resistance of crops to certain pests improves yield and
reduces pesticide use. However, in the long term, pests that survive the toxins embedded in the
crops pass their genes on to the next generation, and evolve into ‘superbugs’ that can survive
onslaught from almost any pesticide. At the same time, genetic engineering of seeds that are
resistant to Round-Up has encouraged farmers to spray the herbicide on all their fields, giving
rise to analogous ‘superweeds’. On aggregate, GMOs therefore create a self-reinforcing cycle of
21
K Van Tassel. "Genetically Modified Food, Risk Assessment and Scientific Uncertainty
Principles: Does the New Understanding of the Networked Gene Trigger the Need for PostMarket Surveillance to Protect Public Health?" Boston University Journal of Science and
Technology Law 15 (2009): 220-251.
Champion Briefs
26
Topic Analyses by Justin Katz
November 2014
stronger and stronger pests that require an ever-increasing amount of pesticides and herbicides to
contain.22 Thus, GMOs do little more than increase the total volume of poison poured into the
soil.
The next argument centers on how the genetic modification business has given rise to
incredibly powerful corporations that harm the global marketplace. In the mid-90s, a few
companies, among them the Monsanto Corporation, invested heavily in genetic engineering for
common crop varieties. The companies that discovered ways to make crops grow more reliably
and sustainably patented the genetic sequence they created, and generated massive returns on
their investments. Now, a few large companies dominate the global market for GM crops, since
the revenues from the initial patents fueled research for new strains. There are two problems with
the system that GMOs have precipitated. First, the large corporations prey on farmers. Farmers
face a tough choice: either they buy GM crop seeds at a high price, or see themselves priced out
of the marketplace by competitors who increase their yields using GMOs. Stuck between two
bad choices, many farmers opt for the latter. But since the seeds’ genetic sequence is patented,
the farmers cannot legally plant the seeds from one year’s crop the next year; they have to buy
them again from a company like Monsanto. The issue becomes even more troubling when
Monsanto introduces ‘suicide genes’ into its plants that prevent the seeds from growing after one
generation. In the developing world in particular, farmers are driven into debt as they try to pay
for genetically modified seeds. The problem has gotten so bad in India, for example, that
thousands of farmers have killed themselves to avoid the debt collectors spurred on by
corporations.23 Second, as GM corporations grow, they earn disproportionate power in politics.
22
The Huffington Post,. 2014. 'Superweeds, Superbugs And Chemical Concerns: Pesticide Use
Proliferating With Gmos, Study Warns'. Accessed October 6 2014.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/pesticides-gmo-monsanto-roundupresistance_n_1936598.html.
23
The Economist,. 2014. 'GM Genocide?'. Accessed October 6 2014.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2014/03/gm-crops-indian-farmers-and-suicide.
Champion Briefs
27
Topic Analyses by Justin Katz
November 2014
As a result, they encourage policies friendly to the agricultural empire that they create, thus
perpetuating the cycle of growth and dominance.
The last argument examines the way that GMOs affect public perception of the scientific
community. Genetic research, as discussed before, has the potential to save millions from lifeshattering diseases. However, GMOs generate a substantial degree of public backlash, potentially
reducing support for genetic research more broadly.
An important point to consider on the Con is the potential for alternative ways to increase
crop yields. Iron and calcium fortified rice, salinity resistant rice, and nitrogen fixing legumes,
which emerged from biodiversity studies in the developing world, are a few examples of the less
satanic ways that scientists have found to improve crop yields.24 GMOs are not the only solution,
and they only create additional complications that stymie any theoretical benefits.
Strategy – General
This topic will require balancing between scientific and public policy analysis.
Realistically, no one can be expected to develop a full understanding of the science behind
genetic modification in a month. However, having a working knowledge of key principles that
guide genetic engineering and including a sprinkling of technical analysis in cases will go far in
establishing credibility with a judge. Be careful, though – all scientific analysis should ideally
come from research scientists publishing in well-established journals, not pundits or other
commentators. For example, one source I saw cited herself as a professor and proceeded to
24
Iml.jou.ufl.edu,. 2014. 'GMO-Problems And Questions '. Accessed October 6
2014. http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/spring01/denlinger/problems.html
Champion Briefs
28
Topic Analyses by Justin Katz
November 2014
explain the dangers of GMOs. A quick Google search, however, revealed that her field was
business management.
On both sides, cases will likely evolve to inadvertently rely on one central assumption: on
the Pro, that GMOs are safe, and on Con, that their long-term effects are uncertain. Crafting an
entire advocacy that rests on a single point makes it easy for opponents to focus a
disproportionate amount of time to defeating that pivotal claim, an onslaught that might be
difficult to come back from in Summary speech. On both sides, it is therefore essential to craft a
case that is resistant to the defeat of that central assumption. Cases should have at least one
avenue to the ballot that does not rely on the health impacts of GMOs.
Lastly, although the majority of debate on GMOs happens in the context of developed
countries, some of the most interesting impacts materialize in the developing world. Do not
forget that GMOs have global implications, and those implications have the potential to radically
transform international agricultural realities. The surface level literature will likely draw
attention to the effects of GM crops in the US, but I would encourage debaters on both sides to
make an effort to internationalize the round, considering that developing countries are the newest
frontiers in genetic engineering.
Strategy – Pro
The affirmative enjoys the advantage of a well-funded literature base. Because corporate
producers of GMOs face intense backlash, they have dedicated considerable time and financial
backing to scientific – and pseudo-scientific – organizations that produce research to support
their cause. In a manner comparable to the research industries created by Big Tobacco to defend
against lawsuits, wealthy multinational corporations have funded – and continued to exorbitantly
fund – research that makes claims consistent with their business model.
Champion Briefs
29
Topic Analyses by Justin Katz
November 2014
Despite the substantial funding, the Pro must nevertheless overcome some of the inherent
fears that judges may have about GMOs. The Monsanto Corporation exists in our cultural
lexicon with a strongly negative symbolic association. Media representation of the dangers of
GMO – whether justified or not – has deepened the negative connotation that pervasively
surrounds GMOs. Explaining the science behind genetic engineering in plain language while
emphasizing a rational approach to food safety can help demystify genetic modification and
build credibility with a judge.
The most compelling line of argumentation on Pro focuses on the global nutritional
benefits of GMOs, particularly in developing countries. A successful case could demonstrate the
need for genetically modified crops to avoid the imminent global food crisis. Genetic
modification may help feed the millions around the world who go hungry every day, while
enabling small-scale farmers to lift themselves out of poverty. These benefits can be levied as a
method to outweigh negative harms that deal with potential health problems: being dead is less
healthy than being alive.
A global approach to the resolution also enables the Pro to argue GMOs create an
ecological benefit. For example, debaters can make arguments that GMOs alleviate the stress
that farmland places on the environment, promote sustainability and curb the contribution
agriculture makes to global warming.
Cases which effectively warrant their arguments are likely to be the most effective. There
are very specific, and sometimes somewhat counterintuitive reasons why GM crops achieve each
of the benefits that proponents champion, and it is essential to clearly articulate those reasons in
the round. Otherwise, it will be easy for the Con to portray GMOs as unnatural and unknown,
playing into the issue of uncertainty that marks the downfall of the Pro.
Champion Briefs
30
Topic Analyses by Justin Katz
November 2014
Strategy – Con
The negative suffers the disadvantage of a comparably less funded literature base.
However, the negative can capture the strategic advantage by introducing several independent
hurdles that the Pro has to overcome to win the round.
First, the negative should argue that GMOs create health risks for those who consume
them. This type of argument resonates with the intuitive sentiment which judges may hold about
GMOs. A variant of this argument suggests the affirmative must prove GMOs are safe before
they can be adopted. That argument places the burden on the Pro to prove that GMOs are safe, as
opposed to creating a burden on the Con to demonstrate they are actively unhealthy. Both
arguments can be deployed in tandem, and are likely stronger for the combination.
Second, it is important for the Con to introduce some alternatives to genetic modification.
The negative can disarm almost all of the Pro’s claims about global nutrition benefits by simply
pointing out that any production benefits accrued by GMOs are non-unique. GMOs might be
better than nothing, but that does not mean they are the best option, and, considering that other
technologies have not been widely implemented, it is difficult to conclusively prove that genetic
modification is the safest route forward. If other technologies can solve the harms outlined by the
Pro without enduring any of the risks, then GMOs are on balance undesirable as the solution to
hunger.
Debaters can also argue that GMOs contribute to the rise of large corporations. This
argument is particularly useful considering that it does not rely on any effects that the genetic
modification itself has on crops – that is, even if genetic modification improves agriculture in
theory, GMOs can create a net harm on people if they are developed and sold in a way that
manipulates farmers and corrupts governments.
In summary, a compelling Con narrative can start by introducing the uncertainties
surrounding the safety and efficacy of GM agriculture. However, even if genetic modification is
Champion Briefs
31
Topic Analyses by Justin Katz
November 2014
safe in theory, it hurts the global agricultural industry in practice because it promotes
opportunistic corporate conduct that exploits the global South. Lastly, given the hazard for harms
that genetic modification introduces, it makes more sense to prioritize safer methods of
increasing crop yield because those methods will never rise to prominence while GMOs are on
the market.
Tournaments and Adaptation throughout the Month
I would say that a technical case and a lay case would look relatively similar on this
topic. However, lay cases should use simple explanations of the technologies behind genetic
modification more to gain credibility, as opposed to giving a full account of how the engineering
works. While Con debaters may play on potential judge fears surrounding GMOs, technical
cases should include a full account of the mechanisms behind the benefits and harms that each
side claims. Cases designed to arouse potential fears should not be ignored, however: flow
judges have feelings too.
November is a great month for tournaments. For the first time in a couple of years, the
Blue Key Invitational at the University of Florida will be using the November topic, even though
it is at the end of October. Blue Key is predominantly a mixed tournament, with the plurality of
teams from the local area or state generally. Graduated debaters who currently attend school at
the University of Florida regularly return to judge, so be ready for the possibility of more
technical rounds.
I never attended the Apple Valley tournament, but from what I have heard it is also
somewhat mixed. The judge pool is decidedly Midwestern, with a healthy mix of judges
specializing in traditional LD and Policy debate. That means that judges will look to the flow to
make their decision, but may not be pleased with absurd or excessively squirrelly argumentation
and speed.
Champion Briefs
32
Topic Analyses by Justin Katz
November 2014
The biggest tournament of the month is the Glenbrooks Invitational in Chicago. The pool
will span both the East and West coasts, with a wide variety of styles. Although the number of
competitors is usually relatively small, the field is very concentrated, so the probability of
debating some of the most skilled teams in the country is high. That makes it a great tournament
for sophomore teams who want to sharpen their skills as they transition to the national circuit.
The pool is composed mostly of former debaters and coaches across events, meaning that it will
not be out of the ordinary to get a former LDer, a policy coach, and a first-year out on the same
panel. If there is a tournament where debaters can go consistently technical, it is the Glenbrooks.
Good Luck!
Justin Katz
About Justin Katz
Justin Katz attended Durham Academy and competed for four years in Public Forum
Debate. He was a finalist at the Glenbrooks Invitational Tournament, a two-time semifinalist at
the Laird Lewis Invitational, and repeatedly reached the octofinals round at Yale, Wake, and the
University of Florida Blue Key Tournament. Justin placed in the Top 30 at NFL Nationals as a
two-time qualifier. Additionally, he was a two-time finalist at the National Public Forum
Challenge, placed second at the Florida Blue Key Round Robin, and was a top-ten speaker at
Harvard, Yale, and the Glenbrooks. In North Carolina, he was ranked first in the state his Junior
year, finishing as a quarterfinalist, finalist, and champion at the state tournament. He ammassed a
total of seven bids to the Tournament of Champions, and is ranked as Top Ten in the country by
both the National Forensics League and Debaterankings.com.
Champion Briefs
33
Topic Analysis by Perevozchikov & Kirsch
November 2014
Topic Analysis by Tim Perevozchikov & Zach Kirsch
The Public Forum community has the pleasure of diving into its first scientific topic in
over two years! Much like the previous scientific topic - which was about climate change - this
topic is relevant to continued population explosions and the increasing scarcity of our world food
supply.
Before we dive into the actual analysis, we have a few thoughts on how to approach
topics with very dense scientific literature. First, if you have never read scientific scholarships,
you might be surprised by the density, and frequency of jargon in the writing. A good strategy is
to use the "X-Ray method" of reading research. Begin with the title and try to figure out exactly
what you believe the paper will discuss. After establishing a clear idea, be sure to check the table
of contents and headers to get a clear image of what you are about to read. In the middle of a long
passage, it can be easy to get lost in the scientific explanation. When this happens, go back
to the section or chapter title to understand what you are reading. Finally, at the conclusion of the
paper, be sure that you can break down the paper's argument in your own words.
Debaters will have to explain their arguments to judges that will not have doctorates in
biology. As you read research, remember that the team that better simplifies the scientific
warrants for arguments is more likely to strike a chord with judges unfamiliar with the topic
literature. This month is going to be about researching complex arguments and breaking them
down in an accessible manner for those who do not regularly read the Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry (great resource!).
Champion Briefs
34
Topic Analysis by Perevozchikov & Kirsch
November 2014
Major Tournaments
November is a major month for the national circuit because it has two big octofinals bid
tournaments. The first tournament of the month is Minneapple at Apple Valley in Minneapolis.
While the tournament gets flack for not having the hardest competition, we think it’s one of the
best tournaments of the year. It has great judging (in prelims they tend to have more technical
judges, and they start using community judges in late out rounds, so be sure to adapt in every
round) and it is incredibly well run. The entire tournament finishes in two days.
As the first tournament, Minneapple is incredibly important for two reasons. First, it gives
you a chance to try out different arguments to see how they are received. That is true both
in terms of how teams respond to the arguments and how the judges vote on them. Debaters
should consider running different cases and arguments over course of the tournament to test them
out. The second reason Minneapple is important is because it is the first chance you have to hear
the arguments other teams will make. Be sure to make a list of every argument - and different
versions of arguments - to make sure you are blocking out as much as you can. Clean flowing is
especially important so that you can find and use all the good evidence you heard doing
tournament.
The second tournament of the month is the Glenbrooks Invitational. Many consider this
tournament to be the national championship of the first semester. The field is always diverse and
filled with both powerhouses and up-and-comers who make a big splash in elimination rounds.
Debaters should expect to see a lot of judges who are familiar with this event. Most rounds will
probably have a coach or former debater as the judge, which means that nuanced, properly
Champion Briefs
35
Topic Analysis by Perevozchikov & Kirsch
November 2014
executed link stories can be a strategic gain for debaters. As you progress into out rounds, most
panels will be comprised of technical, flow oriented judges.
We offer this information with a word of caution: do not read random card names and
substitute quality analysis for blippy argumentation. For the past three years, Walt Whitman won
the tournament by creating a nuanced narrative rather than assembling a collection of random
cards. Especially on this topic, where there are diverse arguments and powerful impacts available
to debaters, a cohesive narrative will distinguish good teams from great teams.
Topicality
The phrase ‘on balance’ combined with ‘benefits’ and ‘harms’ makes it very evident that each
side needs to take a holistic approach to the topic. It seems the topic selection committee
recognized that topicality debates really are not that fun. Teams should have a good
understanding of what crops constitute genetically modified foods. The literature typically refers
to genetically modified foods under the umbrella term “genetically modified organisms” or
GMOs. The World Health Organization defines GMOs as “organisms in which the genetic
material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. It allows selected
individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, including between nonrelated
species. Such methods are used to create GMO plants – which result in GMO food crops. ”
Because of these straightforward definitions, the topical division of ground is incredibly clear
with this resolution.
A potential issue may occur when a team tries to cherry-pick one specific type of GMO,
and focus exclusively on the benefits or harms that it produces. Debaters should remember that
Champion Briefs
36
Topic Analysis by Perevozchikov & Kirsch
November 2014
the topic requires each side to defend GMOs on balance, meaning that statistics which apply to
GMOs on the whole should typically outweigh the benefits of a specific type of GMO.
Framework
Because the topic effectively sets up a cost-benefit analysis, most debaters will likely
advocate a straightforward framework in rounds. Frameworks on this topic should deal with
weighing why your arguments are more important than your opponents arguments. Planning
weighing arguments requires debaters to predict what kinds of arguments your opponents are
going to be running. Debaters should start weighing arguments from early in the round, to
establish a persuasive narrative for the round. Specific weighing arguments vary case by case,
but debaters should look at the frameworks section of this brief for ideas.
Strategy
Because GMOs are a highly controversial topic, many judges have preconceived notions about
their benefits and costs. As the Pro, debaters should explain arguments with enough strong logic
and evidence to overcome potential misconceptions. Clear argument is equally important for the
Con because judges will likely intuitively resonate with major affirmative impacts, such as
ending world hunger. Con debaters should warrant claims about the unhealthy or dangerous
aspects of GMOs to convince your judges of their position.
Champion Briefs
37
Topic Analysis by Perevozchikov & Kirsch
November 2014
Pro Strategy
GMOs have the potential to eradicate world hunger. Pro debaters should argue that potential
long-term benefits that have yet to occur can still warrant a Pro ballot, because the possibility of
using GMOs to battle world hunger only exists the “pro world” where GMO use continues.
The argument that we most highly recommend relates to increasing the food supply. This
argument is very straightforward and has the biggest impacts. Supply of many crops is limited
because most crops only grow a few months out of the year. Genetic alteration allows farmers to
increase yields by developing crops that are resistant to adverse weather conditions.
Genetic modification might also help the food supply by facilitating the growth of larger
crops, meaning that each genetic modifications produce more usable crops per seed. The most
commonly used example relates to pest-deterring crops. These crops have been genetically
altered to deter bugs and other animals from eating and spoiling the crops. Debaters making this
argument should reference current technology and modern examples of technology. GMOs are
very diverse and each has its own function mechanisms. While it is easy for teams to counter
generic quotes suggesting GMOs are good, it is considerably more difficult to argue against
detailed explanations of how specific GMOs solve starvation. (Note: this does not mean run a
hyper-specific type of GMO, because that can look squirrelly and abusive. Debaters should
instead reference several types of GMOs and explain how they work).
The impacts to ending starvation are vast. There are already many regions of the world that
use genetic modification to drastically increase food output. GMOs are especially helpful in
food-insecure areas of the world, which are important because the resolution is not specific to the
Champion Briefs
38
Topic Analysis by Perevozchikov & Kirsch
November 2014
US. While debaters should note the potential promise of GMOs, they should also discuss benefits
in the status quo. For example, debaters can cite to the people presently fed by access to GMO
food. This may humanize the impact, and make it clear that real people have avoided a horrible
death by gaining access to food. On these sorts of topics, it is easy to get lost in the numbers.
Judges will appreciate sensitive and thoughtful arguments.
Debaters should structure cases around food insecurity, but simultaneously maintain diversity
of arguments in the rest of the case. For example, debaters can discuss economic and social
arguments into the case (e.g. GMOs allow smaller farmer to grow more food and compete with
the bigger corporations). This brief is a great resource for brainstorming arguments!
Negative Strategy
In order to preempt common affirmative offense, debaters may want to make the argument
that GMOs do not actually increase food output levels. Debaters should also argue that GMOs
ultimately harming agricultural ability to produce for the population. The Institute for
Responsible Technologies breaks this down well:
GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world. Whereas sustainable
non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield
increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident
in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date
on GM crops and yield. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and
Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed
Champion Briefs
39
Topic Analysis by Perevozchikov & Kirsch
November 2014
by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields
declined.’
This argument puts debaters ahead of the affirmative by helping them develop a clear and
cohesive link story that will stop most affirmative claims about solving for hunger problems.
Debaters should not spend a lot of case time on this argument though, because it is clearly
defensive (“GMOs don’t increase food output” is not a reason why they are bad).
Second, we recommend having a well-rounded case in terms of impacts. This topic
allows debaters to link to a variety of harms from GMOs. Diversifying a case’s impact base
creates room for more late-round flexibility. The pick-and-choose strategy can be especially
beneficial for debaters who feel less comfortable structuring a framework around a single impact
or concept. Generally, a good negative case will impact to arguments relating to the economic
detriment that GMOs create, along with the social, environmental, and health dangers posed by
GMOs. When running these impacts, be careful about overstating what the studies actually
claim. Most literature still relies on animal testing, and debaters should not try to hide that fact
by obscuring the test subject. Rather, a strong team will be able to develop a narrative to suggest
a clear and persuasive trend based on the research.
Finally, debaters have the option of combining a strong framework with a more narrowly
tailored case centering around one theme or impact. For example, a negative team could expand
exclusively on the health risk that GMOs pose to society, and then combine it with a wellwarranted explanation of why human health harms carry the most weight in the debate. This
strategy is advantageous because it facilitates the development of a deeper narrative with which
the judge can connect. However, debaters who chose to use this strategy should be aware that
they are placing all of their eggs in one basket and could lose entire rounds on single arguments.
Champion Briefs
40
Topic Analysis by Perevozchikov & Kirsch
November 2014
We hope that this topic analysis gave you some insight into the topic. This will be a very
research-heavy tournament, so make sure to get started early.
Good luck!
Tim and Zach
About Tim Perevozchikov and Zach Kirsch
Zach and Tim went to Hawken School in Cleveland, Ohio. When they competed
together, they had a 63-5 record, and won the Blake Round Robin, the Stanford Invitational, and
the CFL Grand National Tournament. In the month of November, Zach finalled at Minneapple
and received the top speaker award, and Tim semifinalled at Glenbrooks and received the 3rd
best speaker award. Additionally, Tim won the NSDA National Tournament this past June. Tim
currently studies at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and Zach is at Tufts University in
Boston.
Champion Briefs
41
Chatnpion Briefs
November 2014
Public Forum Brief
General
Information
General Information
November 2014
General Information
Resolved: On balance, the benefits of genetically modified
foods outweigh the harms.
Foreword: We, at Champion Briefs, feel that having deep knowledge
about a topic is just as valuable as formulating the right arguments.
Having general background knowledge about the topic area helps
debaters form more coherent arguments from their breadth of
knowledge. As such, we have compiled general information on the
key concepts and general areas that we feel will best suit you for in@
and out@of@round use. Any strong strategy or argument must be built
from a strong foundation of information; we hope that you will
utilize this section to help build that foundation.
Champion Briefs
43
General Information
November 2014
How are GMO’s created?
GMOs are plants or animals that have undergone a process wherein scientists alter
their genes with DNA from different species of living organisms, bacteria, or viruses to get
desired traits such as resistance to disease or tolerance of pesticides
Is gene selection a new process?
GMOs are not really a "thing," Nestle says, and that's hard for the average consumer
to grasp. You can't touch or feel a GMO. Genetically modified foods are plants or animals
that have had genes copied from other plants or animals inserted into their DNA. It's not a
new idea — humans have been tinkering with genes for centuries through selective
breeding. Think dogs bred to be more docile pets, cattle bred to be beefier or tomatoes bred
to be sweeter. Turkeys were bred to have bigger breasts — better for Thanksgiving
dinner. What's different about genetically modified or engineered foods is that the
manipulation is done in a lab. Engineers don't need to wait for nature to produce a desired
gene; they speed up the process by transferring a gene from one plant or animal to another.
What are the desired traits? Most of the nation's corn and soybeans are genetically
engineered to resist pests and herbicides. A papaya in Hawaii is modified to resist a virus.
The FDA is considering an application from a Massachusetts company to approve a
genetically engineered salmon that would grow faster than traditional salmon.
Which foods are genetically modified?
Champion Briefs
44
General Information
November 2014
Since several common ingredients like corn starch and soy protein are
predominantly derived from genetically modified crops, it's pretty hard to avoid GM foods
altogether. In fact, GMOs are present in 60 to 70 percent of foods on US supermarket
shelves, according to Bill Freese at the Center for Food Safety; the vast majority of
processed foods contain GMOs. One major exception is fresh fruits and veggies. The only
GM produce you're likely to find is the Hawaiian papaya, a small amount of zucchini and
squash, and some sweet corn. No meat, fish, and poultry products approved for direct
human consumption are bioengineered at this point, though most of the feed for livestock
and fish is derived from GM corn, alfalfa, and other biotech grains. Only organic varieties of
these animal products are guaranteed GMO@free feed.
Which common foods are not genetically modified?
1. Potatoes: In 1995, Monsanto introduced genetically modified potatoes for human
consumption, but after pressure from consumers, McDonald's and several other major fast
food chains told their French fry suppliers to stop growing GE potatoes. The crop has since
been removed from the market.
2. Seedless watermelon: While it would seem plausible that a fruit that produces no seeds
has been bioengineered, the seedless watermelon is a hybrid of two separate breeds. It has
been nicknamed the "mule of the watermelon world."
3. Salmon: Currently no meat, fish, or egg products are genetically engineered, though a
company called Aqua Bounty has an application in with the FDA to approve its GE salmon.
Champion Briefs
45
General Information
November 2014
4. Soy milk: While 93 percent of soy grown in the United States is genetically engineered,
most major brands of soy milk are GMO@free. Silk, the best@selling soy milk brand in the
country, joined the Non@GMO Project in 2010. Many popular tofu brands in the United
States also sell GMO@free tofu products.*
5. Rice: A staple food for nearly half the world's population, there are currently no varieties
of GM rice approved for human consumption. However, that could soon change. A
genetically modified variety called golden rice being developed in the Philippines has
been altered to include beta@carotene, a source of vitamin A. Backers are lauding it as a way
to alleviate nutrient deficiency for the populations in developing countries.
When did genetifcally modified foods first come about?
Scientists conducted the first GE food trials the late 1980s, and in 1994, a biotech
company called Calgene released the first GMO approved for human consumption: the
"Flavr Savr tomato," designed to stay ripe on the vine longer without getting squishy. The
product, which Monsanto eventually picked up, flopped, but it paved the way for others:
Biotech companies have made billions since with GE corn, soy bean, cotton, and canola.
Why are Genetically Modified Foods produced?
GM foods are developed – and marketed – because there is some perceived
advantage either to the producer or consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into
a product with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or
both. Initially GM seed developers wanted their products to be accepted by producers and
Champion Briefs
46
General Information
November 2014
have concentrated on innovations that bring direct benefit to farmers (and the food
industry generally).
One of the objectives for developing plants based on GM organisms is to improve
crop protection. The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased
level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases
caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides. Resistance
against insects is achieved by incorporating into the food plant the gene for toxin
production from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). This toxin is currently used as a
conventional insecticide in agriculture and is safe for human consumption. GM crops that
inherently produce this toxin have been shown to require lower quantities of insecticides
in specific situations, e.g. where pest pressure is high. Virus resistance is achieved through
the introduction of a gene from certain viruses which cause disease in plants. Virus
resistance makes plants less susceptible to diseases caused by such viruses, resulting in
higher crop yields. Herbicide tolerance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from
a bacterium conveying resistance to some herbicides. In situations where weed pressure is
high, the use of such crops has resulted in a reduction in the quantity of the herbicides used.
Which Countries require labeling food products with GMO’s?
Sixty@four developing and developed countries require GMO food labeling, according
to Freese at the Center for Food Safety. You may have heard about the recent string of
"Right to Know" bills in state assemblies across the country. The bills are aimed to require
Champion Briefs
47
General Information
November 2014
food companies to label any products that contain genetically modified
organisms. Connecticut and Maine recently passed laws that would require food
manufacturers to reveal GE ingredients on product packaging, but those laws won't go into
effect until other states adopt similar measures. Americans overwhelmingly support such
laws, with poll after poll showing that over 90 percent of respondents support mandatory
labeling. Biotech companies and the food industry say that such labeling would be
expensive and pointless since genetically engineered foods have been declared safe for
human consumption.
How is GMO safety assessed?
The safety assessment of GM foods generally focuses on: (a) direct health effects
(toxicity), (b) potential to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity); (c) specific components
thought to have nutritional or toxic properties; (d) the stability of the inserted gene; (e)
nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and (f) any unintended effects
which could result from the gene insertion.
What are the main concerns with GMO’s?
While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main
issues debated are the potentials to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer
and outcrossing.
Champion Briefs
48
General Information
November 2014
Allergenicity
As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic organisms
to non@allergic organisms is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein
product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While foods developed using traditional
breeding methods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for the testing of GM
foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the
market.
Gene transfer
Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the
gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely
affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes,
used as markers when creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of
transfer is low, the use of gene transfer technology that does not involve antibiotic
resistance genes is encouraged.
Outcrossing
The migration of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in
the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from
conventional seeds with GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food
security. Cases have been reported where GM crops approved for animal feed or industrial
use were detected at low levels in the products intended for human consumption. Several
Champion Briefs
49
General Information
November 2014
countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the
fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.
Vermont has been a big proponent of labeling GMO’s
So Starr became a supporter of a GMO@labeling bill in the Vermont legislature. He
had plenty of company. When the legislature held public hearings on the labeling bill in
2012 and again this year, the chamber filled to overflowing with people who wanted to
testify both times. Not a single member of the public spoke against the legislation. The final
vote in the state senate was 28@2.
Is there a push to label GMO’s in U.S. States?
Vermont is first, but it is unlikely to be the last. The push to label GMOs is the subject
of a burgeoning, passionate national movement. There are currently 84 bills on GMO
labeling in 29 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, as well as
dueling bills in Congress. Earlier this year, Maine and Connecticut passed labeling
requirements contingent on a “trigger” mechanism: The requirements won’t take effect
unless several neighboring states take the same step. Labeling referenda were defeated in
in California in 2012 and Washington in 2013. But activists are attempting to put the issue
on the ballot in a fresh crop of states this year, including Oregon, Colorado, and Arizona.
Champion Briefs
50
General Information
November 2014
States are ramping up efforts to label GMO’s.
There is an escalating political fight between the labeling advocates and the food
industry, which has dug in against labeling. In the absence of a federal labeling standard,
GMO opponents have gone to the states to try to get a patchwork of labeling laws approved
— a move that could eventually force a national standard. Ballot measures in California and
Washington state failed, but the legislative effort prevailed in Vermont. Maine and
Connecticut also have passed laws requiring labels, but they don't take effect unless other
states follow suit. The food industry is widely expected to challenge the Vermont law in
court. The state efforts aren't slowing down. According to the National Conference of State
Legislatures, there are 85 pending GMO labeling bills in 29 states. In Congress, the food
industry is pushing a House bill that would head off efforts to enact mandatory labeling of
genetically modified ingredients by proposing new voluntary labels nationwide — an
attempted end run around the state@by@state laws.
Currently, the FDA says labeling of genetically modified foods isn't needed because
the nutritional content is the same as non@GMO varieties.
What are the costs of GMO labeling?
The state's most recent data on the cost of GMO food labeling showed that the cost
would be up to $1 million, less than 3 cents per person in California. On the other hand, as
Smith wrote in his article, "If food companies [who manufacture food containing GMOs]
were to simply eliminate GMOs rather than admit they use them, the measure would cost
Champion Briefs
51
General Information
November 2014
Monsanto plenty." Isn't it clear why companies like Monsanto have spent more than $44
million on the fight against Prop 37, according to www.maplight.org?
What are the general benefits and costs?
Critics say there are potential health effects (see next question) and environmental
concerns surrounding GMOs. One of the supposed benefits of GMOs is that they should
result in less herbicide spraying, since some plants have been modified to be herbicide
resistant. However, over@reliance on these crops has led to the emergence of "super weeds"
that are also more resistant to herbicides, requiring increased spraying, according to a
University of Washington study.
How many plants have been modified around the world?
More than 40 types of plants have been genetically modified worldwide. A much
smaller number are commercially grown. The most common genetically modified plantsare
corn, canola, soybean and cotton. Others include papayas, chrysanthemums, poplars,
spruce, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. GMOs have also been used in
tobacco, rice, cranberries, raspberries and walnuts, but these are not grown in the United
States for human consumption.
Are Food Companies responding to GMO’s?
“GMOs, however, are prohibited in organic products. "This means an organic farmer
can't plant GMO seeds, an organic cow can't eat GMO alfalfa or corn, and an organic soup
Champion Briefs
52
General Information
November 2014
producer can't use any GMO ingredients," according to the USDA. Additionally,
organizations, like the Non@GMO Project, list products verified to be GMO@free. You can also
download the Non@GMO Shopping Guide app. Some companies are moving away from
GMOs. Fast@food chain Chipotle has committed to removing GMO ingredients from its
menu. Also, Whole Foods Market said by 2018 it will label all GMO products at its U.S. and
Canadian stores.”
Works Cited
Ball, M. (2014, May 4). Want to Know If Your Food Is Genetically Modified? Retrieved
October 5, 2014, from
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/want@to@know@if@your@
food@is@genetically@modified/370812/
Caldwell, M. (2013, August 5). 5 Surprising Genetically Modified Foods. Retrieved October
9, 2014, from http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/08/what@are@
gmos@and@why@should@i@care
De Mello, E. (2013, September 12). What's the Big Deal About Genetically@Modified
Organisms? Retrieved October 6, 2014, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edison@de@mello@md@phd/gmos_b_3854198.html
Champion Briefs
53
General Information
November 2014
Network, J. (2014, January 3). What you need to know about GMOs. Retrieved October 6,
2014, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation@now/2014/01/03/gmo@
genetically@modified@organism@facts@cheerios/4302121/
Visser, N. (2014, May 9). What Is A GMO? Genetically Modified Foods Continue To Confuse
Consumers. Retrieved October 5, 2014, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/09/what@is@a@gmo_n_5295997.html
Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods. (2014, October 1). Retrieved
October 9, 2014, from http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food@
technology/faq@genetically@modified@food/en/
Champion Briefs
54
Chatnpion Briefs
November 2014
Public Forum Brief
Frameworks
Frameworks
November 2014
Frameworks
Resolved: On balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms.
AFFIRMATIVE FRAMEWORKS
Framework: This round should be analyzed via a cost benefit analysis. This means that if
at the end of the round the Pro team demonstrates a greater number of benefits than costs,
then the judge should feel comfortable voting Pro. Even Con demonstrates that there are
some negative side effects to genetically modified foods, they must show that these costs
are greater than the benefits that the Pro team brings you.
When to Use: Use this if you feel that you do not have enough evidence to block out an
argument that you think your opponents are using. This gives you the ability to
acknowledge that there are some costs that do exist, but then gives you a mechanism to
outweigh those costs. This is very helpful
How to Answer: Answer this by saying that if one team presents the judge with empirical
evidence that genetically modified foods do have severe harms and the other team cannot
provide any evidence, then the judge should prefer the team that has empirical evidence.
Framework: The longCterm benefits of GMO’s should always outweigh shortCterm costs,
because longCterm benefits affect a greater number of people over a longer period of time.
Thus if at the end of the round Pro establishes a long term benefit, and con demonstrates a
short term cost, you should prefer the longCterm benefit.
When to use: Use this framework to counterCact a lot of the con arguments that focus
specifically on shortCterm problems like corporations increasing profit margins or people
not benefitting as much from GMO’s as they would from regular foods. You can outweigh
this with arguments about increasing food production in the long term and how this impact
is continuous, because genetically modified foods can have positive effects that will effect
all future generations.
Champion Briefs
56
Frameworks
November 2014
How to Answer: Answer this by saying that the easiest way to evaluate the round is by
examining the probability of the impact occurring. LongCterm impacts are harder to
quantify, because they are mostly predictions. ShortCterm impacts have a higher
probability, so if Con has more definite impacts
NEGATIVE FRAMEWORKS
Framework: In order for the Pro side to win today’s round, the Pro must demonstrate that
there are benefits to genetically modified foods that outweigh the harms; however, the Con
side must merely prove that there are no benefits to genetically modified foods, it is not the
Con’s burden to show the harms of GMO’s.
When to Use: Use this framework if you are planning on blocking a lot of arguments, and
you do not feel confident about your own arguments. This framework, will work really well
if you are confident in your blocks, because if at the end of the round both teams’
arguments are blocked out then as Con you win under your framework. Do not use this
framework if your strategy relies on turning on your opponents’ arguments, because this
framework would waste speech time, and not give you any advantage.
How to Respond: Answer this framework by saying that under the framework, if you are
able to prove a single net benefit from GMO’s at the end of the round then the judge must
vote Pro. This will make your job as the Pro slightly easier, because if your opponent’s
strategy relies on trying to block your arguments by saying that the genetically modified
foods have no positive benefit, and you manage to pull through one or two positive benefits
that makes it easier for you to win the round.
Framework: When evaluating the benefits and harms of genetically modified foods,
quantifiable research should be preferred over anecdotal evidence.
Champion Briefs
57
Frameworks
November 2014
When to Use: Use this framework if you are running arguments that rely heavily on
scientific research. This is a mechanism to help you clearly weigh the benefits for the judge.
This framework will allow you to demonstrate the scientific side of your argument, and it
forces your opponents to respond to the literature.
How to Respond: There are long term benefits from GMO’s that are not necessarily taken
into account for in scientific studies, since these studies are not looking at long term effects
such as long term food production. LongCterm factors have the potential to outweigh short
term factors that these studies look at. The potential to save millions of lives is a benefit
that can outweigh a minor cost.
Champion Briefs
58
Chatnpion Briefs
November 2014
Public Forum Brief
Pro Argulllents with
Con Responses
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
PRO – Decreased Herbicide Use
Argument: GMOs resistant to herbicides can reduce the number of herbicides needed to destroy
weeds, therefore decreasing agricultural runoff, soil tilling, and manufacturing cost.
Warrant: GMOs resistant to herbicides like Glyphosate require only one herbicide and fewer
repetitions of applications, which decreases the use of herbicides overall.
Madsen, Katherine. “Benefits and risks of the use of herbicide-resistant crops.” Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2002). Web. October 3 2014.
<http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y5031e/y5031e0i.htm>
“Glyphosate-resistant soybean has been adopted principally because it simplifies
weed control to the use of a single herbicide and with a more flexible timing than
that required for conventional herbicides. Because glyphosate is strongly adsorbed to
the soil there is a negligible threat of residual effects on succeeding rotational crops.
The number of herbicide applications in soybeans is estimated to have dropped by 12
percent for the period 1995-1999. However, when this is measured in terms of the total
amount of active ingredients used, there seems to be an increase. Increasing herbicide use
in soybean in the United States may partly be explained by the increased area sown with
this crop (Carpenter and Giannessi, 2001).”
Warrant: Because of this increased simplicity and the strength of glyphosate when combined
with glyphosate-resistant crops, farmers see tangible decreases in the number of weeds in their
fields.
Duke, Stephen. “Glyphosate-Resistant Crops and Weeds: Now and in the Future.” The
Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics (2009). Web. October
3 2014. <http://www.agbioforum.org/v12n34/v12n34a10-duke.htm>
“Since glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide, virtually all weed species could be
controlled in GR crops with one or two appropriately-timed post-emergent
Champion Briefs
60
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
applications of glyphosate. Glyphosate is a highly systemic herbicide that is translocated
to both above- and below-ground meristems, so that weed re-growth rarely occurs. Thus,
when first introduced, GR crop fields generally had fewer weeds than fields in which
conventional weed management was practiced. Farmers found this profound efficacy
of the GR crop/glyphosate combination to be highly attractive.”
Warrant: Because GMOs need only one herbicide and a lower quantity of that herbicide, and
they bring increased competition with other herbicides, overall cost to farmers has decreased.
Duke, Stephen. “Glyphosate-Resistant Crops and Weeds: Now and in the Future.” The
Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics (2009). Web. October
3 2014. <http://www.agbioforum.org/v12n34/v12n34a10-duke.htm>
“Since adoption of GR crops and glyphosate, crop-infesting weeds have generally
been well controlled by using glyphosate alone, thus reducing costs (no additional
herbicides). After loss of patent rights in 2000, the price of glyphosate decreased
substantially (by 40% in the United States [US Department of Agriculture Agricultural
Statistics Service, 2006]) as generic manufacturers worldwide began to produce and
market glyphosate. Additionally, in order to compete with cheap glyphosate, the price
of other herbicides that can be used with GR crops was reduced after the
introduction of GR crops (Nelson & Bullock, 2003), indirectly reducing the costs of
weed management to farmers using these herbicides. Furthermore, on many farms,
adoption of GR crops has enabled costly soil tillage to be reduced or eliminated.
However, these economic benefits of GR crops are now being threatened by the evolution
of GR weeds, as discussed below.”
Champion Briefs
61
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Not only is less herbicide required with GMO plants, but the herbicide used is
significantly less toxic than alternatives.
Duke, Stephen. “Glyphosate-Resistant Crops and Weeds: Now and in the Future.” The
Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics (2009). Web. October
3 2014. <http://www.agbioforum.org/v12n34/v12n34a10-duke.htm>
“Glyphosate is perhaps the least toxic pesticide used in agriculture (Giesy, Dobson,
& Solomon, 2000;Williams, Kroes, & Munro, 2000), with a lower acute toxicity than
aspirin or many other commonly ingested compounds. Some of the “inactive”
ingredients used in some formulations of glyphosate have higher levels of toxicity to
some organisms than glyphosate itself. Using acute mammalian toxicity data, Gardner
and Nelson (2008) compared the number of LD50 doses per unit area that were decreased
by GR crops in the United States. Depending on the crop and the location, they calculated
that conventional weed management with other herbicides could result in as much as
3,000 more LD50 doses per hectare with maize, more than 375 more with cotton, and
more than 90 more with soybean than with GR crops.”
Warrant: The GMO herbicide is also uniquely beneficial to water and soil, as it is less likely to
contaminate the environment than most of its alternatives.
Duke, Stephen. “Glyphosate-Resistant Crops and Weeds: Now and in the Future.” The
Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics (2009). Web. October
3 2014. <http://www.agbioforum.org/v12n34/v12n34a10-duke.htm>
“In terms of surface and groundwater contamination, glyphosate is superior to most
of the herbicides that it has replaced (reviewed by Borggaard & Gimsing,
2008; Cerdeira & Duke, 2006). Although the formulations for use in crops are not to be
sprayed near waterways, there are formulations of glyphosate for use in aquatic
situations. Glyphosate does not move well in soil because of its strong sorption to soil
Champion Briefs
62
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
minerals, and it degrades more rapidly in most soils than most of the herbicides that
it replaces (reviewed in detail by Cerdeira & Duke, 2006).”
Warrant: Farmers report that they are tilling their land less, and using more environmentally
friendly farming practices directly because of GMOs.
“ASA Study Confirms Environmental Benefits of Biotech Soybeans.” November 12,
2001. American Soybean Association. Web. October 3 2014.
<http://soygrowers.com/asa-study-confirms-environmental-benefits-of-biotechsoybeans/>
“Almost half (48 percent) of the growers in ASA’s study said that they have increased
their no-till soybean acres during the last six growing seasons (1996-2001). During
this period, no-till soybean acres have more than doubled to 49 percent of total
soybean acres, and reduced till acres have increased by one-fourth, to account for
another 33 percent of soybean acres. In the ASA study, 53 percent of the growers said
they are making fewer tillage passes in soybeans. Reduced tillage practices in
soybeans saved 247 million tons of irreplaceable topsoil in 2000, and reduced the
number of times a farmer had to run equipment over the field, saving 234 million
gallons of fuel.”
Warrant: Because of the simplified herbicide process that GMO plants bring, they decrease
carbon emissions: in one case, by up to 50%.
Bennett, Richard. “Environmental and human health impacts of growing genetically
modified herbicide-tolerant sugar beet: a life-cycle assessment.” Plant
Biotechnology Journal (2004). Web. October 3 2014.
<http://m.pfb.info.pl/files/raporty/02.UnversityofReadingEnvirHealthIimpactOfG
mSugarBeets.pdf>
“It can be seen that the extracted energy use is lowest for the GM system (around
50% lower than the UKB system). It is worth noting that, for the GM system, most of
Champion Briefs
63
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
the energy requirement is related to the manufacture and transport of the herbicide
(glyphosate), whereas, for the other systems, a higher proportion is related to the energy
used for field operations, tractor movements, etc. In terms of global warming potential
and ozone depletion, the GM system is also the lowest, being around 50% lower
than the UKB system in the case of ozone depletion and 19% lower in terms of
global warming potential.”
Analysis: This argument can be ran in a multitude of ways, depending on the impacts that
debaters believe to be most persuasive. Once the link between GMOs and decreased herbicide
use is established, debaters can access a plethora of economic and environmental impacts.
However, make sure not to get so caught up in impacts that the link story is lost; give it enough
time in case so judges can clearly understand why genetically modified foods provide this
benefit.
Champion Briefs
64
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
A2 – Decreased Herbicide Use
Argument: Herbicide use actually increases.
Warrant: Though they could decrease herbicide use in theory, genetically engineered crops
actually increase overall pesticide use because of glyphosate resistant weeds.
Benbrook, Charles. “Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S.
-- the first sixteen years.” Environmental Sciences Europe. September 28, 2012.
<http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24>
“Overall, since the introduction of GE crops, the six major GE technologies have
increased pesticide use by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or
about 7%. The spread of GR weeds is bound to trigger further increases, e.g., the volume
of 2,4-D sprayed on corn could increase 2.2 kgs/ha by 2019 (1.9 pounds/acre) if the
USDA approves unrestricted planting of 2,4-D HR corn [Additional file 1: Table S19].
The increase in herbicides applied on HR hectares has dwarfed the reduction in
insecticide use over the 16!years, and will almost surely continue to do so for several
more years.”
Analysis: Though there is clearly evidence on both sides of the herbicide resistant crop debate,
the best rebuttals to this argument will start off with a clear contesting of the link. If you can
prove that herbicide use actually goes up, you can turn a majority of their impacts and prove that
the resistant weeds created by these GMOs do more harm than good.
Argument: These herbicide-resistant crops create a spiral of increasing costs and herbicide use
to farmers that shows no signs of stopping.
Champion Briefs
65
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Up to 50% of the land with these herbicide-resistant crops is already infested with
resistant weeds, a number that will only rise as more herbicides are incorporated to deal with the
status quo problem.
Benbrook, Charles. “Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S.
-- the first sixteen years.” Environmental Sciences Europe. September 28, 2012.
<http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24>
“In 2012, RR crops were planted on about 65 million hectares in the U.S., about in in
every two hectares of cultivated cropland. Between one-third and one-half of he land
planted to RR crops (21 to 33 million ha) is already infested with one or more
glyphosate-resistant weeds. As a result, farmers have been forced to spray
glyphosate more often and at incrementally higher rates, and also must incorporate
one to three additional herbicides into their spray programs to deal with the weeds
that have become immune to glyphosate. The inflated costs of RR seed and herbicides
have cut into profit margins on U.S. farms. Because there are more herbicidetolerant weeds on the horizon, weed control problems are bound to get worse in the
years ahead. “
Analysis: Along with the card above it, this piece of evidence establishes how widespread this
problem is, and how it is currently getting worse. This card shows both the large magnitude and
lengthy timeframe of the negative impact of herbicide-resistant crops, and sets debaters up for
excellent weighing in the summary and final focus.
Argument: One underlying reason why herbicide-resistant crops will only continue to cause
harm is the inherent lack of herbicide diversity.
Champion Briefs
66
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Though supporters tout the benefits of needing only one herbicide, the fact that many
farmers stopped using multiple herbicide only sped up the evolution of herbicide-resistant
weeds.
Duke, Stephen. “Glyphosate-Resistant Crops and Weeds: Now and in the Future.” The
Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics (2009).
<http://www.agbioforum.org/v12n34/v12n34a10-duke.htm>
“The efficacy and flexibility of glyphosate in GR crops meant that US, Argentinean,
and Brazilian growers replaced previously used herbicides with glyphosate. This is
starkly evident for soybean production in the United States. As GR soybeans and
glyphosate were adopted, other herbicides largely disappeared from most fields
(Figure 5), minimizing herbicide diversity in US soybean fields. It is well known that
herbicide resistance evolution will be fastest where diversity is minimal. There can be
no better example of this lack of diversity in weed control than multiple applications of
glyphosate on the same field every year in GR crops.“
Analysis: The crux of the response to this argument hinges on proving that herbicide use goes
up, and this piece of evidence provides compelling logic as to why. Debaters can easily explain
this to lay or circuit judges without getting into complex scientific jargon, and this (along with
earlier statistics in this response section) will allow debaters on the Con side to give judges clear
reasons to prefer their statistics. Even if the Pro team has studies showing a decrease in herbicide
use, if the Con can show that these are short-term and that long term use increases due to
multiple empirical and logical warrants, the argument can definitely be turned and provide a
compelling Con impact.
Champion Briefs
67
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
PRO – Increased Agricultural Capacity
Argument: GMOs resistant to drought and high salinity can help mitigate malnutrition due to
overpopulation by making previously infertile land fertile and increasing the capacity for
agriculture, especially in third world countries.
Warrant: Increasing global population and draining agricultural resources present a necessity
for crops that can increase agricultural capacity.
Wallace, J.S.. “Increasing agricultural water use efficiency to meet future food
production.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 82.3 (2004). Web. October
2 2014. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880900002206>
“With the world’s population set to increase by 65% (3.7 billion) by ∼2050, the
additional food required to feed future generations will put further enormous
pressure on freshwater resources. This is because agriculture is the largest single
user of fresh water, accounting for ∼75% of current human water use. At present
∼7% of the world’s population live in areas where water is scarce. This is predicted
to rise to a staggering 67% of the world’s population by 2050. Because of this water
scarcity and because new arable land is also limited, future increases in production
will have to come mainly by growing more food on existing land and water.”
Warrant: Africa is in a unique position to be hit hard by drought, and their farmers are
increasingly forced to grow crops in unsuitable locations.
Paarlberg, Robert. “GMO foods and crops: Africa’s choice.” New Biotechnology. 27. 5
(2010). Web. October 2 2014.
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678410005145>
Champion Briefs
68
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
“Drought tolerant maize is only one of the new GMO crop technologies now emerging
from the research pipeline. Maize is a staple food for more than 300 million people in
Sub-Saharan Africa, many of whom are themselves growers of maize. These
Africans remain poor and food insecure because the productivity of their labor in
farming is so low. Population growth has been pushing maize production into
marginal areas with little and unreliable rainfall (only 4% of cropland in SubSaharan Africa is irrigated). These factors, combined with human-induced climate
change, are expected to increase drought risks to maize growers in Africa in the years
ahead. The development of maize varieties better able to tolerate drought is one
important response to this growing challenge.”
Warrant: Though Africa and other third world countries have a unique need for GMOs, the
necessity for crops that can grow in other locations is a global one.
Castiglioni, Paolo. “Bacterial RNA Chaperones Confer Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Plants
and Improved Grain Yield in Maize under Water-Limited Conditions.” American
Society of Plant Biologists, 2008. Web. October 2 2014.
<http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/147/2/446.full?ijkey=b970fa04b3768583ae
afa3964fc772898fd2a9f0&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha>
“Limited available water is the single most important factor that reduces global crop
yields, with far reaching socioeconomic implications. In North America alone, it is
estimated that 40% of yearly maize (Zea mays) crop losses are due to suboptimal
water availability (Boyer, 1982). Agriculture currently accounts for 70% of the fresh
water used by humans. This rate of water use can exceed local regeneration rates, often
relying on underground aquifers that are rapidly being depleted (Morison et al., 2008).
The impending scarcity of water available for agriculture will surely increase overall
costs of crop production and drive the need for crops that use water more
efficiently.”
Champion Briefs
69
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Drought resistant plants have been empirically shown to increase crop yield over
30%.
Castiglioni, Paolo. “Bacterial RNA Chaperones Confer Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Plants
and Improved Grain Yield in Maize under Water-Limited Conditions.” American
Society of Plant Biologists, 2008. Web. October 2 2014.
<http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/147/2/446.full?ijkey=b970fa04b3768583ae
afa3964fc772898fd2a9f0&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha>
“Mean yield at the water-limited sites was 6.8 tons (t)/ha, representing an
approximately 50% reduction in yield relative to the average mean yield of crops in
the Midwest. An across-event analysis demonstrates that the CspA [Escherichia coli]
transgenic entries provide a yield increase of 4.6% (P< 0.2) under water stress, with the
two best performing events demonstrating advantages of 30.8% and 18.3% (Table
III ).”
Warrant: Drought-resistant GMOs can still grow unaffected by drought, even with 50% less
water.
Wang, Yang. “Molecular tailoring of farnesylation for plant drought tolerance and yield
protection.” The Plant Journal. (2005). Web. October 2 2014.
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2005.02463.x/full>
“Data from our first field trial in 2002 indicated that conditional downregulation of
BnFTB enhanced seed yield under mild water stress conditions (Table 2). In our second
year of field trials, we compared the impact of two different irrigation conditions on seed
yield. Reduction in irrigation (by 50%) caused a 14% reduction in seed yield of
DH12075, but the yield of YPT canola lines was unaffected. Low coefficient of
variation values for the field experiments (15% for the two-irrigation site and 13.5% for
the one-irrigation site) indicated that the variation between plots was relatively low and
the results of this study were reliable.
Champion Briefs
70
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: These studies are backed up by real-life examples of drought resistant crops
mitigating crop loss for actual farmers.
Stecker, Tiffany. “Drought-Tolerant Corn Efforts Show Positive Early Results.” 27 July
2012. Scientific American. Web. October 2 2014.
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drought-tolerant-corn-trials-showpositive-early-results/>
“About 250 farmers on close to 100,000 acres across the western Great Plains planted
DroughtGard in the spring. Among those is Clay Scott, a corn grower in western Kansas
who volunteered to grow the engineered corn as part of Monsanto's field trials. "We're
starting to see some real winners in the plots," said Scott, whose land is located in a
region in extreme to exceptional drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. "I'm
excited about it." Last year, yields of AQUAmax corn were observed 8,000 times, with
680 of those considered to be in a stressed environment. AQUAmax yields were 7
percent higher in the stressed environments compared to conventional hybrids.”
Warrant: Even if conventional breeding can achieve similar benefits, GMOs can achieve them
more quickly.
Rotman, David. “Why We Will Need Genetically Modified Foods.” MIT Technology
Review, December 17 2013. Web. October 2 2014.
<http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/522596/why-we-will-needgenetically-modified-foods/>
“One advantage of using genetic engineering to help crops adapt to these sudden
changes is that new varieties can be created quickly. Creating a potato variety
through conventional breeding, for example, takes at least 15 years; producing a
genetically modified one takes less than six months. Genetic modification also allows
plant breeders to make more precise changes and draw from a far greater variety of
genes, gleaned from the plants’ wild relatives or from different types of organisms.”
Champion Briefs
71
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Analysis: This argument will most likely be the crux of many Pro cases, and with good reason.
Along with the four scientific studies included here, there are a plethora of studies lending
support to the idea that GMOs can make plants more capable of growing in land with high
salinity or low water levels. As the first two cards (along with the Arcadia Biosciences card)
show, it is imperative for world food production and the livelihood of farmers that
drought/salinity problems are mitigated. The magnitude of this impact, as well as its certainty,
makes it a great one to weigh against more hypothetical health harms in terms of protecting
human life.
Champion Briefs
72
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
A2 – Increased Agricultural Capacity
Argument: Regular plant breeding can allow plants to be resistant to high salinity in soils;
GMOs are unnecessary.
Warrant: When bred with an ancestral cousin of modern-day wheat, durum wheat can become
capable of growing in salty land.
“World breakthrough on salt-tolerant wheat.” Science Daily, March 11 2012. Web.
October 2 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120311150717.htm>
“A team of Australian scientists involving the University of Adelaide has bred salt
tolerance into a variety of durum wheat that shows improved grain yield by 25% on
salty soils. Using 'non-GM' crop breeding techniques, scientists from CSIRO Plant
Industry have introduced a salt-tolerant gene into commercial durum wheat, with
spectacular results shown in field tests. Researchers at the University of Adelaide's Waite
Research Institute have led the effort to understand how the gene delivers salinity
tolerance to the plants.”
Analysis: This response is essentially saying that the benefits of GMOs are nonunique. This
must go along with other responses, as it does not necessarily prove the argument false.
However, this does meant that if you can prove any disadvantage to using GMOs, they are no
longer necessary to garner the benefit of increased yield in high salinity, so the judge should
prefer the Con side.
Argument: The current status of salinity tolerance does not necessarily mean that growing crops
in salty areas will be successful.
Champion Briefs
73
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: A professor of plant ecology explains that plants that can tolerate salt may see major
drawbacks in yield, so it may not be a net benefit.
Sawahel, Wagdy. “Genetic change could make crops thrive on salty soils.” Sci Dev Net.
July 22 2009. Web. October 2 2014.
<http://www.scidev.net/global/biotechnology/news/genetic-change-could-makecrops-thrive-on-salty-so.html?stay=full>
“Rowan Sage, professor of physiological plant ecology at the University of Toronto,
Canada [says], cautiously welcomes the news, saying: "This is a promising approach to
mildly improving salinity tolerance in crops." "However, I am sceptical it will produce
true [salt-tolerant] crops. Sodium exclusion is but one salinity tolerance mechanism.
If a plant has a very strong sodium exclusion mechanism … there are costs in terms
of reduced growth potential," he says. "One might be able to grow rice on a salty
soil, but the yield may not be worth it. The big advantage will be on mildly salty soils
where the yield is repressed in non-tolerant crops."
Analysis: This sheds doubt to the efficacy of salt-tolerant plants, and paints the most recent
technological developments as the first step towards a solution rather than a solution itself. The
last line of Professor Sage’s analysis also does some weighing for you, as she questions whether
suppressed yield from salinity tolerant plants is worth the fact that they can be grown in saltier
areas. Couple this with other responses though, as it doesn’t refute the entirety of the argument.
That being said, any card that allows you to make your opponents’ solvency mechanisms look
questionable is a beneficial card to use.
Argument: Drought-resistant corn is actually no better at resisting drought than conventionally
bred corn.
Champion Briefs
74
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Using Monsanto (the GMO company)’s own data, the Union for Concerned Scientists
found that the corn provided little to no benefit, and only in specific situations.
Gillam, Carey. “Science group finds drought-tolerant GMO corn lacking.” Reuters, June
5 2012. Web. October 2 2014. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/05/cornmonsanto-idUSL1E8H4JMW20120605>
“The Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS) said the only genetically altered corn
approved by regulators and undergoing field trials in the United States has no
improved water efficiency, and provides only modest results in only moderate
drought conditions. "Farmers are always looking to reduce losses from drought, but the
biotechnology industry has made little real-world progress on this problem," said Doug
Gurian-Sherman, a plant pathologist and senior scientist for UCS. "Despite many
years of research and millions of dollars in development costs, DroughtGard doesn't
outperform the non-engineered alternatives." UCS used data generated by Monsanto,
the developer of biotech "DroughtGard" corn approved by regulators in December and an
analysis by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It said Monsanto's corn "does
not appear to be superior to several recent classically bred varieties of droughttolerant corn." Conventional breeding techniques and improved farming practices
have helped boost drought tolerance of corn planted in the United States by about 1
percent per year over the past several decades. The group calculated this was roughly
equal to or better than what the new GMO corn has demonstrated.”
Analysis: The effectiveness of drought-resistant corn is hotly debated, with many studies going
both ways. Make sure to weigh every study you use to ensure that the judge isn’t left at the end of
the round with lots of studies and no reason to vote for one over the other. For example, in
leveraging this against studies which show success, emphasize that this accounts for the boosts in
drought tolerance that have occurred naturally, and that it uses Monsanto’s own data.
Champion Briefs
75
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Argument: Pleiotropic (or unintended) effects of drought-resistant genetic modification can
cause more harm than good.
Warrant: Supposedly drought-resistant soybeans in Brazil actually performed worse under
drought due to stems splitting and water stress caused by the genetic modification, leading to dire
economic harm.
Altieri, Miguel [Professor at UC Berkeley] and Pengue, Walter [Professor at Unviersity
of Buenos Aires]. “GM Soya Disaster in Latin America.” Institute of Science in
Society, July 9 2005. Web. October 2 2014. <http://www.isis.org.uk/SDILA.php>
“Yields of transgenic soybean average 2.3 to 2.6 t/ha in the region, about 6% less than
conventional varieties, and are especially low under drought conditions. Due to
pleiotropic effects (stems splitting under high temperatures and water stress)
transgenic soybean suffer 25 percent higher losses than conventional soybean.
Seventy-two percent of the yields of transgenic soybeans were lost in the 2004/2005
drought that affected Rio Grande do Sul, and a 95 percent drop in exports is expected
with dramatic economic consequences. Most farmers have already defaulted on 1/3 of
government loans.”
Analysis: Use this example to show that scientists are incapable of controlling the ripple effects
of genetic modification, and that those effects can, on balance, worsen the effects of a drought.
Argument: In terms of cost-effectiveness, GMOs do not provide a benefit that can outweigh
their higher economic cost.
Warrant: GMOs are significantly more expensive to produce in comparison to alternatives.
“High and Dry: Why Genetic Engineering Is Not Solving Agriculture's Drought Problem
in a Thirsty World.” Union of Concerned Scientists, May 2012. Web. October 2
Champion Briefs
76
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
2014. <http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-foodsystem/genetic-engineering/high-and-dry.html#.VC2u2WRDuQw>
“The evidence suggests that alternatives to GE—classical breeding, improved
farming practices, or crops naturally more drought-tolerant than corn, such as
sorghum and millet—can produce better results, often at lower cost. If we neglect
these alternatives because of exaggerated expectations about the benefits of GE, we risk
leaving farmers and the public high and dry when it comes to ensuring that we will have
enough food and clean freshwater to meet everyone's needs.”
Warrant: The unpredictable nature of droughts means that GMO crops may not be worth their
cost for farmers.
“High and Dry: Why Genetic Engineering Is Not Solving Agriculture's Drought Problem
in a Thirsty World.” Union of Concerned Scientists, May 2012. Web. October 2
2014. <http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-foodsystem/genetic-engineering/high-and-dry.html#.VC2u2WRDuQw>
“Another challenge for cspB corn is that farmers buy their seeds well before they
plant. Because drought is not reliably predictable, many farmers may not want to
pay the higher price of engineered drought tolerance just in case drought occurs.
This may largely restrict planting of cspB corn mainly to areas where moderate drought is
frequent, such as the western regions of the U.S. Corn Belt.”
Argument: Engineering drought resistance in crops is more complex than it may seem.
Warrant: The variance in both the number of genes involved in drought resistance and the
severity and duration of droughts makes success with genetically modified unlikely.
Champion Briefs
77
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
“High and Dry: Why Genetic Engineering Is Not Solving Agriculture's Drought Problem
in a Thirsty World.” Union of Concerned Scientists, May 2012. Web. October 2
2014. <http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-foodsystem/genetic-engineering/high-and-dry.html#.VC2u2WRDuQw>
“Drought tolerance is a complex trait that can involve many different genes,
corresponding to different ways the plant can respond to drought; [and] genetic
engineering can manipulate only a few genes at a time. And in the real world,
droughts vary widely in severity and duration, affecting the crop at different stages
of its growth, so any engineered gene will be more successful under some drought
conditions than others.”
Analysis: No matter how many studies of successful GMOs your opponents bring up, this card
allows you to make the argument that they will never succeed in the real world. Maybe one type
of drought for one type of plant may see a minor improvement, but the variations in droughts and
plants mean that specific studies simply can’t be generalized.
Champion Briefs
78
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
PRO – Increased Vitamin Access
Argument: GMO foods can contain higher amounts of vitamins than other foods, which can
help mitigate malnutrition.
Warrant: Vitamin A deficiency is a major problem, causing death and blindness.
Lomborg, Bjorn. “The Deadly Opposition to Genetically Modified Food.” Slate
Magazine. Feb 17 2013. Web. Oct 2 2014.
<http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate0/2013/02/g
m_food_golden_rice_will_save_millions_of_people_from_vitamin_a_deficiency.
html>
“Golden rice is the most prominent example in the global controversy over GM foods,
which pits a technology with some risks but incredible potential against the resistance of
feel-good campaigning. Three billion people depend on rice as their staple food, with
10 percent at risk for vitamin A deficiency, which, according to the World Health
Organization, causes 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind each year. Of these,
half die within a year. A study from the British medical journal the Lancet estimates
that, in total, vitamin A deficiency kills 668,000 children under the age of 5 each
year.”
Warrant: GMOs like golden rice, genetically modified rice with higher levels of vitamin A, can
provide a solution.
Tang, G. “Researchers Determine That Golden Rice Is an Effective Source of Vitamin
A.” American Society for Nutrition. (2009). Web. Oct 2 2014. <http://asn-cdnremembers.s3.amazonaws.com/1247eb83af3c2c77fb8cf75d5e158f1f.pdf>
Champion Briefs
79
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
“These results show the potential for a much more advantageous bioconversion rate
than achieved from any other known crop-based source of beta-carotene.
Furthermore, they imply that Golden Rice could probably supply 50% of the
Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of vitamin A from a very modest amount—
perhaps a cup—of rice, if consumed daily. This amount is well within the consumption
habits of most young children and their mothers.”
Warrant: Like the golden rice for countries with rice-heavy diets, the vitamin A-enriched
banana could have similar benefits in Africa.
Nelson, Bryan. “GMO bananas could soon help decrease infant mortality and
malnutrition in Africa.” Mother Nature Network, Jun 17 2014. Web.
<http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/stories/gmo-bananas-could-soon-helpdecrease-infant-mortality-and-malnutrition>
“The GMO banana, which was developed by Australian scientists and backed by the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is a vitamin A-enriched version of a common East
African cooking banana. Vitamin A deficiency is estimated to kill up to 700,000
children annually and causes about 300,000 cases of blindness globally each year, so
the enriched banana has the potential to significantly impact public health for the
better. This is especially the case in Africa, where as many as 70 percent of the
population in some countries rely on cooked banana for the bulk of their nutrition.
Researchers are optimistic that human trials will be successful and that their
genetically enhanced banana will go into commercial production in Uganda by
2020.”
Warrant: Iron deficiencies are also detrimental to global health, especially in the developing
world.
Champion Briefs
80
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
“More iron and vitamin A from GM rice.” European Food Information Council (1999).
Web. Oct 2 2014. <http://www.eufic.org/article/en/foodtechnology/gmos/artid/iron-vitamin-a-gm-rice/>
“Iron deficiency anaemia is considered to be the most widespread deficiency
syndrome world-wide. According to UNICEF over 2 billion people suffer from iron
deficiency. In underdeveloped countries, 40 to 50% of children under five and over
50% of pregnant women suffer from iron deficiency.”
Warrant: Iron deficiencies can also be lessened by genetically modified foods.
“More iron and vitamin A from GM rice.” European Food Information Council (1999).
Web. Oct 2 2014. <http://www.eufic.org/article/en/foodtechnology/gmos/artid/iron-vitamin-a-gm-rice/>
“One rice gene has been modified and two new genes, coming from green beans and a
specific micro-organism, have been implanted into the rice plants used at the ETH in
Zurich. The result is that the iron content of some plants has been doubled.
Furthermore, phytic acid can be completely removed from rice seeds by cooking and
the iron absorption by the digestive system is thus improved. This is not possible with
conventional rice.”
Analysis: This argument is rife with scientific studies, so to run it well, debaters should know the
ins and outs of every study they cite. Being well versed on the benefits of Vitamin A and Iron, as
well as the harms of their deficiencies, is also key. In terms of weighing this argument, debaters
should emphasize the magnitude of the impact, even if the probability of its success is not entirely
certain. If these foods have a good chance of saving hundreds of thousands of lives,
debaters should argue that they are worth a try.
Champion Briefs
81
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
A2 – Increased Vitamin Access
Argument: Golden rice suffers from a few fatal flaws that make its actual implementation
unlikely.
Warrant: Due to the soil types and quantities of water necessary to grow it, as well as digestive
processes of malnourished people, golden rice cannot feasibly alleviate world hunger.
Robbins, John. “Can GMOs Help End World Hunger?” Huffington Post. Aug 1 2011.
Web. Oct 2 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/gmofood_b_914968.html>
“We've learned that golden rice will not grow in the kinds of soil that it must to be of
value to the world's hungry. To grow properly, it requires heavy use of fertilizers
and pesticides -- expensive inputs unaffordable to the very people that the variety is
supposed to help. And we've also learned that golden rice requires large amounts of
water -- water that might not be available in precisely those areas where Vitamin A
deficiency is a problem, and where farmers cannot afford costly irrigation projects.
And one more thing -- it turns out that golden rice doesn't work, even in theory.
Malnourished people are not able to absorb Vitamin A in this form. And even if
they could, they'd have to eat an awful lot of the stuff. An 11-year-old boy would
have to eat 27 bowls of golden rice a day in order to satisfy his minimum
requirement for the vitamin.”
Analysis: To successfully respond to arguments like this, it is important for debaters to be ahead
in terms of the science in the round. If debaters can concisely and clearly explain why,
scientifically, the theory of golden rice cannot materialize, they can paint their opponents as
idealists and their solvency mechanism as ludicrous.
Argument: Even if golden rice were scientifically viable, it would not necessarily be
economically viable.
Champion Briefs
82
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: The companies that create it would still want to turn a profit.
Robbins, John. “Can GMOs Help End World Hunger?” Huffington Post. Aug 1 2011.
Web. Oct 2 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/gmofood_b_914968.html>
“I'm sure that given enough time and enough money, some viable genetically
modified (GM) crops could be developed that contain more nutrients or have higher
yields. But I'm not sure that even if that were to happen, it would actually benefit the
world's poor. Monsanto and the other biotech companies aren't developing these
seeds with the intention of giving them away. If people can't afford to buy GM
seeds, or if they can't afford the fertilizers, pesticides and water the seeds require,
they'll be left out. Poverty is at the root of the problem of hunger. As Peter Rosset,
director of Food First, reminds us, "People do not have Vitamin A deficiency because
rice contains too little Vitamin A, but because their diet has been reduced to rice
and almost nothing else."
Analysis: This is a different type of response, but coupling it with a scientific one can put you so
far ahead on this argument that your opponents will not be able to return. By appealing to their
judges’ understanding of how businesses work, debaters can make the intuitive argument that
they will never simply donate their product to millions of starving people. Debaters should push
their opponents to prove that there is an economically logical way for this GMO to be grown in a
third world country that would actually benefit anyone.
Response: Vitamin A deficiency is already being dealt with, and the money spent on it would
have been better spent elsewhere.
Warrant: Vitamin A Deficiency in the Philippines has decreased drastically in recent years.
Champion Briefs
83
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Ocampo, David. “Golden Rice Ignores the Risks, the People and the Real Solutions.” The
Ecologist. Jan 8 2014. Web. Oct 2 2014.
<http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2209623/gold
en_rice_ignores_the_risks_the_people_and_the_real_solutions.html>
“Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) is already being addressed in my country - the
Philippines - through effective and safe solutions implemented through government
programs, without the need to resort to genetic engineering. The 2008 National Nutrition
Survey in the Philippines reveals that VAD prevalence in the country has already
decreased alongside successful government interventions based on vitamin A
supplementation, food fortification and promotion of diverse diets. For instance, in
2003 to 2008, VAD incidence decreased from severe (40.1%) to moderate (15.2%) in
the vulnerable age group of children aged between six months to five years old and
from severe (20.1%) to mild (6.4%) for lactating women. 'Golden' rice is far from
being a sustainable solution to vitamin deficiency - it encourages a diet based solely on
rice. In Greenpeace's opinion, the tens of millions of dollars invested in the
development and promotion of GM 'Golden' rice would have been better spent in
supporting solutions that work.”
Analysis: Though making a direct tradeoff argument in terms of opportunity cost will probably
not be successful with the wording of this resolution, debaters can definitely argue that GMOs
are a waste of money, especially in terms of humanitarian help. Also, be sure to call out older
statistics about vitamin A deficiency and have the most recent statistics possible. In general, a
good question to ask of teams running this argument is why GMOs high in vitamins have not
solved the problem yet. These have been developed for more than a decade, but they have yet to
be implemented. If the Pro is unable to explain why these solutions have yet to materialize, the
Con can paint this argument as entirely hypothetical and not legitimately feasible.
Champion Briefs
84
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
PRO – Increased Agricultural Productivity
Argument: GMOS can increase the productivity of agriculture by making crops resistant to
insects/disease/low temperature, therefore bringing positive economic impacts and decreasing
starvation.
Warrant: Genetically modified crops allow for less indiscriminate spraying, sparing helpful
bugs and increasing overall productivity.
Dunning, Haley. “GM Crops Offer Natural Pest Control.” The Scientist. June 13 2012.
Web. Oct 2 2014. <http://www.thescientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32220/title/GM-Crops-Offer-Natural-PestControl/>
“Bt cotton is a genetically modified crop that produces an insecticidal protein toxic
to the devastating cotton bollworm pest, reducing the need for broad-based sprays
that can kill beneficial arthropod predators like ladybirds and spiders. Now,
researchers have found evidence that when Bt crops replace insecticide spraying,
predator populations bounce back and provide effective biological pest control, for
the Bt crops and possibly surrounding fields. The result comes after a 20-year, 2.6
million hectare study in rural China, published today (June 13) in Nature.
They found that across all sites as insecticide spraying declined, predatory
arthropod populations rose, bringing down populations of aphids, insects that consume
and damage crops by carrying viruses . In addition, the team also studied experimental Bt
Champion Briefs
85
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
cotton plots, and found that where predator populations were high in the Bt cotton,
they were correspondingly high in surrounding peanut and soybean plots, suggesting
the benefits of increased predators spilled over to neighboring crops.”a
Warrant: When natural predators like ladybugs and spiders are present in farms, pests do not
develop resistance for at least six generations. Therefore, as long as farmers take this into
consideration, any concerns about pests developing resistance are unfounded.
Liu, Xiaoxia. “Natural Enemies Delay Insect Resistance to Bt Crops.” March 3 2014.
Web. Oct 2 2014.
<http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00903
66>
“The results demonstrated that after 6 generations P. xylostella populations were very
low in the treatment containing C. maculata and unsprayed non-Bt refuge plants.
Furthermore, resistance to Bt plants evolved significantly slower in this treatment. In
contrast, Bt plants with no refuge were completely defoliated in treatments without C.
maculata after 4–5 generations. In the treatment containing sprayed non-Bt refuge plants
and C. maculata, the P. xylostella population was low, although the speed of resistance
selection to Cry1Ac was significantly increased. These data demonstrate that natural
enemies can delay resistance to Bt plants and have significant implications for
integrated pest management (IPM) with Bt crops.”
Warrant: Temperature resistant crops can also successfully increase the productivity of
agriculture.
Champion Briefs
86
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
'Climate change resistant crops' move nearer after gene breakthrough. The Telegraph, Jan
8 2010. . <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6946413/Climate-changeresistant-crops-move-nearer-after-gene-breakthrough.html>
“In a breakthrough that has the potential to help feed billions of people, scientists
from the John Innes Centre in Norwich have found the "thermometer gene" which
plants use to sense temperature. Laboratory tests on a mustard seed plant showed that
the gene that plants use in order to know when to grow in the warmer months can
be manipulated by taking away a histone protein. The protein normally binds to DNA
and wraps it around them which then controls which genes are turned on. When the
histone protein was taken away from plants, all the genes in the plants reacted as if
they were experiencing high temperatures even when the temperature in the lab was
turned down very low. The findings could pave the way for climate change resistant
crops within 10 years. The new super crops would be able to cope with the increased
heat expected as the earth's temperature rises and the research could also help grow
plants in much colder climates. Dr Philip Wigge, one of the researchers, said the
discovery, published in the journal Cell, was groundbreaking. "Climate change will have a
huge effect on crop productivity and that's something we feel gives added impetus to our
research," he said. "By 2030 the world will need to increase global food production by 50
per cent as population grows and people expect a higher standard of living. "Whe
at and rice, which provide most of the world's calories, are sensitive to high heat
during their growing process." Now we understand how plants modify
temperatures we can modify how we grow plants in high temperatures."
Champion Briefs
87
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Analysis: Between temperature resistant, pest resistant, and disease resistant crops, GMOs
provide ample opportunity to increase agricultural productivity. When using this argument, it is
most strategic for debaters to use more than one link, so opponents have to waste more time in
rebuttal responding to every type of resistant crop rather than simply using one or two responses
for all of them. If Con teams do not respond uniquely to every link, Pro teams can just carry
through whatever was dropped. The Xiaoxia Liu card can also act as a frontline to many
common Con responses, as it shows a way to ensure that pest resistance does not occur.
Champion Briefs
88
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
A2 – Increased Agricultural Productivity
Argument: Pest resistant crops do not stay pest resistant permanently.
Warrant: Farmers in Brazil found that their GM corn was not actually resistant to pests after
having used it for a significant amount of time. a
“Brazil farmers say GMO corn no longer resistant to pests.” Reuters. Jul 28 2014. Web.
Oct 4 2014. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/28/brazil-corn-pestsidUSL2N0Q327P20140728>
“Genetically modified corn seeds are no longer protecting Brazilian farmers from
voracious tropical bugs, increasing costs as producers turn to pesticides, a farm group
said on Monday. Producers want four major manufacturers of so-called BT corn
seeds to reimburse them for the cost of spraying up to three coats of pesticides this
year, said Ricardo Tomczyk, president of Aprosoja farm lobby in Mato Grosso state.
"The caterpillars should die if they eat the corn, but since they didn't die this year
producers had to spend on average 120 reais ($54) per hectare ... at a time that corn
prices are terrible," he said. Large-scale farming in the bug-ridden tropics has always
been a challenge, and now Brazil's government is concerned that planting the same
crops repeatedly with the same seed technologies has left the agricultural superpower
vulnerable to pest outbreaks and dependent on toxic chemicals.”
Champion Briefs
89
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Analysis: Though there are other examples of pests evolving to become resistant to GM foods,
this one shows the tangible negative impact. It is not simply that the crops do not solve the
problem, they actually worsen it by increasing crops and pesticide use.
Argument: This resistance is not an anomaly; pesticides globally are developing this resistance.
Warrant: This well-predicted and newly developed resistance could cause billions in damage.
Kiem, Brandon. “Voracious Worm Evolves to Eat Biotech Corn Engineered to Kill It.”
Wired Magazine, March 17 2014. Web. Oct 4 2014.
<http://www.wired.com/2014/03/rootworm-resistance-bt-corn/>
“One of agricultural biotechnology’s great success stories may become a cautionary tale
of how short-sighted mismanagement can squander the benefits of genetic modification.
After years of predicting it would happen — and after years of having their
suggestions largely ignored by companies, farmers and regulators — scientists have
documented the rapid evolution of corn rootworms that are resistant to Bt corn.
Until Bt corn was genetically altered to be poisonous to the pests, rootworms used to
cause billions of dollars in damage to U.S. crops. Named for the pesticidal toxinproducing Bacillus thuringiensis gene it contains, Bt corn now accounts for threequarters of the U.S. corn crop. The vulnerability of this corn could be disastrous for
farmers and the environment.”
Champion Briefs
90
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Analysis: Debaters should point out that while their impacts are especially harmful in
developing nations, they occur globally. Also, the fact that this corn accounts for such a majority
of corn crop only magnifies the negative impacts of the bug resistance.
Argument: The harms of this resistance are also environmental.
Warrant: Directly because of genetically modified crops, farmers must now spray more and
harsher pesticides.
Killman, Scott. “Monsanto Corn Plant Losing Bug Resistance.” Wall Street Journal. Aug
29 2011. Web. Oct 4 2014.
<http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240531119040093045765327422
67732046>
“Widely grown corn plants that Monsanto Co. genetically modified to thwart a
voracious bug are falling prey to that very pest in a few Iowa fields, the first time a
major Midwest scourge has developed resistance to a genetically modified crop. The
discovery raises concerns that the way some farmers are using biotech crops could
spawn superbugs. Iowa State University entomologist Aaron Gassmann's discovery that
western corn rootworms in four northeast Iowa fields have evolved to resist the natural
pesticide made by Monsanto's corn plant could encourage some farmers to switch to
insect-proof seeds sold by competitors of the St. Louis crop biotechnology giant, and to
return to spraying harsher synthetic insecticides on their fields.”
Champion Briefs
91
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Analysis: In general, the narrative of the response to this argument is that the theory does not
apply in reality, and in reality the harms outweigh the benefits. Con teams should absolutely turn
this argument and go for it in later speeches not only because that looks dominant, but because it
can absolutely bring a net harm. Not only are farmers now spraying more pesticides, but they are
also losing money and productivity overall.”
Champion Briefs
92
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
PRO – Increased Nutrition
Argument: GMOs can contain edible pharmaceuticals, decreasing the cost to produce and ship
vaccines/medicine, especially in third world countries.
Warrant: Vaccines can be incredibly successful, but access to them, especially in developing
nations, is lacking.
Langridge, William. “Edible Vaccines.” Scientific American, Sept 2000. Web. Oct 4
2014.
<https://www.mcdb.ucla.edu/Research/Goldberg/HC70A_W05/pdf/EdibleVaccin
es.pdf>
“By the late 1990s an international campaign to immunize all the world’s children
against six devastating diseases was reportedly reaching 80 percent of infants (up
from about 5 percent in the mid- 1970s) and was reducing the annual death toll from
those infections by roughly three million. Yet these victories mask tragic gaps in
delivery. The 20 percent of infants still missed by the six vaccines—against diphtheria,
pertussis (whooping cough), polio, measles, tetanus and tuberculosis—
account for about two million unnecessary deaths each year, especially in the most remote and impoverished parts of the globe. Upheavals in many developing nations now
threaten to erode the advances of the recent past, and millions still die from infectious
diseases for which immunizations are nonexistent, unreliable or too costly.”
Warrant: Genetically modified food is capable of synthesizing vaccines, and those vaccines can
successfully induce immunity in animals.
Langridge, William. “Edible Vaccines.” Scientific American, Sept 2000. Web. Oct 4
2014.
<https://www.mcdb.ucla.edu/Research/Goldberg/HC70A_W05/pdf/EdibleVaccin
Champion Briefs
93
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
es.pdf>
“In the past five years experiments conducted by Arntzen (who moved to the Boyce
Thompson Institute for Plant Research at Cornell University in 1995) and his
collaborators and by my group at Loma Linda University have demonstrated that tomato
or potato plants can synthesize antigens from the Norwalk virus, enterotoxigenic E.
coli, V. cholerae and the hepatitis B virus. Moreover, feeding antigen-laced tubers or
fruits to test animals can evoke mucosal and systemic immune responses that fully or
partly protect animals from subsequent exposure to the real pathogens or, in the case
of V. cholerae and enterotoxigenic E. coli, to microbial toxins. Edible vaccines have also
provided laboratory animals with some protection against challenge by the rabies
virus, Helicobac- ter pylori (a bacterial cause of ulcers) and the mink enteric virus
(which does not affect humans).”
Warrant: These experiments have shown promise on human subjects as well, creating immunity
for e. coli in nearly all humans tested.
Langridge, William. “Edible Vaccines.” Scientific American, Sept 2000. Web. Oct 4
2014.
<https://www.mcdb.ucla.edu/Research/Goldberg/HC70A_W05/pdf/EdibleVaccin
es.pdf>
“In 1997 volunteers who ate pieces of peeled, raw potatoes containing a benign
segment of the E. coli toxin (the part called the B subunit) displayed both mucosal and
systemic immune responses. Since then, the group has also seen immune reactivity in
19 of 20 people who ate a potato vaccine aimed at the Norwalk virus. Similarly, after
Hilary Koprowski of Thomas Jefferson University fed transgenic lettuce carrying a
hepatitis B antigen to three volunteers, two of the subjects displayed a good systemic
response. Whether edible vaccines can actually protect against human dis- ease remains
to be determined, however.”
Warrant: A type I diabetes vaccine in potatoes could successfully prevent the disease.
Champion Briefs
94
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Langridge, William. “Edible Vaccines.” Scientific American, Sept 2000. Web. Oct 4
2014.
<https://www.mcdb.ucla.edu/Research/Goldberg/HC70A_W05/pdf/EdibleVaccin
es.pdf>
“In the past 15 years, investigators have identified several beta cell proteins that can
elicit autoimmunity in people predisposed to type I diabetes. The main culprits,
however, are insulin and a protein called GAD (glutamic acid decar- boxylase).
Researchers have also made progress in detecting when diabetes is “brewing.” The next
step, then, is to find ways of stopping the underground pro- cess before any symptoms
arise. To that end, my colleagues and I, as well as other groups, have developed plantbased diabetes vaccines, such as potatoes containing insulin or GAD linked to the
innocuous B subunit of the V. cholerae toxin (to enhance uptake of the antigens by M
cells). Feeding of the vaccines to a mouse strain that becomes diabetic helped to
suppress the immune attack and to prevent or delay the “onset of high blood sugar.”
Warrant: A plethora of benefits, like lower cost and increased safety, come along with GM
vaccines in food.
Langridge, William. “Edible Vaccines.” Scientific American, Sept 2000. Web. Oct 4
2014.
<https://www.mcdb.ucla.edu/Research/Goldberg/HC70A_W05/pdf/EdibleVaccin
es.pdf>
“The advantages would be enormous. The plants could be grown locally, and cheaply,
using the standard growing methods of a given region. Because many food plants can be
regenerated readily, the crops could potentially be produced indefinitely without the
growers having to purchase more seeds or plants year after year. Homegrown
vaccines would also avoid the logistical and economic problems posed by having to
transport traditional preparations over long distances, keeping them cold en route and
at their destination. And, being edible, the vaccines would require no syringes—
which, aside from costing something, can lead to infections if they become
contaminated.”
Champion Briefs
95
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: GM foods could also treat cancer and prevent Alzheimer’s.
Sharma, Monika. “A banana or a syringe: journey to edible vaccines.” World Journal of
Microbiology and Biotechnology, June 22 2010. Web. Oct 4 2014.
<http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11274-010-0481-9>
“In addition to being used as vaccines, transgenic plants have additional therapeutic
applications. Transgenic soybeans produce a tumor-reactive monoclonal antibody
called BR- 96 which can be used as a drug carrier to treat breast, colon, ovarian and
lung cancers (Moffat 1995). An engineered contraceptive developed in tobacco mosaic
virus contains Zona pellucida ZB3 protein, which covers the unfertilized eggs preventing
fertilization (Prakash 1996). A vaccine against Alzheimer’s disease using a beta
amyloid gene inserted into the tomato genome could induce a strong immune
response in mice (Youm et al. 2008).”
Analysis: To make this argument, debaters will need to win that the potential for edible vaccines
to succeed is so likely, and that the potential impacts of vaccinating the world are so important,
that the fact that the science is not completely there yet is irrelevant. Debaters should utilize as
many studies as possible to try to mitigate the claim that scientists are not capable of creating
them, and explain that we are just steps away from solving the problem. Some acknowledgement
of the fact that innovation in medicinal science takes time because of how careful researchers
must be in testing these things on humans could help the Pro side justify why the research is not
yet fully conclusive.
Champion Briefs
96
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
A2 – Increased Nutrition
Argument: The harmful effects of contamination between GM foods with and without vaccines
would be devastating.
Warrant: The potential for contamination is high because scientists cannot guarantee that all
farmers would grow the crops separately and follow all regulations. If these crops were to mix,
the effects would be detrimental.
Moschini, GianCarlo. “Pharmaceutical and Industrial Traits in Genetically Modified
Crops: Co-existence with Conventional Agriculture.” Center for Agricultural and
Rural Development, Iowa State University. August 2006. Web. Oct 4 2014.
<http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/dbs/pdffiles/06wp429.pdf>
“A major issue with plant- based biomanufacturing is the potentially large risks that
are involved. Although such GM crops are meant to be grown and handled separately,
compounds intended for pharmaceutical or industrial use could end up in the food
and feed supplies by accident. Direct harm to human health and the environment is
deemed unlikely at present (Peterson and Arntzen 2004), but the eventuality of a
contamination could be catastrophic in economic terms. Segments of the public and
the food industry are particularly concerned and favor strict regulation of these new
products (UCS 2004). Arguably, the biotech industry should also be concerned with the
risks of PMPs and PMIPs, as an accident in this context would provide powerful
ammunition to an already active anti-biotech lobby and could have serious adverse
effects on future biotechnology research.”
Analysis: Debaters making this response should appeal to the concern and wariness of judges
about GM food. They should also reference other examples of GM crops that worked well in
theory, but the actual implementation of them by farmers failed. This gap between theory and
reality is key for the Con to emphasize on many arguments, but especially this one.
Champion Briefs
97
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Argument: The vaccinated foods could entirely backfire, actually making patients more
susceptible to whatever disease they were trying to vaccinate for.
Warrant: A phenomenon called oral tolerance says that consuming proteins can actually stop
the body from trying to suppress them, the opposite of the goal of a vaccine.
Langridge, William. “Edible Vaccines.” Scientific American, Sept 2000. Web. Oct 4
2014.
<https://www.mcdb.ucla.edu/Research/Goldberg/HC70A_W05/pdf/EdibleVacci
nes.pdf>
“In another concern, scientists need to be sure that vaccines meant to enhance
immune responses do not backfire and suppress immunity instead. Research into a
phenomenon called oral tolerance has shown that ingesting certain proteins can at
times cause the body to shut down its responses to those proteins. To determine safe,
effective doses and feeding schedules for edible vaccines, manufacturers will need to
gain a better handle on the manipulations that influence whether an orally delivered
antigen will stimulate or depress immunity.”
Analysis: This response is strengthened if debaters continue to emphasize that the science is not
yet conclusive on the success of GM vaccine foods. Since we have no proof that they are
successful, we definitely have no proof that the oral tolerance phenomenon will not occur.
Answer: If these products are created for use in developing countries, there will be difficulties in
implementing them.
Warrant: Crops may not have a long shelf life, and if they were to spoil, that could damage the
vaccine.
Sharma, Monika. “A banana or a syringe: journey to edible vaccines.” World Journal of
Microbiology and Biotechnology, June 22 2010. Web. Oct 4 2014.
Champion Briefs
98
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
<http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/806/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11274010-04819.pdf?auth66=1412874874_e8376dffca096f6a1f06bf46a8280636&ext=.pdf>
“Shelf life of the plant crops is very crucial. Since these fruits are being used as vectors
for the vaccines in question, they have to be properly stored to avoid infection or
disease through spoilage (Richter and Kipp 1999). Another concern could be of
transgene escape and identification of ‘‘vaccine’’ fruit versus a normal fruit to avoid
the misadministration of the vaccine (Tripurani et al. 2003).”
Warrant: Crops may not have a long shelf life, and if they were to spoil, that could damage the
vaccine (2).
Sharma, Monika. “A banana or a syringe: journey to edible vaccines.” World Journal of
Microbiology and Biotechnology, June 22 2010. Web. Oct 4 2014.
<http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/806/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11274010-04819.pdf?auth66=1412874874_e8376dffca096f6a1f06bf46a8280636&ext=.pdf>
“Methods employed for increasing the antigenic protein content in transgenic plants by
stunted growth of plants and reduction of fruit formation may introduce excess mRNA
which may cause gene silencing in the plant genome (Lal et al. 2007). Moreover, there
could be an allergic reaction or other side effects like cytokine-induced sickness,
central nervous system toxicity or autoimmune diseases on consumption of plantbased vaccines.”
Analysis: This is less of a response and more of a hurdle to jump through for the Con. It ties in
well with the idea that these vaccines are not at the point where we can possibly prove that they
will be successful.
Argument: Putting vaccines in food risks over- or under-dosing.
Champion Briefs
99
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Because fruits or vegetables are not necessarily uniform, differences in size would
make dosing vaccines incredibly difficult for patients of different sizes.
Sharma, Monika. “A banana or a syringe: journey to edible vaccines.” World Journal of
Microbiology and Biotechnology, June 22 2010. Web. Oct 4 2014.
Warrant: Crops may not have a long shelf life, and if they were to spoil, that could damage the
vaccine.
“Antigen selection involves safety concerns of whether or not selected antigens are
compatible enough with the selected plant type to be expressed. Dosage is determined
by a patient’s weight, age, the fruit or plant size and the ripeness of the fruit or
plant (Yu 2008). One tomato or banana is never the same size as another, so
significant differences in protein content might occur. This could lead to the risk of
underdosing leading to lesser production of antibodies or overdosing leading to
tolerance. Consistency of dosage from fruit to fruit, plant to plant, and generation to
generation is thus a matter of concern (Tripurani et al. 2003).”
Analysis: This is a similar response to the idea that theory and implementation have major gaps.
This response could also be made first in crossfire, though referenced in the next speech, simply
by asking the Con team how they would account for differences in food size. Almost all of these
responses so far are simple enough that debaters in rebuttal should go through them relatively
quickly, but ensure that their opponents do not drop any of them.
Champion Briefs
100
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
PRO – GMO’s Save the Ocean
Argument: Currently the resources in our oceans are quickly dwindling GMOs can reduce
overfishing of our oceans by creating ways to get key nutrients without putting stress on marine
ecosystems.
Warrant: Fish oils are critical to human health, which puts pressure on fish populations
Petrie, James R. "The Structure of Mediterranean Rocky Reef Ecosystems across
Environmental and Human Gradients, and Conservation Implications." PLOS
ONE:. CSIRO Food Futures National Research Flagship, 21 Jan. 2014. Web. 02
Oct. 2014.
“Omega-3 long-chain (≥C20) polyunsaturated fatty acids (ω3 LC-PUFA) such as
eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosapentaenoic acid (DHA) are critical for human
health and development. Numerous studies have indicated that deficiencies in these
fatty acids can increase the risk or severity of cardiovascular, inflammatory and
other diseases or disorders. EPA and DHA are predominantly sourced from marine
fish although the primary producers are microalgae. Much work has been done to
engineer a sustainable land-based source of EPA and DHA to reduce pressure on fish
stocks in meeting future demand, with previous studies describing the production of fish
oil-like levels of DHA in the model plant species, Arabidopsis thaliana.”
Warrant: Fish oils need not come from fish
Petrie, James R. "The Structure of Mediterranean Rocky Reef Ecosystems across
Environmental and Human Gradients, and Conservation Implications." PLOS
ONE:. CSIRO Food Futures National Research Flagship, 21 Jan. 2014. Web. 02
Oct. 2014.
Champion Briefs
101
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
“DHA can be produced at fish oil-like levels in industrially-relevant oilseed crop species
using multi-gene construct designs which are stable over multiple generations.This study
has implications for the future of sustainable EPA and DHA production from landbased sources.”
Warrant: Seeds have been engineered that contain fish oil
"GM Crops Could Help to Solve the Problem of Over-fishing." The Independent.
Independent Digital News and Media, 24 Jan. 2014. Web. 02 Oct. 2014.
“The latest development at Rothamsted Research in Hertfordshire is a case in point.
After 15 years of painstaking work, scientists at what is one of the world’s oldest
agricultural research institutions applied this week for permission to start field
trials of an enhanced strain of a flax-like oil-seed crop which they hope could ease
the strain on, of all things, fish stocks. Leave aside the issue of over-fishing to feed
human beings directly. Vast quantities of marine creatures are also pulled from the sea to
make feed stock for the fish farms designed to alleviate the pressure. The challenge,
then, is to find a non-fish source of the omega-3 oil needed to sustain farmed populations.
And to solve the problem, researchers at Rothamsted have made synthetic genes
from marine algae (which make omega-3) and inserted them into Camelina sativa to
create a seed that is rich in the necessary nutrients but can be grown in bulk. If
successful, the Rothamsted crop offers a way out of one of the tighter bottlenecks in
modern food production. Nor does the potential end there. Given that fish oils are
directly beneficial to people, a successfully enhanced crop could also have a place in
our own diets.”
Warrant: Overfishing is detrimental to marine ecosystems, however they can recover
Gamble, David A. "ENN: Environmental News Network -- Know Your
Environment." Sustainable Ecosystems and Community News: Overfishing the
Mediterranean. Environmental News Network, 8 Mar. 2012. Web. 02 Oct. 2014
Champion Briefs
102
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
“The research was conducted by an international team of scientists, and it is
unprecedented in its scope. It involved hundreds of dives over the course of three years to
study ecosystems throughout the sea. The dives took place off the coasts of Morocco,
Spain, Italy, Greece, and Turkey. They found that the healthiest ecosystems are in wellenforced marine reserves. Fish populations were about 5-10 times greater than those in
fished-out areas. There were some areas observed where fishing is limited and not
banned. In these areas, the fish populations were similar to those in areas that were
completely unprotected. "We found a huge gradient, an enormous contrast. In reserves off
Spain and Italy, we found the largest fish biomass in the Mediterranean," said National
Geographic Explorer-in-Residence Enric Sala, the paper's lead author. "Unfortunately,
around Turkey and Greece, the waters were bare." The divers observed
ecosystems on the seafloor in 14 protected areas and 18 non-protected sites, where they
counted fish and took biological samples. They found that fish were able to recover
quickly from overfishing, but the plant life (algal forests) took much longer.”
Warrant: Marine ecosystems are important facets of the economy
Gamble, David A. "ENN: Environmental News Network -- Know Your
Environment." Sustainable
Ecosystems and Community News: Overfishing the
Mediterranean. Environmental News Network, 8
Mar. 2012. Web. 02 Oct.
2014
"The protection of the marine ecosystems is a necessity as well as a 'business' in which
everyone wins," Sala said. "The reserves act as savings accounts, with capital that is not
yet spent and an interest yield we can live off. In Spain's Medes Islands Marine
Reserve, for example, a reserve of barely one square kilometer can generate jobs
and tourism revenue of 10 million euros, a sum 20 times larger than earnings from
fishing."
Champion Briefs
103
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
A2 – GMO’s Save the Ocean
Answer: Overall the real issue is not that people want fish for their nutrients, but for there taste.
A growing population will cause the fishing industry, which does not care about sustainability, to
continue to over exploit our oceans resources.
Warrant: Fish oils do not have health benefits
The Risk and Prevention Study Collaborative Group. "N–3 Fatty Acids in Patients with
Multiple Cardiovascular Risk Factors — NEJM." New England Journal of
Medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 9 May 2013. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.
“Results Of the 12,513 patients enrolled, 6244 were randomly assigned to n−3 fatty
acids and 6269 to placebo. With a median of 5 years of follow-up, the primary end point
occurred in 1478 of 12,505 patients included in the analysis (11.8%), of whom 733 of
6239 (11.7%) had received n−3 fatty acids and 745 of 6266 (11.9%) had received placebo
(adjusted hazard ratio with n−3 fatty acids, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.08;
P=0.58). The same null results were observed for all the secondary end points.
CONCLUSIONS In a large general-practice cohort of patients with multiple
cardiovascular risk factors, daily treatment with n−3 fatty acids did not reduce
cardiovascular mortality and morbidity.“
Analysis: Obviously if these supplements have not actual benefit to a person then a breakthrough
that allows us to grow these nutrients really does not matter.
Warrant: Fish are consumed more than ever
Palk, Susannah. "Humans Hooked on Fish as Demand Reaches Historic High." CNN.
Cable News network, 26 Aug. 2011. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.
“The world's appetite for fish is now at an all time high according to the United
Nations. Figures from the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) state
Champion Briefs
104
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
fish is currently the most-traded food commodity, worth around $102 billion in 2008.
But as our appetite for fish increases, the world's fish stocks are becoming increasingly
overexploited and depleted, which "gives cause for concern" the U.N.'s 2010 State of
World Fisheries and Aquaculture report has stated. Put simply, we are eating too much,
says Dr Daniel Pauly, marine biologist and professor at the University of British
Colombia."The pressure we are imposing on the world's fisheries is excessive. Either
we are eating too much or we are too many," he said.”
Analysis: The issue is not that people want fish for their fish oils, worldwide consumption is at
an all time high people the world simply likes fish food. Finding other sources for fish oil
nutrients will not stop people from liking the taste of seafood, and therefore wanting it.
Warrant: The fishing industry does not care about sustainability
Palk, Susannah. "Humans Hooked on Fish as Demand Reaches Historic High." CNN.
Cable News
Network, 26 Aug. 2011. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.
“Pauly believes the change in fish catches and a spike in fish consumption can be
explained, in part, by the expansion of fishing operations into new waters over the
last 50 years. "Europe like the U.S. and Japan now get most of their fish from the
developing world," he said. "As the European stock was depleted, Europe simply went
south and expanded. We find the same sort of expansion in Japan and the U.S., so
instead of being sustainable, we have just moved on. The logical end of this, and we
have begun, is fishing krill in Antarctica. " he continued. But he said: "This southward
expansion seems to be at an end, because there are no more waters to be
conquered.”
Analysis: At the point where the fishing industry does not care about sustainability they will
continue to deplete resources for food regardless.
Champion Briefs
105
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: The issue has progressed tot he point where any benefits of GMOs will not be large
enough to reverse the issue in time
"Unsustainable Fishing." WWF Global. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.
<http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/problems/problems_fishing/>
“The global fishing fleet is 2-3 times larger than what the oceans can sustainably
support. In other words, people are taking far more fish out of the ocean than can be
replaced by

those remaining. As a result:
53% of the world’s fisheries are fully exploited, and 32% are overexploited, depleted,
or recovering from depletion1

Most of the top ten marine fisheries, accounting for about 30% of all capture fisheries
production, are fully exploited or overexploited

Several important commercial fish populations have declined to the point where their
survival is threatened

Unless the current situation improves, stocks of all species currently fished for food
are predicted to collapse by 2048”
Analysis: It is not very likely that GMO fish will be produced within the next 40 years that will
be able to replace every single species of fish that humans consume. Even if they are they will
not be able to be produced at the magnitude needed to save the fish populations.
Champion Briefs
106
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
PRO – GMO’s Use Less Resources
Argument: Drought is becoming a huge issue due to rapid population growth. GMOs can be
used to decrease stress on the Earth's water resources.
Warrant: GMO crops have unique beneficial qualities that make them more efficient uses of
resources
Agricultural Biotechnology. Maastricht, the Netherlands: United Nations U, Institute for
New Technologies (INTECH), 2002. ISAAA, May 2014. Web. 3 Oct. 2014.
“To date, commercial GM crops have delivered benefits in crop production, but
there are also a number of products in the pipeline which will make more direct
contributions to food quality, clean environment, pharmaceutical production, and
livestock feeds. Examples of these products include: rice with higher levels of iron
and beta carotene (an important micronutrient which is converted to vitamin A in
the body); long life banana that ripens faster on the tree and can therefore be
harvested earlier; maize with improved feed value; delayed ripening papaya;
papaya ringspot virus resistant papaya; tomatoes with high levels of flavonols,
which are powerful antioxidants; drought tolerant maize and wheat; maize with
improved phosphorus availability; arsenic-tolerant plants; insect resistant eggplant
and rice; edible vaccines from fruit and vegetables; low lignin trees for paper
making among others.”
Warrant: Current water saving strategies have very low yield, GMO crops can solve this issue
Quinn, Audrey. "Can Genetically Modified Corn save the Midwest from
Drought?" SmartPlanet. N.p., 4 Sept. 2014. Web. 03 Oct. 2014.
“Crops planted in the water-saving soil live off this reserved moisture instead of
irrigation. Water stress concentrates sugar and nutrients in the crops making them
Champion Briefs
107
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
extra flavorful. But, dry farming yields are often one-third the size of those from
more industrial farms, Coren reports. Monsanto has another idea for facing the
water shortage. The agriculture biotechnology company has been testing out
drought-resistant corn seeds. The genetically modified corn takes up water more
gradually from the soil, so it needs less of the wet stuff overall. Select farmers have
tested the experimental strain this year, and it's slated for wider release in 2013, the
Washington Post reports. DuPont and Syngenta also have new drought-resistant strains,
though they claim their seeds are hybrids that take advantage of natural corn traits rather
than genetic engineering.”
Warrant: GMO rice uses more water
Karaba, Aarati. "Improvement of Water Use Efficiency in Rice by Expression of
HARDY, an Arabidopsis Drought and Salt Tolerance Gene." Improvement of
Water Use Efficiency in Rice by Expression of HARDY, an Arabidopsis Drought
and Salt Tolerance Gene. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 2 Aug. 2007. Web. 03 Oct. 2014.
“Freshwater is a limited and dwindling global resource; therefore, efficient water use is
required for food crops that have high water demands, such as rice, or for the production
of sustainable energy biomass. We show here that expression of the Arabidopsis HARDY
(HRD) gene in rice improves water use efficiency, the ratio of biomass produced to the water
used, by enhancing photosynthetic assimilation and reducing transpiration.These droughttolerant, low-water-consuming rice plants exhibit increased shoot biomass under well
irrigated conditions and an adaptive increase in root biomass under drought stress. The
HRD gene, an AP2/ERF-like transcription factor, identified by a gain-of-function Arabidopsis
mutant hrd-D having roots with enhanced strength, branching, and cortical cells, exhibits
drought resistance and salt tolerance, accompanied by an enhancement in the expression of
abiotic stress associated genes. HRD overexpression in Arabidopsis produces thicker leaves with
more chloroplast-bearing mesophyll cells, and in rice, there is an increase in leaf biomass and
bundle sheath cells that probably contributes to the enhanced photosynthesis assimilation and
Champion Briefs
108
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
efficiency. The results exemplify application of a gene identified from the model plant
Arabidopsis for the improvement of water use efficiency coincident with drought resistance
in the crop plant rice.”
Warrant: New products have USDA approval and could increase yields
Walsh, Bryan. "Can GM Crops Bust the Drought?" Science Space Can GM Crops Bust
the Drought Comments. Time, 12 Sept. 2012. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.
“That’s what agribusiness is hoping to achieve with new genetically modified (GM) crop
strains that are designed to endure arid conditions. Industry leader Monsanto is
working on a hybrid line of corn called DroughtGard, developed with the German
firm BASF, that is designed to enhance crop yield in dry soils. It is the first U.S.
Department of Agriculture–approved GM crop to focus on drought tolerance and
features a bacterial gene that enables it to better retain water. Hundreds of farmers
in the western end of the Corn Belt–an area that runs to dry even in normal years–
are field-testing DroughtGard, and Monsanto says early results indicate that the
GM crop might improve yields by 4% to 8% over conventional crops in some arid
conditions. “This year magnifies how important it is to have drought tolerance,” says
Robert Fraley, Monsanto’s chief technology officer.”
Champion Briefs
109
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
A2 – GMO’s Use Less Resources
Answer: Water is not in short supply and is a renewable resource. Furthermore, GMO crops
have been found to require more water than non-GMO crops and they also put deadly toxins into
the water supply.
Warrant: The world is not running out of water
Nyiri, Lajos. "Main Report." (n.d.): n. pag. United Nations Industrial Development
Organization, 29 Sept. 2007. Web. 4 Oct. 2014.
“The world is not running out of water, the amount of water on earth is stable, but it is
not available always where and when needed. Droughts, floods, climatic and usual
seasonal variations may result in extreme local conditions.”
Warrant: Water is a renewable resource
Carlyle, Ryan , BSChE, Subsea Hydraulics Engineer. "Quora." Ryan Carlyle's Answer to
Do Scientists Predict How Much Drinkable Water Is Left for Human
Consumption? -. Quora, 5 Jan. 2014. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.
“Global water supplies are theoretically limitless, because it's not destroyed when we use
it -- it just gets dirty. Water can be reused... if you live on a river, some of your drinking
water probably comes from an upstream town's sewage treatment plant! Waste water
recycling and salt water desalination can produce any imaginable quantity of potable
water. Moisture can be slowly pulled from the air even in the driest deserts. A sufficiently
deep well drilled almost anywhere on the planet will eventually hit a large salt-water
aquifer.”
Champion Briefs
110
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Desalinization is cheap and uses clean energy
Doucleff, Michaeleen. "Cheap Drinking Water From The Sun, Aided By A Pop Of Pencil
Shavings." NPR. NPR, 5 Sept. 2014. Web. 03 Oct. 2014.
“But engineer Hadi Ghasemi, at the University of Houston, is trying to change that. He
and a team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have developed a cheap
material that desalinates water efficiently and fast using solar energy. And the
secret to the new technology was sitting right on their desks: the graphite in
pencils.”
Warrant: GM crops fared significantly worse during major drought
Sirinathsinghji, Dr Eva. "GM Crops and Water - A Recipe for Disaster." GM Crops and
Water - A Recipe for Disaster. British Library, 5 May 2013. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.
“In 2012 the US suffered from the worst drought in 50 years. As a result, crop yields
were severely affected as well as cereal food prices. The overwhelming majority of
corn and soybean crops grown in the US are GM but evidence from Howard
Vlieger, a farmer who grew both GM and non-GM varieties of corn and soybean
showed that his GM varieties suffered more than the conventional varieties. In fact,
he reported that his conventional varieties were not only surviving the drought, but
flourishing (see [22] GM Crops Destroyed by US Drought but non-GM Varieties
Flourish, SiS 56). For his corn crops, he harvested 100-120 and 8-50bushels/acre for
non-GM crops GM respectively.”
Warrant: GM crops require more water
Sirinathsinghji, Dr Eva. "GM Crops and Water - A Recipe for Disaster." GM Crops and
Water - A Recipe for Disaster. British Library, 5 May 2013. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.
Champion Briefs
111
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
“This report from the farmer can be corroborated by scientific studies that show GM GT
soybean absorbs less water and requires more water than conventional varieties (see figure
1). Previous studies by the same researchers found that GT soybean had reduced lignin
content as well as reduced photosynthesis rates, both of which may be contributory
underlying mechanisms for reduced water efficiency and absorption. Figure 1 Water use
efficiency and water absorption of GM glyphosate-tolerant following glyphosate
application Glyphosate-tolerant plants required 14-20 percent more water per gram of dry
biomass (left) following a single application of recommended levels of glyphosate (600-1200
g a.e. ha-1). At highest exposure thereis a 1.5-2-fold difference. Water absorption (right)
was reduced in GM soybeans, with GM plants requiring 6 litres more water following a
single high exposure.”
Warrant: Bt toxins have negitive impacts on human health
Sirinathsinghji, Dr Eva. "GM Crops and Water - A Recipe for Disaster." GM Crops and
Water - A Recipe for Disaster. British Library, 5 May 2013. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.
“However, our review of the literature showed otherwise [14] Bt Crop Hazards and
Failures (SiS 53). Bt toxins are implicated human health complications including allergenicity
and other immune reactions, skin and eye problems, as well as internal organ toxicity in feeding
trials on animals and in vitro studies of toxicity and lethality to human kidney cells at low doses
(see [15] Bt Toxin Kills Human Kidney Cells, SiS 52). Environmental concerns include
effects on soil microorganisms and off-target beneficial insects such as bees, caddis flies and
Daphnia magna (see[16] Bt Toxin Threatens Aquatic Ecosystems, SiS 36).”
Analysis: BT toxins have negative impacts on human health and are put into the environment by
GMO use.
Champion Briefs
112
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
PRO – GMOs Create Economic Benefits
Argument: Farmers can save money in many ways due to GMOs such as decreased pest control
and increased yield.
Warrant: Farmer save money due to decreased damage control needs
Zilberman, David. "The Economic Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops."The
Economic Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops. Agriculture and Applied
Economics Association, 2010. Web. 06 Oct. 2014.
“A starting point for analyzing the impact of IR traits is the damage control
function approach of Lichtenberg and Zilberman (1986). Actual crop output is given to
be equal to potential output minus pest damage. Damage can be controlled by a
variety of pest control techniques, including pesticides, cultural practices, and GE traits.
By controlling pest damage, IR traits boost actual crop output and improve crop
yields. The increase in yields due to the adoption of IR traits is expected to be small on
farms that use the GE trait to substitute for chemical pest control applications. The
effects will be larger where chemicals and other damage control approaches did not
effectively control pest damage. Thus, developing countries, in which chemicals are
not widely used, should benefit the most from IR technologies. Even in developed
countries, however, where IR traits largely substitute for other effective control
approaches, the costs associated with damage control, including pecuniary costs,
environmental costs, and effort, decline.
Warrant: Dramatic declines in pesticide use
Zilberman, David. "The Economic Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops."The
Economic Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops. Agriculture and Applied
Economics Association, 2010. Web. 06 Oct. 2014.
Champion Briefs
113
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
“The NRC (2010) reported that adoption of IR crops throughout the United States
resulted mostly in modest increases in yield and significant savings in pesticide costs.
Yield drag was not evident. As Table 1 from Qaim (2009) showed, IR seeds that
produce the naturally occurring toxin Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), generally have much
larger yield effects in developing countries than in developed countries. Bt cotton,
adopted extensively in developing countries, has exhibited particularly large yield gains.
In countries where the yield effects of Bt cotton adoption were modest, like China, Bt
crop adoption has caused dramatic declines in pesticide use. Qaim (2009) also reports
significant reductions in pesticide-related accidents and deaths associated with IR crop
adoption.”
Warrant: Huge economic gains from GMOs
Brookes, Graham. "Global Economic Benefits of GM Crops Reach Almost 0
Billion." Global Economic Benefits of GM Crops Reach Almost 0 Billion. PG
Economics, Apr. 2013. Web. 06 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/page/35/>.

“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;”
Champion Briefs
114
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Much of the economic benefit went to developing countries
Brookes, Graham. "Global Economic Benefits of GM Crops Reach Almost 0
Billion." Global Economic Benefits of GM Crops Reach Almost 0 Billion. PG
Economics, Apr. 2013. Web. 06 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/page/35/>.

“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 (19962011), about 50% of the benefit each went to farmers in developing and developed
countries;

The cost farmers paid for accessing crop biotechnology in 2011 was equal to 21% of
the total technology gains (a total of $24.2 billion inclusive of farm income gains ($19.8
billion) plus cost of the technology payable to the seed supply chain ($5.4 billion(1,2)));

For farmers in developing countries the total cost of accessing the technology in
2011 was equal to 14% of total technology gains, whilst for farmers in developed
countries the cost was 28% of the total technology gains. The higher share of total
technology gains accounted for by farm income gains in developing countries relative to
the farm income share in developed countries mainly reflects weaker provision and
enforcement of intellectual property rights coupled with higher average levels of benefits
in developing countries;”
Warrant: No economic impact of the consolidation of the Seed market
Ervin, David E. "The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in
the United States." (n.d.): n. pag. National Academy of Sciences, 2010. Web. 6
Oct. 2014. <http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-onreports/reports-in-brief/genetically_engineered_crops_report_brief_final.pdf>.
“With respect to commercialized GE crops, studies conducted in the first few years after
the introduction of GE crops found no adverse effects on farmers’ economic welfare from
the consolidation of market power in the seed industry.”
Champion Briefs
115
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
A2 – GMOs Create Economic Benefits
Answer: GMO crops are too expensive to create economic gains and can offset any of their own
benefits.
Warrant: Any benefits in terms of herbicide use could be offset by new weeds
Walsh, Jennifer. "National-Academies.org | Newsroom." National-Academies.org |
Newsroom. National Research Council, 13 Apr. 2010. Web. 05 Oct. 2014.
<http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12804
>.
“However, GE crops resistant to the herbicide glyphosate -- a main component in
Roundup and other commercial weed killers -- could develop more weed problems as
weeds evolve their own resistance to glyphosate. GE crops could lose their effectiveness
unless farmers also use other proven weed and insect management practices.”
Warrant: GMO seed prices too high, benefits do not offset costs
Walsh, Jennifer. "National-Academies.org | Newsroom." National-Academies.org |
Newsroom. National Research Council, 13 Apr. 2010. Web. 05 Oct. 2014.
<http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12804
>.
“The higher costs associated with GE seeds are not always offset financially by lower
production costs or higher yields, the report notes. For example, farmers in areas with
fewer weed and pest problems may not have as much improvement in terms of reducing
crop losses.”
Warrant: Consolidation of seed industry could cause problems in the future
Champion Briefs
116
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Walsh, Jennifer. "National-Academies.org | Newsroom." National-Academies.org |
Newsroom. National Research Council, 13 Apr. 2010. Web. 05 Oct. 2014.
<http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12804
>.
“However, some farmers have expressed concern that consolidation of the U.S. seed
market will make it harder to purchase conventional seeds or those that have only
specific GE traits. With the exception of the issue of seed industry consolidation, the
effects of GE crops on other social factors of farming -- such as labor dynamics, farm
structure, or community viability -- have largely been overlooked, the report says. More
research is needed on the range of effects GE crops have on all farmers, including those
who don't grow GE crops or farmers with less access to credit. Studies also should
examine impacts on industries that rely on GE products, such as the livestock industry.”
Warrant: GMO corn costs more to produce
Duffy, Michael. "Who Benefits from Biotechnology?" (n.d.): n. pag. American Seed
Trade Association. Iowa State University, 7 Dec. 2001. Web. 6 Oct. 2014.
<http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/duffy/Pages/biotechpaper.pdf>.
“Total, non-land, costs for Bt corn averaged $207.25 per acre as opposed to the nonBt corn that averaged $197.00 per acre. This difference is lower than the cost
difference found in 1998. At that time the Bt corn was $20 per acre more costly than the
non-Bt varieties. The land charge used here was calculated similarly to the land charge
for the soybeans. The average rental rate used was $130 per acre. This is higher than the
Iowa average rate of $120 reported by the Iowa State Extension (Edwards and Smith,
2001b). Both Bt and non-Bt corn showed a negative return to labor and management.
The Bt corn lost an average of $28.28 per acre while the non-Bt corn posted an
average loss of $25.02.”
Champion Briefs
117
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Decrease exports and increased subsidies
Holden, Patrick. "Seeds of Doubt North American Farmers’ Experiences of GM Crops."
Soil Association, Sept. 2002. Web. 6 Oct 2014.
<http%3A%2F%2Fwww.soilassociation.org%2FLinkClick.aspx%3Ffileticket%3
D6lQJZLPalqo%253D%26tabid%3D390>.
• “Within a few years of the introduction of GM crops, almost the entire $300
million annual US maize exports to the EU and the $300 million annual Canadian
rape exports to the EU had disappeared, and the US share of the world soya market
had decreased
• US farm subsidies were meant to have fallen over the last few years. Instead they rose
dramatically, paralleling the growth in the area of GM crops. The lost export trade as a
result of GM crops is thought to have caused a fall in farm prices and hence a need
for increased government subsidies, estimated at an extra $3–$5 billion annually”
Warrant: GMOs have caused costly legal battles
Holden, Patrick. "Seeds of Doubt North American Farmers’ Experiences of GM Crops."
Soil Association, Sept. 2002. Web. 6 Oct 2014.
<http%3A%2F%2Fwww.soilassociation.org%2FLinkClick.aspx%3Ffileticket%3
D6lQJZLPalqo%253D%26tabid%3D390>.
• “All non-GM farmers are finding it very hard or impossible to grow GM-free crops.
Seeds have become almost completely contaminated with GMOs, good non-GM varieties
have become hard to buy, and there is a high risk of crop contamination
• Because of the lack of segregation, the whole food processing and distribution system
has become vulnerable to costly and disruptive contamination incidents. In September
2000, just one per cent of unapproved GM maize contaminated almost half the national
maize supply and cost the company, Aventis, up to $1 billion.”
Champion Briefs
118
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
PRO – GMO’s Cure Deadly Diseases
Argument: Diabetes is one of the leading causes of death in our society today. Recently, thanks
to GMOs, scientists have made breakthroughs regarding a cure to this disease, as well as others.
Warrant: GMO lettuce was used to cure Type 1 Diabetes in mice.
Ojus, Doshi. "Potential Diabetes Cure Grown in GMO Lettuce | JYI – The Premier
Undergraduate Research Journal." JYI The Premier Undergraduate Research
Journal. Journal of Young Investigators, Aug. 2007. Web. 03 Oct. 2014.
“Last week, scientists at the University of Central Florida announced and
demonstrated a possible way to cure Type-1 diabetes, an auto-immune disease which
destroys insulin producing cells in the pancreas. The researchers, led by Professor
Henry Daniell, fed diabetic mice capsules of insulin derived from genetically
engineered lettuce. By the end of the study, they observed that all mice recovered
normal blood and urine glucose levels. If human clinical trials are successful, the
potential medication could provide lasting relief for millions of Type-1 diabetes
sufferers worldwide.”
Warrant: GMO Lactococcus lactis was used to cure Type 1 Diabetes in mice
Takiishi, Tatiana. "JCI - Reversal of Autoimmune Diabetes by Restoration of Antigenspecific Tolerance Using Genetically Modified Lactococcus Lactis in Mice." JCI
- Reversal of Autoimmune Diabetes by Restoration of Antigen-specific Tolerance
Using Genetically Modified Lactococcus Lactis in Mice. American Society for
Clinical Investigation, 9 Apr. 2012. Web. 03 Oct. 2014.
“Current interventions for arresting autoimmune diabetes have yet to strike the balance
between sufficient efficacy, minimal side effects, and lack of generalized
Champion Briefs
119
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
immunosuppression. Introduction of antigen via the gut represents an appealing
method for induction of antigen-specific tolerance. Here, we developed a strategy
for tolerance restoration using mucosal delivery in mice of biologically contained
Lactococcus lactis genetically modified to secrete the whole proinsulin autoantigen
along with the immunomodulatory cytokine IL-10. We show that combination
therapy with low-dose systemic anti-CD3 stably reverted diabetes in NOD mice and
increased frequencies of local Tregs, which not only accumulated in the pancreatic
islets, but also suppressed immune response in an autoantigen-specific way.
Curedmice remained responsive to disease-unrelated antigens, which argues against
excessive immunosuppression. Application of this therapeutic tool achieved gut
mucosal delivery of a diabetes-relevant autoantigen and a biologically active
immunomodulatory cytokine, IL-10, and, when combined with a low dose of systemic
anti-CD3, was well tolerated and induced autoantigen-specific long-term tolerance,
allowing reversal of established autoimmune diabetes. Therefore, we believe this
method could be an effective treatment strategy for type 1 diabetes in humans.”
Warrant: Other diseases can be solved for as well.
Agricultural Biotechnology. Maastricht, the Netherlands: United Nations U, Institute for
New Technologies (INTECH), 2002. ISAAA, May 2014. Web. 3 Oct. 2014.
“Plant-derived pharmaceuticals and vaccines for common diseases such as hepatitis B,
pneumonic and bubonic plague, as well as against allergy sufferers, asthma, seasonal
allergies and atopic dermatitis have been developed since the early 1990s. Plant vaccines
have the advantage of being readily consumed with limited or no processing without the
need for cold storage.”
Warrant: Diabetes is a very prevalent issue facing our society
"Diabetes Fact Sheet." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 14 July 2014. Web. 03 Oct. 2014.
Champion Briefs
120
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
“Percent of noninstitutionalized adults 20 years and older with diabetes (physiciandiagnosed or undiagnosed): 11.9% (2007-2010)
Percent of noninstitutionalized adults 20 years and older with physician-diagnosed
diabetes: 8.5% (2007-2010)
Percent of noninstitutionalized adults 20 years and older with undiagnosed diabetes: 3.4%
(2007-2010)”
Warrant: Diabetes is a leading cause of death in our society
"Diabetes Fact Sheet." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 14 July 2014. Web. 03 Oct. 2014.
“Number of deaths: 73,831
Deaths per 100,000 population: 23.7
Cause of death rank: 7”
Champion Briefs
121
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
A2 – GMO’s Cure Deadly Diseases
Answer: The new cures from GMOs have actually been shown to cause the very diseases they
set out to cure. Furthermore GMOs can also cause health problems due to their modifications and
increased herbicide use associated with them.
Warrant: GM Insulin has caused Type 1 Diabetes in Type 2 patients
Currie, CJ. "Mortality and other important diabetes-related outcomes with insulin vs
other antihyperglycemic therapies in type 2 diabetes.." National Center for
Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, Feb. 2013. Web.
04 Oct. 2014.
“RESULTS: In the same model, and using metformin monotherapy as the referent, the
adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for the primary end point was significantly increased for
sulfonylurea monotherapy (1.436, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.354-1.523), insulin
monotherapy (1.808, 95% CI 1.630-2.005), and insulin plus metformin (1.309, 95% CI
1.150-1.491). In glycosylated hemoglobin/morbidity subgroups, patients treated with
insulin monotherapy had aHRs for the primary outcome ranging from 1.469 (95% CI
0.978-2.206) to 2.644 (95% CI 1.896-3.687). For all secondary outcomes, insulin
monotherapy had increased aHRs: myocardial infarction (1.954, 95% CI 1.479-2.583),
major adverse cardiac events (1.736, 95% CI 1.441-2.092), stroke (1.432, 95% CI 1.1591.771), renal complications (3.504, 95% CI 2.718-4.518), neuropathy (2.146, 95% CI
1.832-2.514), eye complications (1.171, 95% CI 1.057-1.298), cancer (1.437, 95% CI
1.234-1.674), or all-cause mortality (2.197, 95% CI 1.983-2.434). When compared
directly, aHRs were higher for insulin monotherapy vs all other regimens for the primary
end point and all-cause mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: In people with T2DM, exogenous insulin therapy was associated
with an increased risk of diabetes-related complications, cancer, and all-cause
Champion Briefs
122
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
mortality. Differences in baseline characteristics between treatment groups should
be considered when interpreting these results.”
Warrant: Causal link between GMO foods and health issues
Smith, Jeffrey M. "Institute for Responsible Technology." Doctors Warn: Avoid
Genetically Modified Food. Institute for Responsible Technology, May 2009.
Web. 04 Oct. 2014.
"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."
Warrant: GMOs could cause new allergies.
Verma, Charu. "A Review on Impacts of Genetically Modified Food on Human Health."
Academia.edu. The Open Nutraceuticals Journal,, 2011. Web. 03 Oct. 2014.
• “Allergenicity 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 reactions [22].
GMOs could cause other health issues
• Unknown effects on human health: A recent article published in Lancet examined
the effects of GM potatoes on the digestive tract in rats [23, 24]. Moreover, the gene
introduced into the potatoes was a snowdrop flower lec tin, a substance known to be
toxic to mammals.”
Champion Briefs
123
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Strong correlation between organ diseases and GMOs/ roundup.
Swanson, N.L. (n.d.): n. pag. The Examiner, 24 Apr. 2013. Web. 4 Oct. 2014.
“Prevalence and incidence data show correlations between diseases of the organs and the
increase in Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the food supply, along with the
increase in glyphosate based herbicide applications (see slide show). More and more
studies have revealed carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting effects of Roundup at lower
doses than those authorized for residues found in Genetically Modified Organisms (see
notes below).”
Warrant: Endocrine disruptors (which Roundup is) cause a myriad of health issues.
Swanson, N.L. (n.d.): n. pag. The Examiner, 24 Apr. 2013. Web. 4 Oct. 2014.
“Endocrine disruptors can lead to failure in all systems in the body that are controlled by
hormones. Imbalances and malfunctions of the endocrine system can lead to diabetes, kidney
disease, hypertension, obesity, osteoporosis, Cushing's syndrome, hypo- and hyperthyroidism,
infertility, birth defects, erectile dysfunction, cancer (breast, prostate, liver, brain, thyroid, nonHodgkin's lymphoma), sexual development problems, neurological disorders (learning
disabilities, attention deficit disorder, autism, dementia, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, schizophrenia)
among others. Endocrine disruptors are especially damaging to growth in fetuses, babies and
children.”
Champion Briefs
124
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
PRO – GMOs Can Be Used for Ethanol
Argument: Corn has been modified for ethanol use which has many economic and
environmental benefits.
Warrant: Corn has been modified for ethanol use.
Pollack, Andrew. "U.S. Approves Corn Modified for Ethanol." The New York Times. The
New
York
Times,
11
Feb.
2011.
Web.
06
Oct.
2014.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/business/12corn.html?_r=1>.
“The corn, developed by Syngenta, contains a microbial gene that causes it to
produce an enzyme that breaks down corn starch into sugar, the first step toward
making ethanol. Ethanol manufacturers now buy this enzyme, called alpha amylase,
in liquid form and add it to the corn at the start of their production process.
Syngenta says that having the crop make the enzyme for its own breakdown — selfprocessing corn, as it were — will increase ethanol output while reducing the use of
water, energy and chemicals in the production process. The company, a seed and
pesticide manufacturer based in Switzerland, said it would take various measures to
prevent the corn from getting into the food supply. The corn, which is called Enogen, is
one of the first crops genetically engineered to contain a trait that influences use of
the plant after harvest. Virtually all past biotech crops have had traits like insect
resistance, aimed at helping farmers more than manufacturers or consumers.”
Warrant: This GM corn will not contaminate due to regulation
Pollack, Andrew. "U.S. Approves Corn Modified for Ethanol." The New York Times. The
New
York
Times,
11
Feb.
2011.
Web.
06
Oct.
2014.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/business/12corn.html?_r=1>.
Champion Briefs
125
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
“Syngenta says the amylase enzyme is not active when the kernel is intact. It is most
active, the company said, at certain levels of temperature, acidity and moisture
found in ethanol factories but rarely in factories that make corn starch, corn syrup
or corn chips. Syngenta also said the corn would be grown only in the vicinity
of ethanol plants. Farmers would be under contract and have financial incentives to sell
their output only to that plant. Other steps would be taken to limit cross-pollination
or inadvertent mixing in grain elevators.”
Warrant: USDA has approved this GM corn.
"USDA Approves Corn Amylase Trait for Enogen™." -- BASEL, Switzerland, Feb. 11,
2011 /PRNewswire/ --. PR Newswire, 11 Feb. 2011. Web. 06 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.prnewswire.com/news1releases/usda1approves1corn1
amylase1trait1for1enogen1115944234.htmlhttp://www.prnewswire.com/newsreleases/usda-approves-corn-amylase-trait-for-enogen-115944234.html>.
“Syngenta announced today it has received full deregulation for its corn amylase
trait from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This is the first genetically
modified output trait in corn for the ethanol industry. By enabling expression of an
optimized alpha-amylase enzyme directly in corn, dry grind ethanol production can be
improved in a way that can be easily integrated into existing infrastructure. Syngenta will
sell corn seed with the amylase trait as Enogen corn seed. "Enogen corn seed offers
growers an opportunity to cultivate a premium specialty crop. It is a breakthrough
product that provides U.S. ethanol producers with a proven means to generate more
gallons of ethanol from their existing facilities," said Davor Pisk, Chief Operating
Officer. "Enogen corn also reduces the energy and water consumed in the
production process while substantially reducing carbon emissions." Enogen corn
seed will be available from the coming growing season. This year, Syngenta plans to
work with a small number of ethanol plants and corn growers in close proximity and
prepare for larger scale commercial introduction in 2012. Production of Enogen corn will
be managed by Syngenta using a contracted, closed production system.”
Champion Briefs
126
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Ethanol has huge economic benefits.
"Ethanol Benefits and Considerations." Alternative Fuels Data Center:. United States
Department
of
Energy,
n.d.
Web.
06
Oct.
2014.
<http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_benefits.html>.
“Ethanol production creates jobs in rural areas where employment opportunities
are needed. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, ethanol production in 2012
added more than 365,000 jobs across the country, $40.6 billion to the gross
domestic product, and $28.9 billion in household income.”
Warrant: Ethanol has huge environmental benefits
"Ethanol Benefits and Considerations." Alternative Fuels Data Center:. United States
Department
of
Energy,
n.d.
Web.
06
Oct.
2014.
<http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_benefits.html>.
“The carbon dioxide released when ethanol is burned is balanced by the carbon
dioxide captured when the crops are grown to make ethanol. This differs from
petroleum, which is made from plants that grew millions of years ago. On a life cycle
analysis basis, corn- based ethanol production and use reduces greenhouse gas
emissions (GHGs) by up to 52% compared to gasoline production and use.
Cellulosic ethanol use could reduce GHGs by as much as 86%.”
Analysis: Corn based ethanol has many economic and environmental benefits. A new GMO corn
made to streamline the production process of this would be a boon too society. This new corn has
been approved and has little chance of contamination due to regulation.
Champion Briefs
127
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
A2 – GMOs Can Be Used for Ethanol
Answer: There is a risk that GMO corn could cross contaminate.
Warrant: Contamination would be horrible
Pollack, Andrew. "U.S. Approves Corn Modified for Ethanol." The New York Times. The
New York Times, 11 Feb. 2011. Web. 06 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/business/12corn.html?_r=1>.
“With Syngenta’s corn, however, the opponents are not only the usual anti-biotechnology
groups but also a powerful industry that is normally receptive to biotechnology. The
millers’ association, which has led the opposition, represents 43 companies, including
giants like General Mills, ConAgra Mills and ADM Milling. The association said that
Syngenta’s own data indicated that as little as one amylase corn kernel mixed with
10,000 conventional kernels could be enough to weaken the corn starch and disrupt
food processing operations. Another concern of some in the food industry is that if
the amylase corn is found in food supplies it could lead to recalls or disrupt
exports.”
Answer: Ethanol is not an efficient source of energy.
Warrant: Ethanol produces less energy than gasoline
"Ethanol Benefits and Considerations." Alternative Fuels Data Center:. United States
Department of Energy, n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_benefits.html>.
“A gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline. The result is
lower fuel economy than a gallon of gasoline. The amount of energy difference
Champion Briefs
128
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
varies depending on the blend. For example, E85 has about 27% less energy per
gallon than gasoline (mileage penalty lessens as ethanol content decreases). However,
because ethanol is a high-octane fuel, it offers increased vehicle power and performance.”
Warrant: Ethanol uses a substantial amount of energy to produce
Halperin, Alex. "Ethanol: Myths and Realities." Bloomberg Business Week. Bloomberg,
18 May 2006. Web. 05 Oct. 2014. <http://www.businessweek.com/stories/200605-18/ethanol-myths-and-realities>.
“Doesn't producing ethanol on a large scale use a great deal of energy? Yes. Some
ethanol skeptics have even argued that the process involved in growing grain and
then transforming it into ethanol requires more energy from fossil fuels than
ethanol generates. In other words, they say the whole movement is a farce. There's no
absolute consensus in the scientific community, but that argument is losing strength.
Michael Wang, a scientist at the Energy Dept.-funded Argonne National Laboratory for
Transportation Research, says "The energy used for each unit of ethanol produced has
been reduced by about half [since 1980]." Now, Wang says, the delivery of 1 million
British thermal units (BTUs) of ethanol uses 0.74 million BTUs of fossil fuels.”
Warrant: Ethanol is more expensive than gasoline.
Halperin, Alex. "Ethanol: Myths and Realities." Bloomberg Business Week. Bloomberg,
18 May 2006. Web. 05 Oct. 2014. <http://www.businessweek.com/stories/200605-18/ethanol-myths-and-realities>.
“Is ethanol cheaper than gas? Surprise, surprise, it isn't. The move this spring by more
regions to use ethanol means that demand has spiked, driving up prices. On Monday, the
New York harbor price was around $3 per gallon compared with about $2.28 for
gasoline (before being mixed with ethanol). In other words, for now ethanol is
helping to increase prices at the pump, not to push them down.”
Champion Briefs
129
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Ethanol Production requires massive amounts of land
Avery, Dennis. Biofuels, Food, or Wildlife? The Massive Land Costs of U.S.
Ethanol (n.d.): n. pag. Competitive Enterprise Institute, 21 Sept. 2006. Web. 6
Oct. 2014. <http://cei.org/pdf/5532.pdf>.
“The second intractable reality of biofuels is that the world’s food and feed demand
is set to more than double by 2050. That means that good cropland will become
very scarce around the world. Human society is already farming about 37 percent of
the global land area, and already using almost all of the good-quality land.21 Additional
farmland will have to come at the expense of forest and wild species, and is likely to
incur heavy penalties in terms of soil erosion, drought risks, and endangered wild
species. The world’s human population—now 6.3 billion—will peak at between 8 and 9
billion around 2040, based on the United Nations Population Division’s Medium
Variant.22 That still means a 25 to 40 percent increase in people eating meals.
In
addition, most of the 8 to 9 billion people in 2050 will probably be able to afford highquality diets. The World Bank expects global GDP will nearly triple, in constant
dollars,by 2050.23 Billions of additional people will be able to afford meat, milk, and
varied fresh fruits and vegetables. These foods take more farming resources than diets
based on corn, beans, rice, or cabbage.”
Analysis: The way this argument should be approached in round would be for a debater to point
out the great risks involved with this corn and the impact I could have on the food industry, both
by contamination and land use. After this point out the fact that ethanol is simply not a viable
source of energy to be used at the present time.
Champion Briefs
130
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
PRO – Precautionary Principle
Argument: The precautionary principle is inapplicable to GMOs because of the amount of
research on them and because of their potential benefits. If the precautionary principle is
ultimately applicable, sufficient evidence has been demonstrated such that GMOs meet and
exceed the precautionary principle.
Warrant: The precautionary principle disfavors innovation and therefore may unduly miss
benefits that result from innovation. Emergencies and net potential benefits justify treating the
precautionary principle as inapplicable or asserting that GMOs pass the tests of the precautionary
principle.
Fischoff et al. “Precautionary Principles: General Definitions and Specific Applications
to Genetically Modified Organisms.” Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management. Vol. 21. No. 3. (Summer 2002). pp381-407.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.10051/abstract
“Precautionary principles have been proposed as a fundamental element of sound
risk management. Their advocates see them as guiding action in the face of
uncertainty, encouraging the adoption of measures that reduce serious risks to health,
safety, and the environment. Their opponents may reject the very idea of
precautionary principles, find specific principles unacceptably vague or see them as
clearly doing economic damage-either to society as a whole or to their own interests.
This article traces the development of alternative precautionary principles, primarily in
Europe. Their adequacy is considered in one context where such principles have
often been invoked, using genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture.
Although some precautionary principles can be given analytical rigor, the concerns that
they express strain the intellectual and institutional structure of conventional policy
analysis.”
Champion Briefs
131
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Emergency – such as food shortages – justifies abandoning precautionary principles
because of the magnitude of harm that could result from inaction.
Fischoff et al. quoting the United Nations Charter. “Precautionary Principles: General
Definitions and Specific Applications to Genetically Modified Organisms.”
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Vol. 21. No. 3. (Summer 2002).
pp381-407.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.10051/abstract
“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary principle approach shall be
widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of
serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a
reason for postponing cost- effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
(United Nations, 1992; article 15)”
Warrant: Precautionary principle generally is poorly tailored.
Fischoff et al. “Precautionary Principles: General Definitions and Specific Applications
to Genetically Modified Organisms.” Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management. Vol. 21. No. 3. (Summer 2002). pp381-407.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.10051/abstract
“For their part, precautionary principle proponents may strategically cast a wide net,
indiscriminately grouping benign and troublesome forms of the technology. They
may have unintended help, when advocates of a troublesome variant group it with
benign ones, in hopes of innocence by association (e.g., associating GMOs motivated
by profits with ones addressing Third World nutritional deficiencies) (e.g., Pollan,
2001).”
Champion Briefs
132
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Rapid innovation makes the precautionary principle inapplicable because it cannot
cope with rapidly changing fields.
Fischoff et al. “Precautionary Principles: General Definitions and Specific Applications
to Genetically Modified Organisms.” Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management. Vol. 21. No. 3. (Summer 2002). pp381-407.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.10051/abstract
At times, proponents of precautionary principles "just" want greater caution. In wellformulated analyses, that desire might be captured by developing ways to incorporate
deep feelings of risk aversion, such as that created by fears of irreversible damages. With
rapidly evolving technologies, and accompanying research, however, formulating
such analyses may be the larger challenge. The approved technology may differ
from the one that was analyzed. Even if the technology is stable, unanticipated
effects and interactions may arise, defying systematic updating. As a result, the terms
of analysis may be vague, leaving people nervous about just what deal they are signing
(Fischhoff, 1994). Addressing such ambiguity aversion calls for research into how to
specify the conditions bounding agreements and how to create incentives for research that
stabilizes problem definitions (e.g., by aggressively looking for surprises). Active
adaptive management approaches acknowledge ambiguity, by treating interventions
as learning experiences (Shea et al., in press).”
Impact: Overbroad invocation of the precautionary principle undermines legitimate uses of the
precautionary principle – make them prove the specific risks to specific modern GMO
technologies rather than vague invocations of danger.
Fischoff et al. “Precautionary Principles: General Definitions and Specific Applications
to Genetically Modified Organisms.” Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management. Vol. 21. No. 3. (Summer 2002). pp381-407.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.10051/abstract
Champion Briefs
133
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
“Finally, the possible varieties of precautionary principle must be better
characterized, preferably in ways conducive to realizing each better and identifying
its domain of applicability. That domain is, likely, a function of the technology in
question, the concerns it evokes, and the institutions implementing it. The potential
value of closely reasoned precautionary principles is undermined by the co-existence
of multiple vague ones. Reducing the number of competing principles may require their
advocates to break ranks, lest the weak pull down the strong. Their deep, common
concerns will not be served by unquestioning acceptance of one another's proposals,
any more than it does for those in the industries being evaluated.”
Impact: Application of the precautionary principle must consider the downsides of inaction as
well as the benefits of inaction.
Goklany, Indur. “Applying the Precautionary Principle to Genetically Modified Crops”.
Center for the Study of American Business. Policy Study Number 157. August
2000. http://www.agbioworld.org/pdf/PP_GM_crops_Goklany1.pdf
“The precautionary principle has often been invoked to justify a ban on genetically
modified (GM) crops. However, this justification is based upon a selective
application of the principle to the potential public health and environmental benefits
of such a ban, while ignoring a ban’s potential downside. This is due principally to the
fact that the precautionary principle itself provides no guidance on its application in
situations where actions (such as a ban on GM crops) could simultaneously lead to
uncertain benefits and uncertain costs to public health and the environment.”
Analysis: The precautionary principle is anti-innovative. It is inappropriate for situations where
its application would be cumbersome (e.g. to rapidly changing, multifaceted issues) and
unethical where there is an emergency sufficient to risk acting without perfect knowledge secure
from error.
Champion Briefs
134
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
A2 – Precautionary Principle
Answer: The precautionary principle must be applied both where there is an insufficient amount
of safety evidence and where there is actual evidence of harm. As the harm becomes more
concrete, the threshold for acceptable uncertainty exponentially increases. Nor does any existent
emergency justify disregarding the precautionary principle.
Warrant: Proof that GMOs are bad suggests greater need for forbearance it increases the
amount of risk in the risk-to-potential-reward ratio. GMOs are not justified by the threat of
famine because the absence of food is not the cause of famine; distribution and poverty are the
causes.
Fischoff et al. “Precautionary Principles: General Definitions and Specific Applications
to Genetically Modified Organisms.” Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management. Vol. 21. No. 3. (Summer 2002). pp381-407.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.10051/abstract
”Transferring genes from organisms of known allergenicity to new plants creates
risks for sensitive individuals who do not suspect them there. Those risks led to
rejecting a GM soy modified to contain a brazil nut gene (Nordlee et al., 1996). Greater
uncertainty arises when GM foods include compounds previously unknown in foods,
such as Bt proteins. Aventis's StarLink corn was approved solely for nonfood use because
its Bt protein (Cry9C) has properties similar to those of known food allergens (molecular
weight, stability under gastric conditions). Non-dietary allergenicity is also possible:
Skin-test sensitivity to Bt increased from 8 percent to 70 percent among crop
workers after 3 months' picking crops sprayed with it (Bernstein et al., 1999).”
Warrant: There is sufficient evidence of environmental harm to warrant application of the
precautionary principle.
Champion Briefs
135
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Fischoff et al. quoting the United Nations Charter. “Precautionary Principles: General
Definitions and Specific Applications to Genetically Modified Organisms.”
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Vol. 21. No. 3. (Summer 2002).
pp381-407.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.10051/abstract
“Three of the possible environmental risks of GMOs have attracted particular
attention: hybridization, harm to non-target species, and ecosystem disruption.
Hybridization may occur between GM crops and wild plants or other crops (e.g.,
through blowing pollen). As a result, weedy natural relatives of commercial plants
can acquire the transferred traits, making them more competitive (Ellstrand and
Schierenbeck, 2000). In Canada, cross-pollination among three herbicide-resistant
strains of canola, two GM and one conventional, has produced strains resistant to
three herbicides: imidazoline, glyphosate (Roundup), and glufosinate (the herbicide used
on Aventis GMHT crops) (Hall and Hauck, 2000). In addition to reducing agricultural
yields, such hybrids could diminish natural plant diversity by competing or
hybridizing with wild species. For example, one study found that Bt canola survived
better in grassland areas (outside of cropland), possibly because the Bt toxin protects
it from natural enemies (Nigh et al., 2000). Despite a national moratorium in Mexico,
a study reported GM corn growing widely in two Mexican states that are the center of
diversity of teosinte, maize's wild ancestor (Dalton, 2001) - a claim that has been hotly
disputed (Christou, 2002), with further controversy in the works.”
Warrant: A long term environmental study is necessary to determine threats to keystone species
that maintain biodiversity.
Fischoff et al. quoting the United Nations Charter. “Precautionary Principles: General
Definitions and Specific Applications to Genetically Modified Organisms.”
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Vol. 21. No. 3. (Summer 2002).
pp381-407.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.10051/abstract
Champion Briefs
136
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
“Such habitat changes can, in turn, affect wildlife. Bt crops are meant to kill
lepidopteran (moth and butterfly) pests, but might also affect non-target species
(Hilbeck et al:, 1998). Unlike sprayed Bt, which degrades quickly, Bt crops
continually produce the toxin. Exuded by their roots, Bt proteins remain active by
binding to soil particles (Saxena, Flores, and Stotzky, 1999; Tapp and Stotzky 1998).
Pollen drift from Bt corn may threaten monarch butterflies (Losey, Rayor, and Carter,
1999; Pimentel and Raven, 2000). Assessing this risk, with appropriate spatial and
temporal variation, requires geographically extensive, long-term studies of the
interactions among Bt corn, milkweed, monarchs, and other elements of
agroecosystems that mediate the impact of Bt and affect monarchs independently.
Cornfields are important habitat for milkweed, monarchs' sole food source (Hartzler and
Buhler, 2000).”
Impact: The absence of substantial long term research on GMOs requires application of the
precautionary principle and a negative vote.
Fischoff et al. quoting the United Nations Charter. “Precautionary Principles: General
Definitions and Specific Applications to Genetically Modified Organisms.”
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Vol. 21. No. 3. (Summer 2002).
pp381-407.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.10051/abstract
“Although there are many studies of the environmental impacts of GM crops, most
appear in the gray literature of technical reports, produced for industry and submitted
to regulators. A recent comprehensive review (Wolfenbarger and Pfiher, 2000) found
only 35 peer-reviewed articles with the level of scientific credibility that might be
demanded of evidence regarding public risks (even if firms might demand less for
internal decisionmaking - and even avoid peer review for proprietary reasons). The New
York Times (Yoon, 2000, p. A31) summarized the review as showing that simple
conclusions cannot yet be drawn because the critical studies have not yet been
done;... scientists still know little about the likelihood even of the environmental
Champion Briefs
137
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
threats of greatest concern. Also, almost no studies have been published
documenting ecological benefits .... [C]urrent data indicate that assessing ecological
risks is likely to be complex, with risks varying among crops, even among strains of
a single crop, between environments and over time. Some risks [the authors] say, may
be so difficult and time- consuming to assess as to be effectively unknowable.”
Impact: More research is needed on the relationship between GMOs, field output, and total food
production.
Fischoff et al. quoting the United Nations Charter. “Precautionary Principles: General
Definitions and Specific Applications to Genetically Modified Organisms.”
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Vol. 21. No. 3. (Summer 2002).
pp381-407.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.10051/abstract
“Transgenic crops have sometimes shown reduced yields (Benbrook, 1999; Hartzler,
1997). The reasons for this yield drag are poorly understood, but may include seed
impurity, unintended changes caused by the novel genes (pleiotropy), and reduced
attention to yield improvement (relative to the development of conventional crops).
Yield drag occurs indirectly when herbicide spray drifts from GMHT-resistant crops
to non-GMHT ones. Predicting that drift requires estimating weather, weed
emergence, and spray patterns, among other things (Owen, 1998). Considering the
slow pace of publicly available research and the complexity of the problems,
significant uncertainties are likely for a long time. The United Kingdom only recently
began a 3-year program of farm scale evaluations (FSEs) of plant, invertebrate, and
microorganism biodiversity in fields sown with GMHT and conventional canola, maize,
and sugar beet (Firbank, 1999, 2000). In 2000, the British Trust for Ornithology (Clark,
November 2000, personal communication), in conjunction with the FSEs, began studying
GMHT effects on bird ecology. The USDA annually earmarks about $1.5 million for its
Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research Grants Program.”
Champion Briefs
138
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Impact: No emergency exception to the precautionary principle – the problem with famine is not
a lack of food, it’s poverty and a lack of food distribution. Precautionary principle suggests a
moratorium is best on balance.
Institute of Science in Society (ISIS). “Use and Abuse of the Precautionary Principle”.
US Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy (ACIEP). July 13,
2000. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/prec.php
“There is nothing difficult or arcane about the precautionary principle. It is the same
sort of reasoning that is used in the courts and in statistics. More than that, it is just
common sense. If we have genuine doubts about whether something is safe, then we
should not use it until we are convinced it is all right. And how convinced we have to
be depends on how much we need it. As far as GM crops are concerned, the
situation is straightforward. The world is not short of food; where people are going
hungry, it is because of poverty. There is both direct and indirect evidence to
indicate that the technology may not be safe for health and biodiversity, while the
benefits of GM agriculture remain illusory and hypothetical. We can easily afford a
five-year moratorium to support further research on how to improve the safety of the
technology, and into better methods of sustainable, organic farming, which do not
have the same unknown and possibly serious risks.”
Analysis: The precautionary principle is a way to break evidence ties. Often in rounds, debaters
will present conflicting evidence (“our evidence says GMOs bad for econ”; “oh yea? Well ours
says GMOs good!”) and then look expectantly at the judge to compare the evidence for the
debaters. This is both poor debating form – it leaves the crux of the debate unresolved in all but
the sloppiest debates – and unstrategic, because it introduces an element of unpredictability into
the decision as the judge must decide between conflicting evidence without argument from the
debaters. The precautionary principle is a way to break that tie – if the evidence is close, presume
conservative to avoid risks. The smaller the potential emergency (or the larger the risks) the less
reason to take those risks without more foresight in the first place.
Champion Briefs
139
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
PRO – Regulations Solve
Argument: The negative’s harms are hypothetical presumptions that ignore the commonsense
effects of regulations. Regulations prevent almost every hypothetical harm outlined by the
negative from manifesting, greatly decreasing the amount of weight the judge should give them.
Warrant: Governments do not sit idly by as corporations produce GMOs. GMOs are some of
the most strictly regulated products in the world. These regulations prevent harmful product from
reaching the consumer. Thus, even if some GMOs are harmful, they don’t actually harm the
consumers because they never reach consumers at all.
Warrant: There is a powerful international regime regulating GMOs that has been improved to
match scientific knowledge over the course of the past several decades.
Goodman et al. “Allergenicity assessment of genetically modified crops—what makes
sense?” Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 26. (2008). pp. 73-81
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n1/full/nbt1343.html
“Guidelines for allergenicity assessment of GM crops were published in three
sequential documents that have been broadly recognized. The first comprehensive
document was published in 1996 by the International Food Biotechnology Council
(IFBC, Washington, DC) in collaboration with the International Life Sciences Institute
(ILSI, Washington, DC)5. This was followed in 2001 by the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) consultation
recommendations6 and in 2003 by the Codex Alimentarius Commission guidelines1.
The revised recommendations (FAO/WHO, 2001; Codex, 2003) were meant to
correct shortcomings, although further clarifications are possible as we learn more about
allergens and gain experience in test methods7. Several elements, however, are well
established and have remained consistent throughout the three successive sets of
recommendations.”
Champion Briefs
140
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Impact: Regulations prevent harmful product from getting to consumers – empirically proven.
Goodman et al. “Allergenicity assessment of genetically modified crops—what makes
sense?” Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 26. (2008). pp. 73-81
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n1/full/nbt1343.html
“The premarket assessment recommended by Codex provides a mechanism to
intercept GM crops that are likely to increase the risk of food allergy, as
demonstrated by the identification of the Brazil nut 2S albumin transferred to
maize, and the amarantin transferred to maize (Box 6) as proteins that would likely
present significant health risks for specific populations of allergic consumers. The
premarket screening process helps to avoid possible severe reactions in unsuspecting
allergic consumers and also prevents subsequent costly food and seed recalls that
would be needed to prevent additional reactions.”
Warrant: GMOs are tested against literally every possible allergen. Ever.
Entine, Jon. “2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally
Sustainable”. October 14, 2013. Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-aresafe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/
“In the food and feeding category, the team found no evidence that approved GMOs
introduce any unique allergens or toxins into the food supply. All GM crops are
tested against a database of all known allergens before commercialization and any
crop found containing new allergens is not approved or marketed.”
Impact: The two major international markets – the US and the EU – have the most stringent
controls on GMOs.
Champion Briefs
141
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Lynch, Diahanna. “The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A CaseStudy of Contemporary European Regulation Politics”. Council on Foreign
Relations. April 5, 2001 http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/regulation-gmoseurope-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatorypolitics/p8688
“Ironically, notwithstanding strong American criticisms of the EU's use of the
precautionary principle to prevent or delay the approval of GMOs, "no country has so
fully adopted the essence of the precautionary principle in domestic law as the
United States."[5] The precautionary principle in American regulation of food safety
was enshrined in the Delaney clause to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which
banned the use of any food additive if tests revealed that it caused cancer in either
laboratory animals or humans on the grounds that such chemicals could cause
irreversible harms. [6] The precautionary principle also underlay many American
environmental statues enacted during of the 1970s. Both the 1970 Clean Air
Amendments and Clear Water Act required the EPA to apply "an adequate margin of
safety" in setting emission limits for hazardous pollutants. Regulatory agencies were
often not required to wait for scientific proof of harm before establishing standards or
imposing restrictions, and in some cases were explicitly prohibited from doing so. The
1997 Clean Air Act Amendments authorized EPA to "assess risk rather than wait
for proof or actual harm," before establishing standards. [7] Under the Endangered
Species Act, a finding of potential irreversible harm can led to an order to desist all
development activities.”
Impact: The food industry has well established allergy prevention protocols – think peanuts –
that can be simply applied to GMOs to prevent allergy problems.
Goodman et al. “Allergenicity assessment of genetically modified crops—what makes
sense?” Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 26. (2008). pp. 73-81
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n1/full/nbt1343.html
“Genetically modified (GM) crops undergo rigorous safety assessment before being
allowed to enter the market. One aspect of GM foods that has drawn a lot of public
Champion Briefs
142
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
attention is the assessment of their potential allergenicity. Protecting people with food
allergies against accidental exposure to allergens has become an important focus for
food manufacturers and regulators responsible for all food safety. A significant
focus of the food industry is to keep food products that are not intended to contain a
major allergen (e.g., peanut, milk, eggs or wheat) from being contaminated with one
of the major allergens. Likewise, the primary focus of the safety assessment for GM
crops, as defined by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Box 1)1, is to prevent the
transfer of a gene encoding a major allergenic protein (from any source), into a food crop
that did not previously contain that protein.”
Impact: Regulations can target specific potential allergens and prevent them from becoming
problems – multiple layers of testing check any risk of harm.
Goodman et al. “Allergenicity assessment of genetically modified crops—what makes
sense?” Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 26. (2008). pp. 73-81
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n1/full/nbt1343.html
“That experience provided guidance for development of the premarket allergenicity
assessment process and demonstrated that specific, appropriate tests can prevent the
transfer of a gene encoding a protein that might pose substantial risk. However,
whereas absolute protection against all potential allergic reactions to a newly
introduced protein can never be given, the allergenicity assessment of GM crops
based on scientifically sound protocols should minimize the risks. It should be noted
that some scientists and regulators have called for postmarket monitoring of GM
crops to identify the development of new allergies associated with the crop. The full
Codex guidelines1, however, outlines the need for an effective premarket evaluation
as the most effective tool to protect the public. There are technical, practical and
economic issues that would need to be addressed in designing an effective postmarket
monitoring system and are beyond the scope of this paper. Here, we focus on the
scientific validity of protocols used in the premarket evaluation of the potential
allergenicity of GM crops. In particular, we show how three tests that are commonly
called for, and which have not been validated, can block development of potentially
useful products.”
Champion Briefs
143
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Impact: ”It’s possible to strike a balance between wariness and innovation – and the innovation
of market competition will minimize risks by creating competitive incentives for safety; people
want to buy safe products.
Wilcox, Christie. “GMOs: Does Regulation Ensure Safety?” February 17, 2010.
http://nutritionwonderland.com/2010/02/gmos-does-regulation-ensure-safety/
“I’m not saying that we should all just go out and blindly trust Monsanto and the other
GM producers. We shouldn’t just shovel GMOs down our throats and presume they’re
safe and better for us. That’s what science is for – to test this kind of thing. Have the
lawmakers make stricter regulations regarding the safety evaluation of GMOs. Let
scientists study and debate GMOs until they feel like they’re beating a dead
FrankenHorse. Let it take years and years for these products to be tested, evaluated,
and released. But don’t stop them from being created. Don’t make laws that outlaw
the GMOs that are so vital to biomedical research because of fear. The reason
Monsanto has a near-monopoly is because we stifle smaller companies and
universities from competing with them, competition which is not only healthy but
necessary – and we can fix that. In the end, the global benefits of the GMOs of the
future are too great to be prevented by idealized notions of a natural world, and this is
coming from an ecologist. Progress isn’t a dirty word, no matter what you hear, and we
should be excited about the amazing possibilities that ever advancing technologies afford
us.”
Impact: There are multiple levels of oversight that prevent danger from manifesting – this card
is on fire.
Wilcox, Christie. “GMOs: Does Regulation Ensure Safety?” February 17, 2010.
http://nutritionwonderland.com/2010/02/gmos-does-regulation-ensure-safety/
“When it comes to GMOs, for example, the EPA requires that growers have a license
to grow modified crops, and requires those that do also plant 20%-50% unmodified
versions to prevent insects from developing resistance to the pesticides as well as
provide a refuge for non-target insects. The USDA has all kinds of specialized
groups that share responsibility for assessing and monitoring GM foods, including
Champion Briefs
144
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
the the Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service, which conducts field tests and
issues permits to grow GM crops, the Agricultural Research Service, which performs
the GM food research done by the USDA, and the Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service which oversees the USDA risk assessment program.
In general, these groups check whether GMOs harbor pests, act as weeds, or harm
native species that surround planted areas, including the effects of escaped GMOs.
Depending on their findings, these groups can stop the production or movement of
anything deemed unacceptable, and can even destroy anything that is in violation if
their regulations.
Analysis: The last card is essentially the thesis of the position which you are advancing – that
regulations solve dangers from GMO. The best neg response is that the regulations are
inconsistent across markets and producers, and that GMO companies produce in the least
regulated areas to reduce costs of complying with regulations. The cards about the US and EU
market have an implicit answer to that – GMO companies comply with their regulations
everywhere because it’s cheaper to do so. It’s costlier for Monsanto to make and manage two
fields – one compliant with US/EU standards, one not compliant – than to make one field which
complies with everything. Therefore, the strictest regulations tend to be the ones which govern
the international market, if the target market is large enough to warrant compliance. Since the US
and EU are huge, its cheaper for GMO companies to comply generally with their regulations.
Champion Briefs
145
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
A2 – Regulations Solve
Answer: Regulations sound good on paper but are poorly enforced and inconsistent across
varying jurisdictions both within and without countries. The regulations are also overstated both
in their thoroughness and in their safety.
Warrant: Most regulation compliance – in the US, at least – is voluntary. There is no mandatory
timeframe nor mandatory random sampling. Companies therefore have the opportunity to present
preternaturally good results to the FDA because they set the terms on which the FDA sees. The
regulations are also inconsistent, confusing, and inconsistently enforced.
Wilcox, Christie. “GMOs: Does Regulation Ensure Safety?” February 17, 2010.
http://nutritionwonderland.com/2010/02/gmos-does-regulation-ensure-safety/
“In the United States, however, GMOs are much more common. The regulation is
confusing because the EPA, USDA, and FDA all deal with different facets of GMOs.
In short, 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.
This means that the EPA is responsible for testing and regulating GMOs with pesticides
or toxins that may cause harm to the environment, like Bt corn, but not those that are
modified only nutritionally or for other reasons like disease resistance. The USDA picks
up where the EPA leaves off, including drought-tolerant or disease-tolerant crops, crops
grown for animal feeds, or any fruits, vegetables and grains for human consumption. In
general, the FDA focuses more on parts of things, not whole products. A box of
cereal containing GM corn is regulated by the FDA, but the whole ear would be
regulated by the USDA or EPA. In general, exactly what the FDA regulates with
regards to GM foods is uncertain and confusing.”
Warrant: Regulatory framework is patchwork and inconsistent – even if the affirmative wins
one regulatory framework is good, it’s implemented exactly nowhere else.
Wilcox, Christie. “GMOs: Does Regulation Ensure Safety?” February 17, 2010.
http://nutritionwonderland.com/2010/02/gmos-does-regulation-ensure-safety/
Champion Briefs
146
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
“As I alluded to, regulation of GM food is different. There is no worldwide consensus
as to how to regulate GM crops or livestock, and depending on the political, social
and economic climate within a region or country, the government oversight and
opinion varies. In Europe, for example, anti-GM activists are particularly vocal.
GM crops are today very rare in Europe. In 2003, the European Union adopted
regulations establishing an EU-wide system to trace and label GMOs and to regulate the
sale and labeling of food derived from them, although this legislation did put an end to
the ‘de facto’ moratorium on approving new GM products for the European market,
which had been in place since 1998. Regardless, these strict labeling laws and regulations
ensure that GM crops don’t hit stores easily. These include systematic genetic testing for
GMOs using DNA barcoding technology and assurance that non-GM crops do not mix
with GM ones.”
Impact: The FDA’s regulatory capacity is a bad joke; it has zero authority to demand
inspections or compliance with recommendation.
Wilcox, Christie. “GMOs: Does Regulation Ensure Safety?” February 17, 2010.
http://nutritionwonderland.com/2010/02/gmos-does-regulation-ensure-safety/
“Once the food is grown and processed somehow to be used in food, it’s the FDA’s
problem. In my opinion, it is here, at the FDA level, that the US has failed to
adequately regulate and monitor GMOs, and this failure is partly at fault for the
negative attitude towards GMOs held by many. By FDA regulations, agri-biotech
companies may voluntarily ask the FDA for a consultation, including the evaluation
of how eating the product affects people. Companies working to create new GM
foods are not required to consult the FDA, nor are they required to follow the FDA’s
recommendations after the consultation.”
Impact: There is exactly zero international consistency in framework implementation – it is
impossible to make generalized regulation claims.
Wilcox, Christie. “GMOs: Does Regulation Ensure Safety?” February 17, 2010.
http://nutritionwonderland.com/2010/02/gmos-does-regulation-ensure-safety/
Champion Briefs
147
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
“The FDA does not demand special labeling of GM foods, as the FDA contends that
GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to non-GMOs and are “generally recognized as
safe”. The FDA could do a lot better, and needs to. How can consumers trust in a
regulatory system that basically says regulation isn’t necessary? Here is where the
politicians need to step in and demand more efficient, required testing of GM foods.
Doing so might slow down the release of GM products, but it will give the public a
reason to trust that when those products are released, that they really are “substantially
equivalent.” In other countries there is even more variation in how GMOs are
regulated. Some completely ban GMOs, not even allowing them to be tested and
evaluated. Others plant them vigorously with no concerns towards their safety.
What we need is a worldwide set of regulations that ensures the quality,
environmental safety, and lack of adverse health effects of any GMO eaten by
people.”
Analysis: Inconsistent implementation takes conceptual benefits of regulatory frameworks out.
Make them prove that their particular regulatory framework is implemented “on balance” in the
world.
Champion Briefs
148
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
PRO – Scientific Consensus
Argument: Scientific consensus stands for the proposition that GMO foods are safe in every
potential context in which they may cause danger. Meta-analyses of independent studies
demonstrate that GMO foods do not negatively affect health, the environment, biodiversity, or
animal welfare. Anti-GMO activists write biased articles that should be discounted in the face of
such powerful scientific consensus. Err on the side of consensus because scientific consistency is
more reliable than potential outlier studies or random editorializing articles.
Warrant: Scientific evidence has a higher standard of proof – and better methods of peer review
– than journalistic publications. As a result, conclusions based in scientific evidence should be
given more deference than conclusions from non-scientific sources, such as think tanks, news
sources, and magazines. Further, evidence that speaks to consensus among scientists should be
given more weight than any single study because the latter might be an outlier while the former
is consistent.
Entine, Jon. “2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally
Sustainable”. October 14, 2013. Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-aresafe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/
“The claim that genetically engineered crops are ‘understudied’—the meme
represented in the quotes highlighted above—has become a staple of opponents of crop
biotechnology, especially activist journalists. Anti-GMO campaigners, including
many organic supporters, assert time and again that genetically modified crops have
not been safety tested or that the research done to date on the health or
environmental impact of GMOs has “all” been done by the companies that produce
the seeds. Therefore, they claim, consumers are taking a ‘leap of faith’ in concluding that
they face no harm from consuming foods made with genetically modified ingredients.
That is false.”
Champion Briefs
149
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Defer to the affirmative in the event of uncertainty – every major international science
body concludes that GMOs are safe.
Entine, Jon. “2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally
Sustainable”. October 14, 2013. Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-aresafe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/
“Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple
independent studies—in some cases numbering in the hundreds—in coming to the
consensus conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or
organic foods. But until now, the magnitude of the research on crop biotechnology has
never been cataloged. In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team
of Italian scientists summarized 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts
of GMO foods—a staggering number.”
Entine, Jon. “2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally
Sustainable”. October 14, 2013. Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-aresafe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/
“These 1783 studies are expected to be merged into the public database known as
GENERA (Genetic Engineering Risk Atlas) being built by Biofortified, an independent
non-profit website. Officially launched in 2012, GENERA includes peer-reviewed
journal articles from different aspects of GM research, including basic genetics,
feeding studies, environmental impact and nutritional impact. GENERA has more
than 650 studies listed so far, many of which also show up in the new database. When
merged, there should be well over 2000 GMO related studies, a sizable percentage—
as many as 1000—that have been independently executed by independent
scientists.”
Champion Briefs
150
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Literally no study in the last decade has found significant hazards to humans, the
environment, or nonhuman animals.
Entine, Jon. “2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally
Sustainable”. October 14, 2013. Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-aresafe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/
“The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM
foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so
far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of
genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded. The research review,
published in Critical Reviews in Biotechnology in September, spanned only the last
decade—from 2002 to 2012—which represents only about a third of the lifetime of
GM technology.”
Impact: The only negative examples abroad occur because of failures of regulation, not failures
of GM technology. Just because GM can be done badly – e.g. without oversight – does not mean
it has to be done badly, therefore those unregulated anecdotes do not become a reason to vote
neg.
Entine, Jon. “2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally
Sustainable”. October 14, 2013. Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-aresafe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/
“The conclusions are also striking because European governments, Italy in particular,
have not been as embracing of genetically modified crops as has North and South
America, although the consensus of European scientists has been generally positive.
The Italian review not only compiled independent research on GMOs over the last ten
years but also summarizes findings in the different categories of GM research: general
literature, environmental impact, safety of consumption and traceability. The “general
Champion Briefs
151
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
literature” category of studies largely reveals the differences between the US, EU and
other countries when it comes to regulating GM crops. Due to lack of uniform
regulatory practices and the rise of non-scientific rhetoric, Nicolia and his colleagues
report, concern about GMOs has been greatly exaggerated.”
Impact: No evidence of environmental harm at any level – crop level, farm-level or landscape
level. This evidence outweighs on scope.
Entine, Jon. “2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally
Sustainable”. October 14, 2013. Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-aresafe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/
“Environmental impact studies are predominant in the body of GM research,
making up 68% of the 1,783 studies. These studies investigated environmental
impact on the crop-level, farm-level and landscape-level. Nicolia and his team found
“little to no evidence” that GM crops have a negative environmental impact on their
surroundings.”
Impact: No DNA harms from consuming GMO foods.
Entine, Jon. “2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally
Sustainable”. October 14, 2013. Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-aresafe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/
“The researchers also address the safety of transcribed RNA from transgenic DNA.
Are scientists fiddling with the ‘natural order’ of life? In fact, humans consume between
1.1 and 1 gram of DNA per day, from both GM and non-GM ingredients. This DNA
is generally degraded by food processing, and any surviving DNA is then
subsequently degraded in the digestive system. No evidence was found that DNA
absorbed through the GI tract could be integrated into human cells—a popular
anti-GMO criticism.”
Champion Briefs
152
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
A2 – Scientific Consensus
Answer: The science cited is bad science tainted by corporate influence and pressure. It’s
functionally impossible to do independent research and the research which has been done fails to
account for the likeliest type of problems: long term, cumulative problems.
Warrant: GMO organizations use copyrights to prevent independent researchers from testing
their seeds – they only let people they have already bought use the seeds. Pro-GMO scientists
generally – and Jon Entine specifically – are corporate hacks. No studies properly examine the
safety of GMOs in the long term, which is when problems would become most visible because
the types of problem – e.g. cumulative health problem, environmental problem – take time to
appear.
Warrant: Corporations prevent independent testing by limiting scientific access and funding for
research.
Philpott, Tom. “Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe to Eat?” Food and Agriculture:
MotherJones. September 30, 2012. http://www.motherjones.com/tomphilpott/2011/09/gmos-safe-eat
“As for independent research, the industry has managed to severely limit it by using
its patent-protected seed licensing agreements to prohibit scientists from growing
GMO crops for research purposes. Moreover, government funding for such research
is scant, and industry research funding tends to flow to finding the next novel trait, not
food safety. So research on the long-term effects of eating GMOs is surprisingly thin,
especially considering that tens of millions of people are doing it every day.”
Champion Briefs
153
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Disregard all their studies unless they can demonstrate they assume long-term
concerns – regulations are scant at best, which means long term studies are even more important.
Philpott, Tom. “Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe to Eat?” Food and Agriculture:
MotherJones. September 30, 2012. http://www.motherjones.com/tomphilpott/2011/09/gmos-safe-eat
“A new backgrounder (downloadablehere) on GMO food from Food and Water Watch
shows, yet again, that studies on the long-term effects of GMOs are few and far
between. The FDA, for its part, takes a gentle approach to examining the safety of
such food. "In seeking approval, a company participates in a voluntary consultation
process with the FDA, and the agency classifies the GE substances either as 'generally
recognized as safe' (GRAS) or as a food additive," FWW reports. Since 1998, the agency
has awarded GRAS status to 95 percent of the GMOs the industry has put forth.”
Impact: Long term analysis is the only way to say GMOs are safe – absent long term studies,
defer to the negative out of precaution.
Philpott, Tom. “Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe to Eat?” Food and Agriculture:
MotherJones. September 30, 2012. http://www.motherjones.com/tomphilpott/2011/09/gmos-safe-eat
“But what about chronic effects—slow-moving, unspectacular conditions that could
take years to detect, much less to diagnose? Here we're on murkier ground. GMOs
have been on the market for less than a generation: not a large span of time for
gauging long-term effects on a population.”
Warrant: Independent research concludes negative.
Philpott, Tom. “Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe to Eat?” Food and Agriculture:
MotherJones. September 30, 2012. http://www.motherjones.com/tomphilpott/2011/09/gmos-safe-eat
Champion Briefs
154
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
“But here's the kicker: scientists who do manage to conduct independent research
have tended to find disturbing results, FWW shows: A 2009 International Journal of
Biological Sciences study found that rats that consumed GE corn for 90 days
developed a deterioration of liver and kidney functioning. Another study found
irregularities in the livers of rats, suggesting higher metabolic rates resulting from a
GE diet. And a 2007 study found significant liver and kidney impairment of rats that
were fed insect-resistant Bt corn, concluding that, “with the present data it cannot be
concluded that GE corn MON863 is a safe product.” Research on mouse embryos
showed that mice that were fed GE soybeans had impaired embryonic development.
Even GE livestock feed may have some impact on consumers of animal products:
Italian researchers found biotech genes in the milk from dairy cows that were fed a
GE diet, suggesting the ability of transgenes to survive pasteurization. [Note: there
are footnotes to each study mentioned in the FWW report.]”
Impact: Entine Indicts - your author is a corporate hack with a documented history of lying.
Office of Medical and Scientific Justice. “Jon Entine” Last Updated 2014. OMSC Public
Service. http://www.propagandists.org/propagandists/jon-entine/#Cover
“Jon Entine is a media-savvy corporate propagandist and pseudo-journalist who
fronts the opinions and positions of chemical corporations by pretending to be an
independent journalist. He has ties to biotech companies Monsanto and Syngenta
while playing a key role in another industry front group known as the American
Council on Science and Health, a thinly-veiled corporate front group that Sourcewatch
describes as holding “a generally apologetic stance regarding virtually every other health
and environmental hazard produced by modern industry, accepting corporate funding
from Coca-Cola, Kellogg, General Mills, Pepsico, and the American Beverage
Association, among others.” (Sourcewatch.org) Entine knowingly and repeatedly
publishes false and fictitious information in mainstream publications including
Forbes.com, and his posts are often retracted after being challenged on their lack of
factual basis. His actions against targeted individuals or companies are systematically
abusive and resemble “revenge journalism.” Entine takes a “hit man” approach to single
Champion Briefs
155
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
out individuals – especially critics of GMOs – for accusations and abuse, often calling
them names or implying they are sociopaths or a danger to society.”
Analysis: There is no scientific consensus and the research which the affirmative uses to suggest
consensus is tainted by corporate influence. Their evidence is not objective in the same way pure
science is objective because the scientists’ methods are pre-selected to get certain results. That’s
especially true where there is a demonstrated bias, as is the case with Entine.
Champion Briefs
156
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
PRO – No Immune Reaction
Argument: Negative arguments about allergic reaction are unfounded because producers
account for the risks, have market incentives to avoid allergies, and have not otherwise been
demonstrated as harmful.
Warrant: Companies cannot sell to dead consumers. Companies therefore have an interest in
consumer health which they balance against profit margins. This balance is expressed through
research funding into preventing allergy from occurring – they literally test the products in a
harmless way using skin-prick tests before actually selling them.
Goodman et al. “Allergenicity assessment of genetically modified crops—what makes
sense?” Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 26. (2008). pp. 73-81
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n1/full/nbt1343.html
“The producers of GM crops and regulatory authorities focus on preventing
avoidable increases in the risk of allergy in producing and accepting new GM crops.
It should, however, be recognized that absolute avoidance of all risk is not achievable.
Thus the assessment that has been developed focuses on avoiding risks that are
predictable and likely to cause common allergic reactions.”
Warrant: Some level of allergy in society to food is both inevitable (think shrimp or peanuts)
and acceptable (no one is demanding shrimp bans). Food labels check any residual impact.
Goodman et al. “Allergenicity assessment of genetically modified crops—what makes
sense?” Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 26. (2008). pp. 73-81
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n1/full/nbt1343.html
“Known potent allergenic foods like peanut or shrimp are not banned from the
market, even though 1% of the population might develop allergic reactions upon
exposure. In addition, market introductions in the recent past of novel foods like kiwi
have resulted in the development of new allergies. Yet kiwi has not been removed
from the market. Some of the major allergenic foods like fruits, nuts and fish are
considered essential components of a healthy diet, and nobody would endeavor to
Champion Briefs
157
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
deprive 99% of the population of these foods because 1% is at risk of developing
food allergy. Instead, food labeling is used to help the allergic consumer avoid
exposure to foods that cause their reactions. Similar arguments could be made for
new crops developed either by conventional breeding or by genetic modification to,
for example, help combat malnutrition in developing countries.”
Warrant: Not a single study showing that GMOs which have gone through regulatory screening
cause allergy – high allergy inducing products do not sell well so companies abandon them and
focus on healthy ones.
Goodman et al. “Allergenicity assessment of genetically modified crops—what makes
sense?” Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 26. (2008). pp. 73-81
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n1/full/nbt1343.html
“Furthermore, to date there is no documented proof that any approved, commercially
grown GM crop has caused allergic reactions owing to a transgenically introduced
allergenic protein, or that generation of a GM crop has caused a biologically
significant increase in endogenous allergenicity of a crop3. However, the potential for
the transfer of an allergen was illustrated in the 1996 case of transgenic soybeans into
which the gene for a 2S albumin from the Brazil nut had been transferred to enhance the
methionine content of animal feed. Although the protein had not previously been
recognized as an allergen, a study sponsored by the developer of the crop, Pioneer
Hi-Bred International (Johnston, IA, USA) during product development demonstrated
IgE-binding with sera from Brazil nut–allergic subjects and positive skin prick tests to
the transferred protein4. This protein is now known as the major allergen of the
Brazil nut, Ber e 1. Despite being developed for animal feed only, the product was
abandoned because of the obvious risk.”
Warrant: The most popular study suggesting an increase in allergen level has been substantially
misreported – do not evaluate articles on the report, make the other team provide the original.
Nature Biotechnology. “Genetically Modified Mush”. Vol 24, Iss. 2. (2006). No specific
author or institution listed.
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v24/n1/full/nbt0106-2.html
Champion Briefs
158
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
“It is not often that field peas capture national headlines. But that is exactly what
occurred late in November when researchers at Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) published a paper describing changes in the
structure and immunogenicity of a common bean protein after transgenic expression in
peas. Contrary to media reports, the paper did not provide definitive evidence that
the transgenic protein was allergenic in humans. Nor were the changes in protein
structure particularly shocking or surprising. What was shocking, however, was the
political fallout following the study's announcement.”
Impact: The study made limited conclusions about rats that cannot be applied to humans – even
the study concedes it does not apply its findings to humans, or argue that the rats are comparable
to humans.
Nature Biotechnology. “Genetically Modified Mush”. Vol 24, Iss. 2. (2006). No specific
author or institution listed.
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v24/n1/full/nbt0106-2.html
“That is about as much as can be said. Although Th2 responses are commonly
associated with allergic responses, the failure to measure antigen-specific IgE (the
immunoglobulin indicative of allergy) precludes a definitive conclusion. We do not
know whether immunogenicity equates to allergenicity. We do not know whether
BALB/c mice immune responses are analogous to allergic responses in humans. And
we do not know whether the concentration of amylase inhibitor in peas (4% of total
protein) was similar to that in beans. This last point is important as the abundance
of a protein can strongly influence its allergenicity.”
Analysis: This evidence is largely a block to negative arguments. The depth of this topic
suggests a strong need to have responsive evidence on both sides of the argument. Use the study
specific indicts where possible because judges appreciate specificity.
Champion Briefs
159
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
A2 – No Immune Reaction
Answer: GMOs provoke immune reactions in people which are unpredictable – we do not know
what allergens to test for because we have never consumed these proteins before, and never seen
their holistic interactions with the plants. Taken in conjunction with other health risks from
GMOs, the immune risk is sufficient to vote neg.
Warrant: People may develop allergies even if they are not born with them. The various
allergenic transmission
University of Minnesota. “Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)”. School of Public
Health. Fall 2003. http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html
“All genetically modified foods that have been approved are considered by the
government to be as safe as their traditional counterparts and are generally unregulated
(FDA website). However, there are several types of potential health effects that could
result from the insertion of a novel gene into an organism. Health effects of primary
concern to safety assessors are production of new allergens, increased toxicity,
decreased nutrition, and antibiotic resistance (Bernstein et al., 2003).”
Warrant: Developing evidence of danger and allergy has so strong that that it has ended entire
lines of research at biotech companies developing GM food.
University of Minnesota. “Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)”. School of Public
Health. Fall 2003. http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html
“Food Allergy
Food Allergy affects approximately 5% of children and 2% of adults in the U.S. and is a
significant public health threat (Bakshi, 2003). Allergic reactions in humans occur
when a normally harmless protein enters the body and stimulates an immune
response (Bernstein et al., 2003). If the novel protein in a GM food comes from a
source that is know to cause allergies in humans or a source that has never been
consumed as human food, the concern that the protein could elicit an immune
Champion Briefs
160
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
response in humans increases. Although no allergic reactions to GM food by consumers
have been confirmed, in vitro evidence suggesting that some GM products could
cause an allergic reaction has motivated biotechnology companies to discontinue
their development (Bakshi, 2003).”
Warrant: Even when the GMOs don’t produce allergies, they produce toxins that have even
worse effects.
University of Minnesota. “Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)”. School of Public
Health. Fall 2003. http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html
“Increased Toxicity
Most plants produce substances that are toxic to humans. Most of the plants that
humans consume produce toxins at levels low enough that they do not produce any
adverse health effects. There is concern that inserting an exotic gene into a plant
could cause it to produce toxins at higher levels that could be dangerous to humans.
This could happen through the process of inserting the gene into the plant. If other
genes in the plant become damaged during the insertion process it could cause the
plant to alter its production of toxins. Alternatively, the new gene could interfere
with a metabolic pathway causing a stressed plant to produce more toxins in
response. Although these effects have not been observed in GM plants, they have been
observed through conventional breeding methods creating a safety concern for GM
plants. For example, potatoes conventionally bred for increased diseased resistance
have produced higher levels of glycoalkaloids (GEO-PIE website).”
Impact: Food becomes less nutritionally valuable, requiring consumers to eat more food to get
the same nutrition – magnifying their total exposure to GMO and these impacts.
University of Minnesota. “Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)”. School of Public
Health. Fall 2003. http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html
Champion Briefs
161
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
“Decreased Nutritional Value
A genetically modified plant could theoretically have lower nutritional quality than
its traditional counterpart by making nutrients unavailable or indigestible to
humans. For example, phytate is a compound common in seeds and grains that binds
with minerals and makes them unavailable to humans. An inserted gene could cause
a plant to produce higher levels of phytate decreasing the mineral nutritional value
of the plant (GEO-PIE). Another example comes from a study showing that a strain
of genetically modified soybean produced lower levels of phytoestrogen compounds,
believed to protect against heart disease and cancer, than traditional soybeans
(Bakshi, 2003).
University of Minnesota. “Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)”. School of Public
Health. Fall 2003. http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html
“Antibiotic resistance
In recent years health professionals have become alarmed by the increasing number
of bacterial strains that are showing resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria develop
resistance to antibiotics by creating antibiotic resistance genes through natural mutation.
Biotechnologists use antibiotic resistance genes as selectable markers when inserting
new genes into plants. In the early stages of the process scientists do not know if the
target plant will incorporate the new gene into its genome. By attaching the desired
gene to an antibiotic resistance gene the new GM plant can be tested by growing it
in a solution containing the corresponding antibiotic. If the plant survives scientists
know that it has taken up the antibiotic resistance gene along with the desired gene.
There is concern that bacteria living in the guts of humans and animals could pick
up an antibiotic resistance gene from a GM plant before the DNA becomes
completely digested (GEO-PIE website). It is not clear what sort of risk the possibility
of conferring antibiotic resistance to bacteria presents. No one has ever observed bacteria
incorporating new DNA from the digestive system under controlled laboratory
conditions. The two types of antibiotic resistance genes used by biotechnologists are ones
that already exist in bacteria in nature so the process would not introduce new antibiotic
resistance to bacteria. Never the less it is a concern and the FDA is encouraging
Champion Briefs
162
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
biotechnologists to phase out the practice of using antibiotic resistance genes (GEO-PIE
website)
Analysis: This argument works well with the precautionary principle argument because the
affirmative’s answers to this feed the argument from precaution. The best aff answer to this
argument is “there’s insufficient proof of an allergenic risk” – which means they agree that
contentions which have proof should not be weighed. Then you can read “insufficient proof of
the aff” arguments.
Champion Briefs
163
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
PRO – Customer Willingness
Argument: Consumers will not object to the consumption of GMO products – current studies
are flawed for various reasons and do not account for the relationship between lower cost and
willingness to buy GMOs.
Warrant: Current surveys situate the consumer as “society” when answering questions rather
than as individuals, and therefore do not reflect actual willingness-to-pay. Additionally, those
surveys do not account for increased willingness as a result to buy GMOs because of cost
decreases.
Noussair, Charles. “Do Consumers Really Refuse to Buy Genetically Modified Food?”
The Royal Economic Journal. The Economic Journal. Vol. 114. No. 492. (Jan.
2004). pp. 102-120. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3590036
“We elicit willingness-to-pay information for similar food products that differ only
in their content of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Participants in the
experiment are a demographically representative sample of French consumers. 35% of
participants are unwilling to purchase products made with GMOs, 23% are
indifferent or value the presence of GMOs, and 42% are willing to purchase them if
they are sufficiently inexpensive. The results contrast with surveys that indicate
overwhelming opposition to GM foods. There is a surplus to be gained from the
segregation of the market for food products into a GMO-free segment and a segment
allowing GMOs.”
Warrant: There are several independent reasons to disregard studies suggesting broad
opposition to GMOs.
Noussair, Charles. “Do Consumers Really Refuse to Buy Genetically Modified Food?”
The Royal Economic Journal. The Economic Journal. Vol. 114. No. 492. (Jan.
2004). pp. 102-120. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3590036
“However, there is reason to question whether the anti-GMO sentiment expressed in
surveys would be reflected in actual purchase behaviour. It is known that individuals'
Champion Briefs
164
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
decisions can differ drastically between when they are hypothetical, as in a contingent
valuation study or other survey, and when they involve a real commitment to
purchase; see for example Neill et al. (1994); Cummings et al. (1995); Brookshire and
Coursey (1987); List and Shogren (1998); or List and Gallet (2001). Furthermore, most
surveys do not inquire about actual purchase decisions at specific prices and, as
Ajzen et al. (1996) note, subtle contextual cues or small changes in information
provided to survey respondents may change results dramatically.”
Warrant: Surveys for public goods are particularly untrustworthy.
Noussair, Charles. “Do Consumers Really Refuse to Buy Genetically Modified Food?”
The Royal Economic Journal. The Economic Journal. Vol. 114. No. 492. (Jan.
2004). pp. 102-120. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3590036
“More specific criticisms apply to surveys about preferences over public goods, such as the
preservation of GMO-free crops. Sagoff (1988), Blamey et al. (1995) and Nyborg (2000) argue
that survey and hypothetical contingent valuation measurement techniques for public goods
do not reveal participants' willingness-to-pay. Surveys place respondents in the role of
citizens, who make judgments from society's point of view, rather than consumers, who
make actual purchase decisions. Thus the two instruments, surveys and purchase decisions,
measure different variables. In addition, even if provision or preservation of a public good is
valuable to an individual, it may not be reflected in his willingness- to-pay because of the
free rider problem (Stevens et al, 1991; Krutilla, 1967).”
Impact: There is not nearly enough data to demonstrate opposition to GMO – don’t presume
favor or disfavor.
Noussair, Charles. “Do Consumers Really Refuse to Buy Genetically Modified Food?”
The Royal Economic Journal. The Economic Journal. Vol. 114. No. 492. (Jan.
2004). pp. 102-120. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3590036
“We use an experimental approach because of the absence of field data. The current
policy of most major European retailers not to carry GM foods, which has resulted
Champion Briefs
165
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
from pressure of activists and the media, means that it is very difficult to estimate
product demand for foods containing GMOs using field data from European
countries. For the few GM products that are available, there is experimental evidence
that consumers are unaware of the labelling of GM content; see Noussair et al.
(2002). Furthermore, in the US, where the vast majority of GM food is sold, demand
for GMOs cannot be inferred from market data since GM content is not indicated
on the labelling. We are unaware of any previous estimates of consumer demand for the
GMO-free characteristic in food products.”
Impact: Even if there is low consumer acceptance now, producers have incentive to drive
consumers to use GMOs.
Noussair, Charles. “Do Consumers Really Refuse to Buy Genetically Modified Food?”
The Royal Economic Journal. The Economic Journal. Vol. 114. No. 492. (Jan.
2004). pp. 102-120. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3590036
“On the other hand, if the production tracks are not segregated or labelling of GMO
content is interdicted, as it is in the US, a 'lemons' scenario may result (Akerlof, 1970).
The GMOs currently on the market were introduced for agronomic reasons and the
foods containing them are indistinguishable from conventional foods to the
consumer in the absence of labelling information. Since GMOs lower production
costs, producers have an incentive to insert them into the food supply. If consumers
value foods containing GMOs less than foods that do not contain GMOs, they will
be unwilling to pay more for an unlabelled product than an amount that reflects the
presence of GMOs. This would cause the market for non-GMO varieties to
disappear, reducing social welfare by eliminating potential gains from trade.
Furthermore, it could potentially cause a market collapse for entire products. If a firm
cannot disclose that its product uses no ingredients that contain GMOs, it might replace
ingredients that consumers believe may contain GMOs with those that cannot contain
GMOs. This could eliminate the entire market for many products, such as soy lecithin,
corn syrup, and corn starch.”
Impact: GMO producers are waging PR campaigns to solve negative sentiment.
Champion Briefs
166
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Wendel, JoAnna. “GMOs and the “reverse halo effect”: Trust is key to dispelling
consumer fear”. Genetic Literacy Project. August 21, 2013.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/21/reversing-the-reverse-haloeffect-information-and-trust-are-key-to-dispelling-consumer-fears-ofgmos/#.UlBUOyRJNOE
“In an effort to combat this unfamiliarity and gain the trust of consumers, several
well-known corporations, including Monsanto and Syngenta, recently launched GMO
Answers, a site aiming to “do a better job answering your questions – no matter
what they are – about GMOs.” Their stated goal: to start an open dialogue and
provide science and fact-based information to the general public.”
Analysis: This evidence can be used for evidence comparison and study indicts, and should be
where the neg’s argument relies on public interest in or opposition to GMOs. The essence of the
argument is that the studies they use do not measure personal willingness to buy food because
the hypothetical questions asked do not actually track with how people react when faced with a
concrete choice. Use this evidence as defense and turns against popularity arguments.
Champion Briefs
167
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
A2 – Consumer Willingness
Answer: Consumers fear the “unnatural” nature of GMOs at a primal psychological level and
will not purchase them. The “unnatural” nature of GMOs overshadows their other benefits and
prevents those benefits from becoming salient to consumers.
Warrant: Consumers are susceptible to the psychological “halo effect” (defined below) and
have a broad, innate, and reflexive fear of genetic modification as well as its potential unforeseen
harms.
Warrant: This card defines and explains the halo effect.
Wendel, JoAnna. “GMOs and the “reverse halo effect”: Trust is key to dispelling
consumer fear”. Genetic Literacy Project. August 21, 2013.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/21/reversing-the-reverse-haloeffect-information-and-trust-are-key-to-dispelling-consumer-fears-ofgmos/#.UlBUOyRJNOE
“Konnikova describes a psychological phenomenon called the “halo effect,”
“whereby one positive attribute of a person or thing colors other, unrelated
characteristics in a positive light.” In the grocery store, there is always that special aisle
labeled ‘organic.’ But what’s so special about this label? Konnikova, citing a 2013
study from Cornell University, explains that a cookie labeled ‘organic’ will be
perceived as healthier, safer and worth a higher price tag than a cookie lacking the
label – even if the two cookies are identical.”
Warrant: GMOs create a “reverse halo effect” that colors consumer perception negatively.
Wendel, JoAnna. “GMOs and the “reverse halo effect”: Trust is key to dispelling
consumer fear”. Genetic Literacy Project. August 21, 2013.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/21/reversing-the-reverse-halo-
Champion Briefs
168
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
effect-information-and-trust-are-key-to-dispelling-consumer-fears-ofgmos/#.UlBUOyRJNOE
“The halo effect can be seen in the GMO labeling fight, only in the case of GMOs, it
is reversed. Konnikova explains that consumers experience a “reverse halo effect”
when perceiving GMOs – once something is labeled ‘genetically modified,’ it will be
perceived as unnatural, which has a history of being synonymous with ‘bad.’
Humankind has been genetically modifying organisms for centuries with selective
breeding, so the fact that this modern technology does it at a lab bench colors the
whole process in an unfamiliar, and therefore more terrifying, light.”
Impact: Three factors guarantee low to no acceptance for GMOs.
Wendel, JoAnna. “GMOs and the “reverse halo effect”: Trust is key to dispelling
consumer fear”. Genetic Literacy Project. August 21, 2013.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/21/reversing-the-reverse-haloeffect-information-and-trust-are-key-to-dispelling-consumer-fears-ofgmos/#.UlBUOyRJNOE italics in original.
“This unfamiliarity, Konnikova explains, is what makes GMOs so scary to the
general population. She cites Paul Slovic, a psychologist who has been researching risk
since the 1950s: Slovic argues that three things stand in the way of a logical, analytical
risk assessment of new technologies: our level of dread, our degree of familiarity (or
lack thereof), and the number of people we believe the technology will affect. GMOs
are at the extreme of that scale, high in dread and possible impact, while being low
in familiarity: though an estimated eighty percent of packaged food in the U.S. contains
GMOs, only thirty-five per cent of the population thinks GMOs are safe, according
to one recent estimate, and only a quarter say they understand what genetic
engineering of food actually entails.”
Champion Briefs
169
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
Impact: Information disparity and corporate control scare consumers off – they will not use
GMOs without substantially more information.
Wendel, JoAnna. “GMOs and the “reverse halo effect”: Trust is key to dispelling
consumer fear”. Genetic Literacy Project. August 21, 2013.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/21/reversing-the-reverse-haloeffect-information-and-trust-are-key-to-dispelling-consumer-fears-ofgmos/#.UlBUOyRJNOE
“Consumer fear of GMOs seems to originate from a lack of knowledge about GMOs
themselves. As the recently anti-GMO activist turned GMO advocate Mark Lynas has
said, “the controversy over GMOs represents one of the greatest science communications
failures of the past half-century.” Those entities perceived to be ‘in control’–in this
case, multinational corporations such as Monsanto or Syngenta that control a large
part of the GMO seed market–are also not inciting a feeling of trust that is
necessary for consumers to accept an unfamiliar technology like GMOs. As
Konnikova writes, “In addition to perceptions of risk, one of the single greatest
elements that effects [sic] our acceptance of new technologies is trust.” At the
moment, very few people really know what GMOs are, what the process of
genetically modifying an organism entails, or how GMOs really differ from nonGMOs.”
Impact: GMO perception is overdetermined by the fact of genetic alteration – higher perception
as modified creates a statistically significant drop in consumption willingness.
Konnikova, Maria. “The Psychology of Distrusting G.M.O.s”. The New Yorker. August
8, 2013. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-psychology-of-distrustingg-m-o-s
“G.M.O.s, in contrast, suffer from a reverse halo effect, whereby one negativeseeming attribute (unnaturalness, in this case) skews over-all perception. In a 2005
study conducted at Maastricht University, in the Netherlands, researchers found that the
more unnatural a genetically modified product seemed, the less likely it would be to
gain acceptance. A hundred and forty-four University of Maastricht undergraduates
Champion Briefs
170
Pro Arguments with Con Responses
November 2014
were asked to visualize seven products, including butter, tomatoes, and fish fingers, and
rate them on naturalness, health, and necessity. They were then asked to imagine
genetically modified versions of the same products and respond to three questions: how
morally justified it was to eat the food, how much they trusted it, and how natural they
perceived it to be. As expected, the scientists found that the less natural a food
product seemed, the less likely the participants were to trust or eat it. There was,
however, an interesting caveat: if an original, non-modified product was made to seem
less natural or more processed to begin with, people became far more likely to trust and
accept the genetically modified equivalent.”
Analysis: These arguments can be used as an impact shield against GMO good arguments –
because if people won’t use GMOs, then none of their benefits occur. If countries won’t import
them – or consumers won’t buy them – it doesn’t matter what benefits may hypothetically result
from the use of GMOs.
Champion Briefs
171
Chatnpion Briefs
November 2014
Public Forum Brief
Con Argutnents
with Pro Responses
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
CON – GMOs Hurt Farmers
Argument: The emerging barriers to access to and use of genetic resources due to large
companies obtaining patents impinge on the livelihoods of farmers.
Warrant: Major patent companies sue farmers regularly, even those who do not grow their
seeds.
Parker, Chris. “How Monsanto Is Terrifying the Farming World.” Miani New Times,
July 25 2013. Web. Oct 7 2014. <http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2013-0725/restaurants/monsanto-gm-crops/>
“Winds pushed pollen from GM canola into Schmeiser's fields, and the plants crosspollinated. The breed he had been cultivating for 50 years was now contaminated by
Monsanto's GM canola. Did Monsanto apologize? No. It sued Schmeiser for patent
infringement — first charging the farmer per acre of contamination, then slapping
him with another suit for $1 million and attempting to seize his land and farming
equipment. After a seven-year battle, the Canadian Supreme Court eventually ruled
against him but let him keep his farm and his $1 million. He was one of the lucky ones.
Schmeiser's case illustrates how Monsanto is dominating — and terrifying — the
agricultural world with secretive technologies, strong-arm tactics, and government
approval. According to the Center for Food Safety, Monsanto has filed at least 142
similar lawsuits against farmers for alleged infringement of its patents or abuse of
its technology agreement. The company has won 72 judgments totaling almost $24
million.”
Warrant: Large companies use patents to garner monopolies, which they then use to increase
the price of their seeds.
Champion Briefs
173
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
“Rapid Rise in Seed Prices Draws U.S. Scrutiny.” New York Times, March 11 2010.
Web. Oct 8 2014.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/business/12seed.html?pagewanted=all>
“Critics charge that Monsanto has used license agreements with smaller seed
companies to gain an unfair advantage over competitors and to block cheaper
generic versions of its seeds from eventually entering the market. DuPont, a rival
company, also claims Monsanto has unfairly barred it from combining biotech traits in a
way that would benefit farmers.”
“Rapid Rise in Seed Prices Draws U.S. Scrutiny.” New York Times, March 11 2010.
Web. Oct 8 2014.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/business/12seed.html?pagewanted=all>
“Yet in a seed market that Monsanto dominates, the jump in prices has been nothing short
of stunning. Including the sharp increases last year, Agriculture Department figures show
that corn seed prices have risen 135 percent since 2001. Soybean prices went up 108
percent over that period. By contrast, the Consumer Price Index rose only 20
percent in that period.”
Warrant: Genetically modified crops can enable new regions to grow crops, thus removing the
livelihoods of farmers in developing countries.
“Should we grow GM crops?” Public Broadcasting Service, 2001. Web. Oct 7 2014.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/yes2.html
“Even if farmers in developing countries don't grow GM crops, they could still be
hurt by them. If GM technology enables the industrial North to raise crops it
traditionally imported from the developing South, it could take a heavy toll on
Southern farmers. In 1996, the Canada-based non-governmental organization Rural
Champion Briefs
174
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) called attention to a newly issued patent
for quinoa, a high-protein grain traditionally grown in the Andes. The patent was
awarded to researchers at Colorado State University, who were trying to improve yields
of the crop. As RAFI pointed out, if U.S. farmers started growing quinoa, Bolivian
farmers who supply the quinoa for that country's $1 million export market would
take a severe blow.”
Warrant: These high costs ensure that GMOs are not the solution for the developing world.
Belay, Million. “GM crops won't help African farmers.” The Guardian, June 24 2013.
<http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/povertymatters/2013/jun/24/gm-crops-african-farmers>
“But GM crops pose an even greater threat to Africa's greatest wealth. GM companies
make it illegal to save seed. We have seen that farmers in North America whose crop
was cross-pollinated by GM pollen have been sued by the GM company. About 80% of
African small-scale farmers save their seed. How are they supposed to protect the
varieties they have developed, crossed and shared over generations from GM
contamination? This will be a disaster for them.”
Analysis: Using this or any argument with some tie to GMO companies being solely profitdriven and harming small farmers will not only be helpful in terms of offense, but it can be
cross-applied well to most Pro arguments. Almost anything the Pro runs will be at some level
theoretical, as global food crises have not been solved yet. Leveraging the idea that the
companies that create the GM food they claim will solve world hunger is key to casting doubt in
your judges’ mind. That has not been the intention of these companies thus far, and there is no
evidence to show that it will change. However, it is important to note that this argument does not
hinge on Monsanto being evil. Rather than framing companies as villainous, debaters will be
more persuasive and resolutional if they say genetically modified foods cannot be and are not
being manufactured in a way that is conducive to small or poor farmers.
Champion Briefs
175
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
A2 – GMOs Hurt Farmers
Response: The first, face value response to this argument relates to its topicality. Pro debaters
always argue that it is one bad company, rather than genetically modified food itself, that is the
problem.
Warrant: Even if genetically modified foods are sold or implemented in a way that is harmful to
farmers, that does not inherently mean that genetically modified food is bad. For example, some
clothing stores employ child labor to create low quality, overpriced clothes. This does not mean
that all clothing is inherently bad, just that it can be manufactured and sold in a way that is
harmful.
Analysis: This should be the first of many responses. Debaters should rarely make a topicality
response and then move on to the next contention. Instead, after making this argument in rebuttal
(and ideally preempting it in first crossfire), debaters should say that even if the judge for some
reason still believes this argument matters in the debate round, their opponents are not winning
it.
Response: Overall, farmers are still seeing an economic and agricultural benefit.
Warrant: Farmers in India and China using Monsanto’s crops are seeing more than twice as
much crop yield, among other tangible benefits.
Bhagirath Choudhary. “Bt Cotton in India: A Country Profile.” ISAAA Series of Biotech
Profiles, July 2010. Web. Oct 8 2014.
<http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_crop_profiles/bt_cotton_in_i
ndia-a_country_profile/download/Bt_Cotton_in_India-A_Country_Profile.pdf>
“The deployment of Bt cotton over the last eight years has resulted in India becoming the
number one exporter of cotton globally as well as the second largest cotton producer in the
world. Equally important, India is now poised
Champion Briefs
176
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
to benefit from the continued productivity gains that biotech cotton hybrids and
varieties offer for the short, medium, and long term future. In summary, Bt cotton has
literally revolutionized cotton production in India. In the short span of seven years,
2002 to 2008, Bt cotton has generated economic benefits for farmers valued at
US$5.1 billion, halved insecticide requirements, contributed to the doubling of yield
and transformed India from a cotton importer to a major exporter. Socio-economic
surveys confirm that Bt cotton continues to deliver significant and multiple
agronomic, economic, environmental and welfare benefits to farmers and society
(James, 2009).“
Warrant: Similar success has been seen for small farmers in Burkina Faso, who adopted the
crops at skyrocketing rates and found major benefits.
James, Clive. “Global status of Commercialized biotech/GM Crops: 2009” International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.
<http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/41/download/isaaa-brief-412009.pdf>
“In 2009, approximately 115,000 hectares of Bt cotton were planted for
commercialization in Burkina Faso. Compared with 2008, when 8,500 hectares were
planted, this was an unprecedented year-to-year increase of approximately 14-fold
(1,353% increase), to 115,000 hectares, the fastest increase in hectarage of any biotech
crop in any country in 2009. Thus, the adoption rate in Burkina Faso has increased from
2% of 475,000 hectares in 2008 to a substantial 29% of 400,000 hectares in 2009.
Enough bt cotton seed was produced in Burkina Faso in 2009 to plant around 380,000
hectares in 2010. It is estimated that Bt cotton can generate an economic benefit of
over us$100 million per year for Burkina Faso, based on yield increases of close to
30%, plus at least a 50% reduction in insecticides sprays, from a total of 8 sprays
required for conventional cotton, to only 2 to 4 sprays for Bt cotton.”
Champion Briefs
177
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Analysis: While the Con team may bring up anecdotal or vague evidence about harms to farmers
by companies, Pro teams should emphasize harder facts about how farmers have empirically
benefitted. Even if some farmers were sued or others were displeased with their seeds, millions
of farmers across the globe saw clear benefits in terms of productivity, something that should be
able to outweigh anecdotal Con evidence.
Champion Briefs
178
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
CON – Loss of Biodiversity
Argument: Genetically modified foods cause the rapid erosion of plant varieties from farmers’
fields all over the world, varieties that have been developed over hundreds and thousands of
years and are now forever extinct.
Warrant: Genetic diversity has been decreasing significantly in recent years as farmers choose
only the highest yielding species of crops.
“What is Happening to Biodiversity?” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. Web. Oct 7 2014.
<http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5609e/y5609e02.htm>
“Since the 1900s, some 75 percent of plant genetic diversity has been lost as farmers
worldwide have left their multiple local varieties and landraces for genetically
uniform, high-yielding varieties. 30 percent of livestock breeds are at risk of extinction;
six breeds are lost each month. Today, 75 percent of the world’s food is generated
from only 12 plants and five animal species. Of the 4 percent of the 250 000 to 300 000
known edible plant species, only 150 to 200 are used by humans. Only three - rice, maize
and wheat - contribute nearly 60 percent of calories and proteins obtained by humans
from plants.”
Warrant: The pesticide resistant genetically modified crops discourage the use of pest
management methods that benefit biodiversity.
Garcia, Maria Alice. “Transgenic Crops: Implications for Biodiversity and Sustainable
Agriculture.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 25, No. 4, August
2005.
<http://agroeco.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/garcia-altieri.pdf>
“GM crops available so far encourage agricultural intensification, and as long as the
use of these crops follows closely the high-input, pesticide paradigm, such
Champion Briefs
179
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
biotechnological products will reinforce the “pesticide treadmill” usually associated
with genetic uniformity and reduction of biodiversity in agro- ecosystems. To the
extent that transgenic crops further entrench the current clean crop monoculture
system, they discourage farmers from using other ecologically based pest
management methods (Altieri, 1996), including simple ecological approaches like biodiversity islands, field margins, and corridors. Monocultures also limit the extent to
which farm lands— which cover large areas of the world (e.g., 70% on the United
Kingdom; Hails, 2003)—can contribute to conservation of wildlife.”
Warrant: The GMO-induced decrease in genetic diversity has harmful economic impacts.
Garcia, Maria Alice. “Transgenic Crops: Implications for Biodiversity and Sustainable
Agriculture.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 25, No. 4, August
2005.
<http://agroeco.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/garcia-altieri.pdf>
“Since the onset of agricultural modernization, farmers and researchers have been
faced with an ecological dilemma arising from the homogenization of agricultural
systems: an increased vulnerability of crops to unpredictable arthropod pests and
diseases, which can be devastating when infesting genetically uniform, large-scale
monocultures (R. A. Robinson, 1996). Examples of disease epidemics associated with
homo- geneous crops abound in the literature, including the $1 billion disease-induced
loss of maize in the United States in 1970 and the 18 million citrus trees destroyed by
pathogens in Florida in 1984 (Thrupp, 1998).”
Warrant: Herbicides also decrease biodiversity by completely removing all types of weeds.
Garcia, Maria Alice. “Transgenic Crops: Implications for Biodiversity and Sustainable
Agriculture.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 25, No. 4, August
2005.
<http://agroeco.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/garcia-altieri.pdf>
Champion Briefs
180
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
“Accordingly, perhaps the greatest problem associated with the use of HT crops is
the fact that associated broad-spectrum herbicides offer scope to completely remove
weeds from fields, reducing plant diversity in agroecosystems. This contrasts with
herbicidal weed management approaches in conventional crops where selective herbicide
use may leave some weed taxa present. Many studies have produced evidence that the
manipulation of a specific weed species or a particular weed control practice can
affect the ecology of insect pests and associated natural enemies (Altieri &
Letourneau, 1982). Even though HT crop/herbicide package could potentially allow more
rational weed management with potential benefits for arthropod pest management, the
goal of achieving season-long total weed control in all crops reinforces the loss of
diversity and biological services in conventional farms. By reviewing weed phenologies
and population models, Freckleton et al (2004) showed that weed diversity is unlikely
to increase in HT fields because spraying is generally delayed to the point that most
weeds do not set seeds. These authors suggested that the positive effects on
biodiversity observed in some trials are likely to be transient, and therefore, one
cannot expect that beneficial arthropods and birds using resources from weeds will
benefit from the use of herbicide-tolerant crops.”
Warrant: This is empirically proven, herbicide tolerant crops can entirely eradicate weed
populations that birds depend on.
Watkinson, A.R [University of East Anglia]. “Predictions of Biodiversity Response to
Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant Crops.” Science, Sept 1 2000. Web. Oct
7 2014. <http://www.sciencemag.org/content/289/5484/1554.full>
“We simulated the effects of the introduction of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant
(GMHT) crops on weed populations and the consequences for seed-eating birds. We
predict that weed populations might be reduced to low levels or practically
eradicated, depending on the exact form of management. Consequent effects on the
Champion Briefs
181
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
local use of fields by birds might be severe, because such reductions represent a
major loss of food resources. The regional impacts of GMHT crops are shown to
depend on whether the adoption of GMHT crops by farmers covaries with current weed
levels.”
Warrant: Bird populations have decreased along with the increased genetic concentration of
agriculture.
Krebs, John. “The Second Silent Spring?” Nature, Aug 12 1999. Web. Oct 7 2014.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v400/n6745/full/400611a0.html
“In the past 20 years, ten million breeding individuals of ten species of farmland
birds have disappeared from the British countryside. For example, the corn bunting
(Emberiza calandra) and tree sparrow have declined for periods of up to a decade at an
average rate of more than 5% per year. The declines in bird numbers in part reflect
those in the invertebrate and plant populations upon which they depend. Can we be
sure that the bird declines in the United Kingdom are caused by agricultural
intensification? Most of the evidence is by association, but in sum total it is damning. For
example, annual BTO censuses of 42 species of breeding birds show that 13 species
living exclusively in farmland, such as the skylark (Alauda arvensis) and corn bunting,
declined by an average of 30% between 1968 and 1995, while 29 species of habitat
generalists, such as the carrion crow (Corvus corone) and the wren (Troglodytes
troglodytes), have increased by an average of 23% (ref. 2). More direct evidence is that
the declines of four species have actually been reversed, at least on a local scale, by
'experimental' changes in farming.”
Analysis: This argument can be very intuitive if debaters do not get bogged down in the
scientific complexities of it. If debaters can clearly articulate to judges that genetically modified
crops inherently decrease genetic diversity, they can then link into a multitude of impacts.
Biodiversity is important for protecting water, protecting soil, cycling nutrients, breaking down
pollution, stabilizing climate, maintaining ecosystems, providing food, containing medicine,
Champion Briefs
182
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
preserving culture, and providing recreation. Any of these impacts, and more, can be accessed as
long as the diminished genetic diversity of GM crops is established, and debaters can tell a
powerful story of how a Con vote will protect the environment from this harm.
Champion Briefs
183
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
A2 – Loss of Biodiversity
Argument: Biodiversity is actually benefitted by the growing of GM crops.
Warrant: The worst harm to biodiversity, habitat loss, is mitigated by GMOs.
Carpenter, Janet. “Impact of GM crops on biodiversity.” Landes Bioscience, March 2011.
Web. Oct 7 2014.
<https://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/CarpenterGMC2-1.pdf>
“The most direct negative impact of agriculture on biodiversity is due to the
considerable loss of natural habitats, which is caused by the conversion of natural
ecosystems into agricultural land. Increases in crop yields allow less land to be
dedicated to agriculture than would otherwise be necessary. A large and growing body
of literature has shown that the adoption of GE crops has increased yields, particularly in
developing countries. A review of the re- sults of global farmer surveys found that the
average yield increases for developing countries range from 16% for insect-resistant
corn to 30% for insect-resistant cotton, with an 85% yield increase observed in a
single study on herbicide-tolerant corn. On average, developed-country farmers report
yield increases that range from no change for herbicide-tolerant cotton to a 7% increase
for herbicide-tolerant soybean and insect-resistant cotton. Researchers have estimated
the benefit of these yield improvements on reducing conversion of land into agricultural
use. They estimate that 2.64 million hectares of land would probably be brought into
grain and oilseed production if biotech traits were no longer used.“
Warrant: The benefits to biodiversity of genetically modified crops outweigh any cost.
Carpenter, Janet. “Impact of GM crops on biodiversity.” Landes Bioscience, March 2011.
Web. Oct 7 2014.
<https://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/CarpenterGMC2-1.pdf>
Champion Briefs
184
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
“Knowledge gained over the past 15 years that GM crops have been grown
commercially indicates that the impacts on biodiversity are positive on balance. By
increasing yields, decreasing insecticide use, increasing the use of more
environmentally friendly herbicides and facilitating the adoption of conservation
tillage, GM crops have already contributed to increasing agricultural sustainability.
Overall, the review finds that currently commercialized GM crops have reduced the
impacts of agriculture on biodiversity, through enhanced adoption of conservation
tillage practices, reduction of insecticide use and use of more environmentally benign
herbicides and increasing yields to alleviate pressure to convert additional land into
agricultural use.”
Analysis: Yield increase due to GMOs, among other benefits, can be logically explained (or
crossapplied, if debaters run similar arguments in their cases) as responses to this idea. As long
as the Pro team can win that yield increases, they then link into the major factor relating to
biodiversity. As long as mainstream agriculture requires more land, it is worse for genetic
diversity.
Response: Farming in general decreases genetic diversity.
Warrant: Because farmers generally only grow a few crops anyway, the land they grow on
would have had more diverse crops if it were not used for farming regardless of whether or not
they are planting GMOS.
“How does agriculture affect biodiversity?” Europa Bio. Web. Oct 7 2014.
<http://www.europabio.org/how-does-agriculture-affect-biodiversity>
“The 2010 biodiversity target to achieve a significant reduction of biodiversity loss, set
by world governments in 2002, has not been met at a global level. Across the globe,
natural systems that support economies, lives and livelihoods are at risk of rapid
degradation, with significant further loss of biodiversity becoming increasingly
Champion Briefs
185
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
likely. Overall, the effects of farming on biodiversity depend mainly on agricultural
practices rather than on the technology used for plant breeding.“
Analysis: This response essentially says that the Con’s logic is non-unique to the resolution
itself. Since the Pro team is not going to argue that all farming is bad, just farming of GM plants,
the burden is on them to prove that the decreasing biodiversity occurring in the status quo is
unique to GM foods.
Champion Briefs
186
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
CON – Alternatives are preferable
Argument: An excessive amount of money and research are being spent on GMO’s;
alternatives like sustainable agriculture would provide more benefits such as reduced
pesticide use and increased crop yields.
Warrant: GMO crops don’t increase yields compared to other forms of agricultural
enchantment.
Gurian1Sherman, Doug. “Failure to yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically
Engineered Crops.” Union of Concerned Scientists. April 2009. Web. 2 Oct
2014.
<http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/food
_and_agriculture/failure1to1yield.pdf>.
“While crop GE has been hailed by some as critically important for ensuring
adequate food supply in the future, it has so far produced only small increases in
yields in the United States. Our review of available data on transgenic Btcorn,
as well as on transgenic HT corn and soybeans, arrives at an estimated total
yield benefit of about 3–4 percent for corn. Individual farmers may achieve
substantially higher yields from Btcorn under certain circumstances, such as
when corn borer infestations are high, and they may also use Btcorn to reduce
exposure to chemical insecticides and for other reasons. But when considering the
benefits to society as a whole, the contribution of Btgenes to overall yield in
corn has been modest; it is also significant that the yield increases have been from
operational yield—reduction in yield losses—rather than from the intrinsic yield of
the crop. Moreover, there have been no apparent overall yield increases,
operational or intrinsic, from HT corn and soybeans. This record, compiled
over the 13Zyear period since transgenic crops were first commercialized in
the United States, compares unfavorably with the historical and current
Champion Briefs
187
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
trends of majorZcrop yield enhancements that have been achieved by other
means. For example, corn yields over the past several decades have increased an
average of about 1 percent per year—considerably greater than the increase that
can be attributed specifically to GE. Corn yields have increased about 28 percent
since Btcorn was first planted commercially (as determined by comparing the
average yield for the five years preceding the introduction of Btcorn with the
average yield over the past five years). But the 4 percent yield enhancement
contributed by Bt varieties constitutes only about 14 percent of this overall corn
yield increase, with 86 percent coming from other technologies or methods.”
Warrant: Genetically modified crops have not increased yields; Western Europe has seen
higher yields than the United States without GM crops.
Sirinathsinghji, Dr Eva. “US Staple Crop System Failing from GM and Monoculture.”
Institute for Science in Society. 7 October 2013. Web. 3 October 2014.
<http://www.i1
sis.org.uk/US_Staple_Crop_System_Failing_from_GM_and_Monoculture.php>
“First compared was rapeseed and maize, which have similar agroecosystems
(latitude, growing seasons and equally developed agriculture systems across the
two continents as well as access to biotechnological and intellectual property (IP)
rights options, which are legal protection for so1calledcreations of the mind,
allowing industry to own GM seeds through claiming them as novel inventions. The
major difference between the continents is the near saturation of GM varieties in N.
America compared to a virtual absence in W. Europe. Between 1961 and 1986, the
US maize yield averaged 5 700 hectogram/hectare (hg/ha) more than W.
Europe, totalling 54 379 hg/ha. (A hectogram = 100 g). However, after 1986,
there was a significant change in yield between the compared regions. W.
Europe averaged 82 899 hg/ha, slightly more than the 82 841 hg/ha in the
US (see Table 1). This suggests that GM has offered no benefit whatsoever in
Champion Briefs
188
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
the US – contrary to what has been claimed Z while the overall increase in
yields in both regions were due to improved management and conventional
breeding (see Figure 1). Further, the difference between the estimated yield
potential and the actual yield, or the ‘yieldZgap’ appears smaller in Europe.
Over the entire period of 1961 to 2010 the US reached marginally significantly
higher yield averages, but when taking into account the interaction between
year and location, a steeper increase in European maize yield was found in
recent years, as consistent with the actually higher yields in Europe than in
the US, despite the latter’s use of GM. Yield data from 2011 and projected yields
for 2012 reveal a downward trend in the US compared with Europe. Fluctuations in
yield are more severe in the US, a sign of reduced resilience to environmental
stressors, which can also spark dramatic price changes in agricultural markets.”
Warrant: Currently, too much money is being spent on GMO research in respect to the
actual benefits that it provides.
“A New Agenda for Agriculture Research.” Union of Concerned Scientists. Web. 3 Oct
2014.
<http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solutions/strengthen1
healthy1farm1policy/a1new1agenda1for1agriculture.html>
“A More Balanced Approach to Biotechnology and Sustainable Agriculture
In adopting this new agenda, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will
have to curb its current fascination with agricultural biotechnology and
genetic engineering. The resources now devoted to this research are
disproportionate to the contribution this technology will make to sustainable
agriculture. Biotechnology products can bolster and entrench the existing
industrial mode of agriculture and delay the transition to a sustainable future.
Products like herbicideZtolerant plants, for example, shackle agriculture to
chemicals. This does not mean that genetic engineering should be abandoned,
Champion Briefs
189
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
but that it should be encouraged only to the extent that it will support a
transition to a more environmentally sound approach.”
Warrant: Research in more effective alternatives is lacking; we need to redirect money.
Gurian1Sherman, Doug. “Failure to yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically
Engineered Crops.” Union of Concerned Scientists. April 2009. Web. 2 Oct
2014.
<http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/food
_and_agriculture/failure1to1yield.pdf>.
“The U.S. Department of Agriculture, state and local agricultural agencies, and
public and private universities should redirect substantial funding, research,
and incentives toward approaches that are proven and show more promise
than genetic engineering for improving crop yields, especially intrinsic crop
yields, and for providing other societal benefits. These approaches include
modern methods of conventional plant breeding as well as organic and other
sophisticated low1input farming practices. FoodZaid organizations should work
with farmers in developing countries, where increasing local levels of food
production is an urgent priority, to make these more promising and
affordable methods available.”
Warrant: Alternatives like Sustainable agriculture can increase yields more.
Pretty J.N., et al. “Resource1Conserving Agriculture Increases Yields in Developing
Countries.” Department of Biological Sciences and Centre for Environment and
Society, University of Essex. 2006. Web. 3 Oct 2014.
<http://www.alimenterre.org/sites/www.cfsi.asso.fr/files/644_sust_pretty_f
inal_1.pdf>.
Champion Briefs
190
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
“For the 360 reliable yield comparisons from 198 projects that we now have,
the mean relative increase was 79% across the very wide variety of systems
and crop types (see Table B in the Supporting Information for full details of changes
in each farming system category). However, there was a wide spread in
results (Figure 1). While 25% of projects reported relative yields>2.0, (i.e., 100%
increase), half of all the projects had yield increases of between 18% and 100%. The
geometric mean is a better indicator of the average for such data with a
positive skew, but this still shows a 64% increase in yield. However, the average
hides large and statistically significant differences among the main crops (Figures 2
and 3). In nearly all cases there was an increase in yield with the project. Only
in rice were there 3 reports where yields decreased, and the increase in rice was the
lowest (mean ) 1.35), although it constituted a third of all the crop data. Cotton
showed a similarly small mean yield increase.”
Warrant: Sustainable agricultural practices can increase crop yields with decreased
pesticide use.
Pretty J.N., et al. “Resource1Conserving Agriculture Increases Yields in Developing
Countries.” Department of Biological Sciences and Centre for Environment and
Society, University of Essex. 2006. Web. 3 Oct 2014.
<http://www.alimenterre.org/sites/www.cfsi.asso.fr/files/644_sust_pretty_f
inal_1.pdf>.
“Sector A contains 10 projects where pesticide use increased. These are mainly in
zero1tillage and conservation agriculture systems, where reduced tillage creates
benefits for soil health and reduces off1site pollution and flooding costs. These
systems usually require increased use of herbicides for weed control (37), though
there are examples of organic zero1tillage systems (38). The 5 cases in sector C show
a 4.2% ((5.0) decline in yields with a 93.3% ((6.7) fall in pesticide use. Most cases,
however, are in category D where pesticide use declined by 70.8% ((3.9) and
Champion Briefs
191
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
yields increased by 41.6% ((10.5). While pesticide reduction is to be expected, as
farmers substitute pesticides by information, the cause of yield increases induced by
IPM are complex. It is likely that farmers who receive good quality field training
will not only improve their pest management skills but also become more
efficient in other agronomic and ecological management practices. They are
also likely to invest cash saved from pesticides in other inputs such as higher
quality seeds and fertilizers. This analysis indicates considerable potential for
avoiding environmental costs.”
Warrant: Industrial Agriculture encourages homogeneity, while sustainable farming
encourages diversity.
Naidoo, Kumi. “The food system we choose affects biodiversity: do we want
monocultures?.” The Guardian. 22 May 2014. Web. 4 October 2014.
<http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable1business/food1system1
monocultures1gm1un1diversity1day>.
“Industrial agriculture does not rely on diversification but on the
standardisation and homogenisation of biological processes, technologies and
products. It promotes offZtheZshelf, oneZsizeZfitsZall solutions to food and
farming around the world and in so doing undermines local and natural
diversity, which are essential for resilience to climate change. Ecological farming
increases resilience to climate shocks. It is based on the diversity of nature to
produce healthy food for all: diversity of seeds and plants; diversity of many
different crops grown in the same field; diversity of insects that pollinate (like
bees) or eliminate pests; and diversity of farming systems that mix crops with
livestock.”
Warrant: Sustainable agriculture has multiple benefits such as increased yields and
greenhouse gas reductions because of crop diversity.
Champion Briefs
192
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Naidoo, Kumi. “The food system we choose affects biodiversity: do we want
monocultures?.” The Guardian. 22 May 2014. Web. 4 October 2014.
<http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable1business/food1system1
monocultures1gm1un1diversity1day>.
“Scientists from Wageningen University in the Netherlands, for example,
recently found that certain beans greatly improve poor soils, increase
productivity of maize when grown together and respond well to drought. They
can be used for food, animal feed, and soil fertility. Researchers found that
growing maize and beans at the same time increased farmers' income by 67%
without the use of any chemical fertilisers. Ecological farming also relies on
the innovations of farmers that enable adaptation to local conditions. It's the
redeployment of traditional knowledge to counteract the impacts of climate change.
In north1east Thailand, jasmine rice farmers have been adapting to increased
drought by finding creative ways to use water resources – stock ponds for storage
and simple wind1powered pumps made with locally available materials – which
have been shown to increase yields and provide a safety net when drought strikes.
Ecological farming effectively contributes to climate change mitigation.
Industrial farming is a massive greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter. Agriculture, in
fact, accounts for between 17% and 32% of all the emissions caused by
humans, according to research for Greenpeace. Stopping chemical nitrogen
fertiliser overuse and shifting to organic fertilisers (to increase soil fertility),
improving water management in paddy rice production, and increasing agroZ
biodiversity through agroforestry are just a few examples of how ecological
farming practices and diversity could directly contribute to GHG reduction and
help agriculture reduce the effects of climate change.”
Analysis: The way this argument should be used in round is basically as a case turn. It’s
critical to with the Gurian1Sherman and Sirinathsingji evidence because these two show
Champion Briefs
193
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
that the pro doesn’t have any unique benefits, while creating a substantial opportunity cost.
The argument is that sustainable agriculture can capture all the benefits that GMO’s provide
with significantly less negative externalities with some unique benefits. The hard
part of winning this argument is going to be winning the link; it’s vital to make sure you
explain that everything has an opportunity cost very clearly; no matter what you do, the
resources you use for one activity necessarily means that it can’t be used for something else.
Champion Briefs
194
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
A2 Z Alternatives are preferable
Answer: Increased investment isn’t necessary; the private and public sectors are both
investing in sustainable agriculture.
Warrant: Increased investment isn’t needed; investors are already interested in investing
in sustainable agricultural practices.
Pons, Elena, Long, Maud1Alison, and Pomares, Raul. “Promoting Sustainable Food
Systems Through Impact Investing.” Springcreek Foundation. Web. 3 Oct
2014.
<http://www.thespringcreekfoundation.org/images/download/tsf_Promoti
ng_Sustainable_Food_Systems_1212.pdf>
“In general, there has been increasing interest among the impact investment
community in sustainable food and agriculture investments. Growing
participation in conferences like Agriculture 2.0 and Slow Money Alliance, as
well as fast expanding groups of Food Systems Funders demonstrate this
interest. Entrepreneurs are gaining exposure at conferences and trade shows,
and an ecosystem of investors, funds, and investees is emerging. When
interviewed, Mike Yohai, founder and CEO of CityScape Farms, a urban agriculture
initiative focused on growing fresh food on the roofs of commercial buildings in San
Francisco, mentioned that a couple of years ago, when he began fund1raising for his
organization, it was difficult to find investors interested in the space, but lately the
number of interested investors has increased tremendously. Opportunities for
institutional investors are still limited due to the relatively small size of most of the
funds and the lack of the risk1adjusted returns sought by institutional investors.”
Champion Briefs
195
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Sustainable agriculture doesn’t need funding; public1private partnerships are
increasing funding (California Example).
Pons, Elena, Long, Maud1Alison, and Pomares, Raul. “Promoting Sustainable Food
Systems Through Impact Investing.” Springcreek Foundation. Web. 3 Oct
2014.
<http://www.thespringcreekfoundation.org/images/download/tsf_Promoti
ng_Sustainable_Food_Systems_1212.pdf>
“Regional Public1Private Partnership Initiatives
In the last few years, local governments have partnered with private
initiatives to revitalize certain lowZincome, underserved areas and bring in
more supermarkets and fresh produce stores. This is a viable, effective, and
economically sustainable solution to the problem of limited access to healthy foods,
and can achieve multiple objectives: improve the health of families and children,
create jobs, and stimulate local economic development in low1income communities.
An example for this type of initiatives is the California FreshWorks Fund
(CAFWF), a new publicZprivate partnership loan fund designed to finance
grocery stores and other forms of healthy food retail and distribution in
underserved communities throughout CA. It is modeled after the successful
Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative and developed to align with the
National Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI). The CAFWF has been
developed through an innovative collaboration of The California Endowment with
partners representing industry, philanthropy, government and private investors.
The target fund size is $200 million and it is capitalized with a combination of
debt and grant dollars and structured to leverage alternative forms of
financing like New Market Tax Credits as well as SBA and USDA Business and
Industry guarantees.”
Champion Briefs
196
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Over 40 funds are dedicated to sustainable food systems.
Pons, Elena, Long, Maud1Alison, and Pomares, Raul. “Promoting Sustainable Food
Systems Through Impact Investing.” Springcreek Foundation. Web. 3 Oct
2014.
<http://www.thespringcreekfoundation.org/images/download/tsf_Promoti
ng_Sustainable_Food_Systems_1212.pdf>
“For most investors, a fund is one of the only vehicles available for investment
in sustainable food and agriculture. While the number of funds is still limited, it
has grown significantly in the last four years. We found that as of the date of this
report, about forty (40) funds are dedicated to sustainable food systems
investments. Those funds are mostly small/regional loan funds, green consumer
products private equity funds, or ranch and farmland real asset managers. Some of
them are certified Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) and
Community Development Entities (CDE), and offer New Markets Tax Credits to
their investors.”
Answer: GMO crops have unique benefits that sustainable agriculture can’t produce.
Warrant: GMO crops have financial and health benefits that can’t be derived from alternative
methods because they’re caused by genetic changes.
Huang, Jikun, et al. “Plant Biotechnology in China.” American Association for the
Advancement of Science. 25 January 2002. Web. 3 Oct 2014.
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5555/674.full>.
“The decrease in pesticide use has increased production efficiency. Although yields
and the price of Bt and non-Bt varieties were the same, the costs savings and
reduction in labor enjoyed by Bt cotton users reduced the cost of producing a
Champion Briefs
197
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
kilogram of cotton by 28%, from $2.23 to $1.61 (Table 4). Multivariate production
efficiency analysis demonstrates that the results are statistically valid (14). China's
experience with Bt cotton demonstrates the direct and indirect benefits of its investment
in plant biotechnology research and product development. According to our research,
the total benefits from the adoption of Bt cotton in 1999 were $334 million (15,16).
Ignoring the benefits created by foreign life-science firms, the benefits from the main
variety created and extended by one of China's publicly funded research institutes were
$197 million. Farmers captured most of the benefits, because government procurement
prevented cotton prices from declining (which would have shifted some of the benefits to
consumers). Hence, the social benefits from research on one crop, cotton, in only the
second year of its adoption were enough to fund all of the government's crop
biotechnology research in 1999. As Bt cotton spreads, the social benefits from this crop
will easily pay for all China's past biotech expenditures on all crops. The survey also
showed that farmers reduced use of toxic pesticides, organophosphates and
organochlorines, by more than 80% and that this reduction appears to have
improved farmer health. The survey asked farmers if they had suffered from
headaches, nausea, skin pain, or digestive problems after applying pesticides. If the
answer was “yes,” it was registered as an incidence of “poisoning.” Only 4.7% of Bt
cotton growers reported poisonings; 11% of the farmers using both Bt and unaltered
varieties reported poisonings; whereas 22% of those using only non-Bt varieties
reported poisonings.”
Analysis: The way these responses work is by showing that while an opportunity cost
might exist, it doesn’t mean that sustainable agriculture is necessarily lacking funding; both
of them can be funded at the same time, and the affirmative has the burden to show a
brightline as to how much funding is “enough funding.” Further, it shows that there are
unique benefits to GMO crops that can only be produced by modifying genes. That means
that even if they win the “alternatives are preferable” argument, you can still outweigh
them by showing that the benefits that are unique to GMO’s can’t be achieved through
sustainable agriculture.
Champion Briefs
198
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
CON – GMOs create dependence
Answer: By charging for expensive seeds and crowding out non GMO seeds, GMO
companies create a system of dependency, undermining food sovereignty, and pushing
people into debt.
Warrant: Farmers don’t have the ability to retain seeds.
Kruft, David. “Impacts of Genetically1Modified Crops and Seeds on Farmers.”
Pennsylvania State School of Law. Nov. 2001. Web. 3 Oct. 2014.
<https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/aglaw/Impacts_of_Genetically_Modified
.pdf>
“Under a private contract between a grower and a biotech company, the
grower's rights to the purchased seed are significantly limited. Such contracts
generally contain a "no saved seed" provision.17 This provision prohibits
growers from saving seed and/or reusing seed from GM crops.18 In effect, the
provision requires growers of GM crops to make an annual purchase of GM
seeds. A patent infringement case stemming from unauthorized saving of GM seeds
was recently tried in the Canadian courts.19 In this case, Monsanto Company sued
Percy Schmeiser, a local farmer, for saving and planting GM seeds produced from
pollen that had blown onto his fields from a neighboring farm. Schmeiser himself
had no contract with Monsanto. The court found that the defendant planted seed
saved from a field onto which pollen from GM canola had blown. The court found
further that Schmeiser had engaged in these activities knowingly. This violated the
patent Monsanto held on the Roundup tolerant seed. Mr. Schmeiser was required to
deliver to Monsanto any remaining saved seed and to pay to Monsanto the profits
earned from the crops, plus interest.20”
Champion Briefs
199
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Farmers in India are stuck in a cycle of debt to pay for seeds they used to buy.
Bello, Walden. “Twenty1Six Countries Ban GMOs—Why Won’t the US?” The Nation.
29Oct. 2013. Web. 3 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.thenation.com/blog/176863/twenty1six1countries1ban1gmos1
why1wont1us>.
“A fifth argument is that patented GMO seeds concentrate power in the hands of
a few biotech corporations and marginalize small farmers. As the statement of
the eightyZone members of the World Future Council put it, ‘While profitable
to the few companies producing them, GMO seeds reinforce a model of
farming that undermines sustainability of cashZpoor farmers, who make up
most of the world’s hungry. GMO seeds continue farmers’ dependency on
purchased seed and chemical inputs. The most dramatic impact of such
dependency is in India, where 270,000 farmers, many trapped in debt for buying
seeds and chemicals, committed suicide between 1995 and 2012.’”
Warrant: As GMO seeds overtake the market, traditional seeds are disappearing and
farmers are becoming more and more dependent, and undermines the sovereignty of
farmers.
Goethe, Tina. “A GMO1free Europe: one step to achieve Food Sovereignty?” Swissaid.
May 2009. Web. 4 Oct 2014. <http://www.gmo1free1
regions.org/fileadmin/files/gmo1free1
regions/Food_and_Democracy/B1_summary.pdf>
“Seeds at the heart of food sovereignty
In Europe there are hardly any traditional seed saving and exchanging system
left and the once rich variety of traditional seeds has been dramatically
reduced, also due to the retraction of public institutions from the distribution and
Champion Briefs
200
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
breeding of seed. Big seed companies, many of the now part of agroZchemical /
biotech corporations, have taken over the seed market. European farmers now
depend on industrially produced seeds, designed to grow only with chemical
fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides and developed for large scale monocrop
production. Those seeds are either hybrid and therefore non
reproducible or they are protected by intellectual property rights (plant
variety protection and patents), that make the companies “owners” of the seeds
and force farmers to buy new seeds for every year. This turns the farmers into
debtors of the seed industry. But the seed companies are using the genetic variety
of traditional seeds as a base for their breeding and have never compensated the
farmers for their breeding efforts during hundreds and thousands of years. Farmers
have lost an important aspect of their sovereignty and increasingly they loose
the choice, as the corporations decide which seeds they will bring to the
market. The European seeds regulation is marginalising farmers bred and/or
traditional seeds through standards, that favour industrially bred seeds. Local
seeds may even become illegal through this regulation. Genetic markers that
enable corporations to trace and claim “their seeds” present a new threat for farmer
controlled seeds. Many public funds go into a biotechnology research that does not
respond the needs of the farmers and consumers.”
Warrant: Through the dual mechanisms of lawsuits due to cross contamination and
patenting of GMOs, farmers are losing their seed sovereignty to corporations, and are being
forced into a cycle of dependency.
Shiva, Vandana. “The seed emergency: The threat to food and democracy.” Al
Jazeera. 6 Feb 2012. Web. 4 Oct 2014.
<http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/201224152439941
847.html>
Champion Briefs
201
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
“Besides displacing and destroying diversity, patented GMO seeds are also
undermining seed sovereignty. Across the world, new seed laws are being
introduced which enforce compulsory registration of seeds, thus making it
impossible for small farmers to grow their own diversity, and forcing them
into dependency on giant seed corporations. Corporations are also patenting
climate resilient seeds evolved by farmers Z thus robbing farmers of using
their own seeds and knowledge for climate adaptation. Another threat to seed
sovereignty is genetic contamination. India has lost its cotton seeds because of
contamination from Bt Cotton 1 a strain engineered to contain the pesticide
Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium. Canada has lost its canola seed because of
contamination from Roundup Ready canola. And Mexico has lost its corn due to
contamination from Bt Cotton. After contamination, biotech seed corporations
sue farmers with patent infringement cases, as happened in the case of Percy
Schmeiser. That is why more than 80 groups came together and filed a case to
prevent Monsanto from suing farmers whose seed had been contaminated. As
a farmer's seed supply is eroded, and farmers become dependent on patented
GMO seed, the result is debt. India, the home of cotton, has lost its cotton seed
diversity and cotton seed sovereignty. Some 95 per cent of the country's cotton
seed is now controlled by Monsanto 1 and the debt trap created by being forced to
buy seed every year 1 with royalty payments 1 has pushed hundreds of thousands of
farmers to suicide; of the 250,000 farmer suicides, the majority are in the cotton
belt.”
Warrant: As a result of dependency, seed diversity and seed sovereignty is disappearing.
Shiva, Vandana. “The seed emergency: The threat to food and democracy.” Al
Jazeera. 6 Feb 2012. Web. 4 Oct 2014.
<http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/201224152439941
847.html>.
Champion Briefs
202
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
“Seed sovereignty includes the farmer's rights to save, breed and exchange
seeds, to have access to diverse open source seeds which can be saved Z and
which are not patented, genetically modified, owned or controlled by
emerging seed giants. It is based on reclaiming seeds and biodiversity as
commons and public good. The past twenty years have seen a very rapid
erosion of seed diversity and seed sovereignty, and the concentration of the
control over seeds by a very small number of giant corporations. In 1995, when
the UN organised the Plant Genetic Resources Conference in Leipzig, it was reported
that 75 per cent of all agricultural biodiversity had disappeared because of the
introduction of "modern" varieties, which are always cultivated as
monocultures. Since then, the erosion has accelerated.”
Warrant: Food sovereignty is important; it protects the community’s right to self1
determination and development, and GMO crops undermine this.
Claeys, Priscilla. “Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue.” Yale University. 15 Sept.
2013. Web. 3 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.yale.edu/agrarianstudies/foodsovereignty/pprs/24_Claeys_20
1311.pdf>.
“But food sovereignty is more than an alternative paradigm. It has been claimed by
the movement as a new human right. Interestingly, the right to food sovereignty
has not been claimed as an individual right, but rather as the right of communities,
states, peoples or regions. In many ways, it evokes collective rights already
recognized by the UN, such as the right to selfZdetermination, the right to
development and the right to permanent sovereignty over natural resources.
As I have developed elsewhere, the right to food sovereignty has an internal
dimension – the right of a people to choose its own political, economic and
social system – and an external dimension – the right of states to develop their
agriculture (Claeys 2012, 849).”
Champion Briefs
203
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Analysis: The way to use this argument is to do a comparative analysis; talk about how
farmers in the past were self1sufficient and could generally afford to feed themselves and
earn money. This argument is most powerful when weighing against the benefits to first
world consumers and farmers. Essentially, you can argue that most of the benefits of GMO
crops flow to first world consumers that can afford the greater varieties of food that GMOs
provide, and that farmers in the first world can afford to buy pesticide and herbicide each
year. On the other hand, it traps third world farmers in a system where they have to use
GMO’s to compete and have to choose between being forced into debt to finance GMO’s or
go out of business because they can’t compete with first world farmers. GMO’s coerce
farmers, and force them into a cycle of dependency on large corporations, and the harm
that perpetuates outweighs the marginal benefits to first world consumers.
Champion Briefs
204
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
A2 Z GMOs create dependence
Answer: Farmers actually benefit from GMO crops; that’s why they choose to buy them.
Warrant: Farmers benefit economically from GMO’s; that’s why almost 100% choose to
plant using GMO’s again.
Miller, Henry I. “GMO Crops Do Help Poor Farmers.” Wall Street Journal. 28 April
2013. Web. 4 Oct 2014.
<http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014241278873237897045784
45082805765660>.
“According to a justZreleased economic analysis by U.K.Zbased PG Economics of
the impacts of genetic engineering in agriculture from 1996Z2011, the net
economic benefit at the farm level in 2011 was $19.8 billion, which translates
to an average increase in income of $329 per acre. For the entire 16Zyear
period, the increment in global farm income was $98.2 billion—49% of which
resulted from lower pest predation and weedZrelated losses and improved
genetics, while the remainder came from reductions in the costs of production. In
2011, just over half of the gains in farm income accrued to farmers in
developing countries, 90% of whom are cash poor and small operators. Far
from providing "uneven" results in the field, genetically engineered crops
offer superior, more reliable pest and weed control, and therefore greater
economic and food security. Those advantages are reflected by a "repeat
index"—the percentage of farmers who choose to plant genetically engineered
crops again after trying them once—that approaches 100%. But farmers who
don't wish to embrace the new technology can simply purchase conventional seeds.”
Champion Briefs
205
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Warrant: GMO crops actually increase caloric consumption, and decrease food insecurity.
Qaim, Matin and Kouser, Shazad. “Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security.”
PLOS One. 5 June 2013. Web. 3 October 2014.
<http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone
.0064879>.
“The regression results are shown in Table 4. Each ha of Bt cotton has increased
total calorie consumption by 74 kcal per AE and day. For the average adopting
household, the net effect is 145 kcal per AE (Figure 2), implying a 5% increase
over mean calorie consumption in nonZadopting households. Most of the
calories consumed in rural India stem from cereals that are rich in carbohydrates
but less nutritious in terms of protein and micronutrients. Yet the results show
that Bt adoption has significantly increased the consumption of calories from
more nutritious foods, thus also contributing to improved dietary quality. We
applied the total calorie consumption effect of Bt to the subsample of non1adopters
to simulate the food security impact of adoption: if all nonZadopters switched to
Bt, the proportion of food insecure households would drop by 15–20% (Table
5). Most of these nutritional benefits have materialized already, as over 90% of all
cotton farm households in India have adopted Bt technology by now.”
Answer: Food sovereignty is actually a harmful concept, and unsustainable.
Warrants: Past attempts at “food sovereignty” failed because countries are incapable of
being agriculturally self sufficient; it usually leads to famine.
Aerni, Phillip. “Food Sovereignty and its discontents.” World Trade Institute. 2011.
Web. 4 Oct 2014. <http://www.wti.org/fileadmin/user_upload/nccr1
Champion Briefs
206
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
trade.ch/wp3/publications/food%20sovereignity%20and%20its%20discon
tents%20.pdf>.
“The Food Sovereignty Movement insists on the right to produce ‘our own food in our
own country.’ It implies that every country is capable of producing and distributing
sufficient food for its inhabitants (and thus of meeting the human right to food)
without any need to resort to agricultural trade. This has actually been tried many
times in the history of humankind, by many governments, and mostly led to
widespread hunger and starvation because the virtual absence of crossZborder trade
in agriculture prevented not just the inflow of food products but also the entry of
new knowledge and technology that could make agriculture more productive. It did
not permit private actors to sell surplus agricultural products abroad in return for
obtaining goods and services that were scarce in the domestic agricultural economy. Since
farming was no longer a business, the incentives for farmers to produce more and
respond to consumer preferences disappeared. There are plenty of examples in
history that illustrate how famines occur due to a lack of understanding of the
economic forces of demand and supply. A well1documented great famine occurred after
the communists took over Russia at the end of World War I.”
Warrant: Food sovereignty is problematic and would probably lead to food insecurity; the
real problem is that the government and private sector has failed to invest in agriculture.
Aerni, Phillip. “Food Sovereignty and it’s discontents.” World Trade Institute. 2011.
Web. 4 Oct 2014. <http://www.wti.org/fileadmin/user_upload/nccr1
trade.ch/wp3/publications/food%20sovereignity%20and%20its%20discon
tents%20.pdf>.
“There are also some inconsistencies with regard to the sovereignty of a
farming community. Such a community may completely decouple itself from
trade and exchange with the outside world and thus be perfectly autonomous
in its right to control, produce, and consume local food. But this implies that all
Champion Briefs
207
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
the techniques and means to produce, process and preserve food are already in the
hands of this community (which would probably have happened through trade at an
earlier stage). Yet, if the community lacks the means and technologies to attain
a level of agricultural productivity that lifts food production profoundly food
insecure because as soon as there is crop failure through natural biotic and
abiotic stress factors, or war with another community that competes for scarce
natural resources, it would quickly run out of stock and suffer from hunger and
malnutrition. This vulnerability of people who are disconnected from markets
explains why roughly 80% of the people who suffer from hunger and
malnutrition are found in remote villages in poor developing countries not in
cities [10]. They are disconnected from trade not because they think this will
lead to more sustainable agriculture or because they believe that this is a
better lifestyle, but because their demands for better access to outside
resources are ignored by their government since policy makers are mainly
concerned with the needs of the politically relevant urban constituency. In the
absence of a dependable infrastructure and sufficient purchasing power, the
private sector also fails to invest in these remote regions, because they lack
incentives to do so. Many outsiders visiting these remote villages are impressed by
the solidarity they find in the village community. But again, this solidarity is not a
question of values but a question of survival. Since they cannot expect anything from
the outside world everyone must contribute his or her share to the maintenance of
public goods and services [11].”
Analysis: The way to use this argument is a straight turn; essentially, if farmer’s didn’t
want GMO’s they, wouldn’t buy them, and that food sovereignty is just a bad policy. The
most effective way to engage the rights based narrative is to talk about how the only way
that food sovereignty as an idea can be enforced is by using coercion to prevent farmers
from trading, is inherently paternalistic. This also limits the amount of choices that a
consumer has in marketplaces. This makes the narrative that you argue, one about the
freedom of a farmer to choose how they do business, as well as their right to be
independent, and conduct their life, very powerful.
Champion Briefs
208
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
CON – Industrial agriculture and increased herbicide use
Argument: GMO crops encourage industrial agriculture practices that use resources
inefficiently and increase the use of herbicides.
Warrant: GMO’s are a driver of agricultural intensification and monoculture.
Garcia, Maria Alice and Altieri, Miguel A. “Transgenic Crops: Implications for
Biodiversity and Sustainable Agriculture.” Bulletin of Science, Technology and
Society Aug 2005. Web. 4 Oct 2014. <http://agroeco.org/wp1
content/uploads/2010/09/garcia1altieri.pdf>.
“Promotion of “Clean Farming” and the Monoculture Paradigm While
Reducing Biodiversity
GM crops available so far encourage agricultural intensification, and as long as
the use of these crops follows closely the highZinput, pesticide paradigm, such
biotechnological products will reinforce the “pesticide treadmill” usually
associated with genetic uniformity and reduction of biodiversity in agroecosystems.
To the extent that transgenic crops further entrench the current clean crop
monoculture system, they discourage farmers from using other ecologically
based pest management methods (Altieri, 1996), including simple ecological
approaches like biodiversity islands, field margins, and corridors. Monocultures also
limit the extent to which farm lands— which cover large areas of the world (e.g.,
70% on the United Kingdom; Hails, 2003)—can contribute to conservation of
wildlife.”
Warrant: Soybean, Cotton, and Corn are almost all GMO crops.
Kelly, Michal B. “Study Finds Genetically1Modified Crops Have Forced Farmers To
Use Way More Pesticides.” Business Insider. 3 Oct 2012. Web. 4 Oct 2014.
Champion Briefs
209
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
<http://www.businessinsider.com/study1gm1crops1cause1more1pesticides1
2012110>.
“In 1996 Monsanto introduced herbicide1tolerant or "Roundup Ready" soybeans and
then rolled out GM corn, cotton and other crops. Roundup Ready and other
herbicideZtolerant crops now account for about 95 percent of soybean and
cotton acres as well as over 85 percent of corn. The crops immediately became
popular with farmers who found that they could easily kill weed populations
without damaging their crops. But over time more than two dozen weed
species have become resistant to glyphosate, Roundup's chief ingredient, causing
farmers to increase amounts of glyphosate and other weed1killing chemicals to
combat the "superweeds." The paper's author, Washington State University research
professor Charles Benbrook, found that the amount of herbicides required
to deal with superweeds near GM crops has grown from 1.5 million pounds in 1999
to about 90 million pounds in 2011.”
Warrant: Industrial agriculture, as described above takes up a disproportionate amount of
resources.
“Why Genetically Modified Crops Pose a Threat to Peasants, Food Sovereignty,
Health, and Biodiversity on the Planet.” ETC Group. 14 Aug 2014. Web. 2 Sept
2014.
<http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/Document1
GMOs1SSPFrancisco1FINAL_EN.pdf >.
“A large variety of peasant and smallZscale food systems currently feeds 70%
of the world’s population—30 to 50% of that is provided by small farms, 15 to
20% by urban orchards, 5 to 10% by artisanal fisheries, and 10 to 15% by hunting
and wildcrafting (ETC Group, 2013a). They are healthier forms of food
production, mostly free of agritoxins and genetically modified organisms
(GMOs). On the contrary, food products from the agroZindustrial food system
Champion Briefs
210
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
only reach 30% of the population, but use 75 to 80% of the world’s arable land
and 70% of water and fuel for agricultural use (GRAIN, 2014). From harvest to
homes, 50% of food products from the industrial chain end up in the trash.”
Warrant: Soil quality is important in maintain plant and animal health, as well as
maintaining the environment and biological productivity.
Marais, A., et al. “Effects of Monoculture, Crop Rotation, and Soil Moisture Content
on Selected Soil Physicochemical and Microbial Parameters in Wheat Fields.”
Applied and Environmental Soil Science. 2012. Web. 3 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aess/2012/593623/>.
“Soil quality is essential for plant and animal health, maintenance of the
environment, and sustained biological productivity [1]. Soil microbes play a
pivotal role in maintaining soil quality [2, 3]. Microbial diversity of the
rhizosphere is believed to be beneficial for soil health [4] and the trophic
interactions within the rhizosphere can affect the aboveground community of
plants [5]. Our understanding of soil microbial functioning in this plant1microbe
interaction has generally been limited [6, 7]. Plant variety has a significant
influence on the associated soil microbial community, as measured by
community1level physiological profiling (CLPP) by Dunfield and Germida [8]. These
authors also found that seasonal differences in this community were not permanent.
Marschner et al. [9] found that the rhizosphere microbial community was plant
species1specific, while Morgan et al. [4] stated that the root exudates from different
plants and even different cultivars of the same plants differed and these caused
differences in the rhizosphere communities associated with the plants. Thus, it
could be expected that the microbial communities under wheat monoculture
and wheat in rotation with legume pasture would differ significantly.”
Warrant: Increased pesticide use decreases the quality of soil and can harm plant health.
Champion Briefs
211
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Strom, Stephanie. “Misgivings About How a Weed Killer Affects the Soil.” New York
Times. 19 September 2013. Web. 4 October 2014.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/business/misgivings1about1how1a1
weed1killer1affects1the1soil.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>.
“‘Because glyphosate moves into the soil from the plant, it seems to affect the
rhizosphere, the ecology around the root zone, which in turn can affect plant
health,’ said Robert Kremer, a scientist at the United States Agriculture
Department, who has studied the impact of glyphosate on soybeans for more
than a decade and has warned of the herbicide’s impact on soil health. Like the
human microbiome, the plants’ roots systems rely on a complex system of
bacteria, fungi and minerals in the soil. The combination, in the right balance,
helps protect the crops from diseases and improves photosynthesis. In some
studies, scientists have found that a big selling point for the pesticide — that it
binds tightly to minerals in the soil, like calcium, boron and manganese, thus
preventing runoff — also means it competes with plants for those nutrients.
Other research indicates that glyphosate can alter the mix of bacteria and
fungi that interact with plant root systems, making them more susceptible to
parasites and pathogens. ‘Antibiotics kill bacteria or reduce their growth, but
some of those bacteria are useful,’ said Verlyn Sneller, president of Verity, a small
company that sells sugar1based fertilizers and water systems and works to persuade
farmers like Mr. Vermeer to switch to conventional crops.”
Warrant: Increased exposure from pesticides can cause soil contamination and chronic
health problems.
Donahue, Dr. S. “Heavy Metal Soil Contamination.” US Department of Agriculture.
Sept 2000. Web. 6 Oct 2014.
Champion Briefs
212
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
<http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_053279
.pdf>.
“Mining, manufacturing, and the use of synthetic products (e.g. pesticides, paints,
batteries, industrial waste, and land application of industrial or domestic sludge)
can result in heavy metal contamination of urban and agricultural soils. Heavy
metals also occur naturally, but rarely at toxic levels. Potentially contaminated
soils may occur at old landfill sites (particularly those that accepted industrial
wastes), old orchards that used insecticides containing arsenic as an active
ingredient, fields that had past applications of waste water or municipal sludge,
areas in or around mining waste piles and tailings, industrial areas where chemicals
may have been dumped on the ground, or in areas downwind from industrial sites.
Excess heavy metal accumulation in soils is toxic to humans and other
animals. Exposure to heavy metals is normally chronic (exposure over a longer
period of time), due to food chain transfer. Acute (immediate) poisoning from
heavy metals is rare through ingestion or dermal contact, but is possible. Chronic
problems associated with longZterm heavy metal exposures are:

Lead – mental lapse.

Cadmium – affects kidney, liver, and GI tract.

Arsenic – skin poisoning, affects kidneys and central nervous system.”
Analysis: This argument is a systemic argument, and should be weighed as such in round.
Essentially, that means that if you’re opponent is offering arguments that have direct, short
term impacts, like benefits to the economy or reduced pesticide use, your argument can
outweigh those arguments because GMO’s create a specific kind of agriculture that is
harmful to long term sustainability. This means that even if they’re right, your impacts
outweigh theirs because your impacts are cyclical and degrading; the impacts keep
happening as long as this system exists, and the impacts get worse over time. This
argument is probably best for more experienced judges that have familiarity with systemic
issues; with lay judges, it may be worth it to slow down and take more time explaining the
Champion Briefs
213
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
weighing specifically because it might not be clear why the long term damage to
sustainability and excessive resource use outweighs the benefits of immediate things like
reduced pesticide use.
Champion Briefs
214
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
A2 Z Industrial Agriculture and land degradation
Answer: GMO crops have minimal impacts on soil and crop diversity.
Warrant: GMO crops have little to no impact on crop diversity on farms.
Carpenter, Janet E. “Impacts of GE Crops on Biodiversity.” Information Systems for
Biotechnology. June 2011. Web. 4 October 2014.
<http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2011/Jun/Impacts1GE1Crops1
Biodiversity.pdf>.
“Crop genetic diversity is considered a source of continuing advances in yield, pest
resistance, and quality improvement. It is widely accepted that greater varietal and
species diversity would enable agricultural systems to maintain productivity over a
wide range of conditions. With the introduction of GE crops, concern has been raised
that crop genetic diversity will decrease because breeding programs will
concentrate on a smaller number of high value cultivars. Three studies have
analyzed the impact of the introduction of GE crops on within1crop genetic diversity.
Studies of genetic diversity in cotton and soybean in the U.S. both concluded
that the introduction of GE varieties was found to have little or no impact on
diversity. In contrast, the introduction of Bt cotton in India initially resulted in
a reduction in onZfarm varietal diversity due to the introduction of the
technology in only a small number of varieties, which has since been offset by
more Bt varieties becoming available over time. From a broader perspective,
GE crops may actually increase crop diversity by enhancing underutilized
alternative crops, making them more suitable for widespread domestication.”
Warrant: GMO crops have little to no impact on soil quality.
Champion Briefs
215
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Carpenter, Janet E. “Impacts of GE Crops on Biodiversity.” Information Systems for
Biotechnology. June 2011. Web. 4 October 2014.
<http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2011/Jun/Impacts1GE1Crops1
Biodiversity.pdf>.
“Plants have a major influence on soil communities of microZ and other
organisms that are fundamental to many functions of soil systems, such as
nitrogen cycling, decomposition of wastes, and mobilization of nutrients. The
potential impact of Bt crops on soil organisms is well studied. A
comprehensive review of the available literature, by Icoz and Stotzky, on the
effects of Bt crops on soil ecosystems included the results of 70 scientific
articles. The review found that, in general, few or no toxic effects of Cry
proteins on woodlice, collembolans, mites, earthworms, nematodes, protozoa,
and the activity of various enzymes in soil have been reported. Although some
effects, ranging from no effect to minor and significant effects, of Bt plants on
microbial communities in soil have been reported, they were mostly the result of
differences in geography, temperature, plant variety, and soil type and, in
general, were transient and not related to the presence of the Cry proteins.
Studies published since the Icoz and Stotzky review have reached similar
conclusions, including novel studies on snails.”
Answer: Industrial agriculture doesn’t trade off with small farming.
Warrant: GMO’s aren’t pushing industrial agriculture; most farms are family owned, and
small farm operations are growing.
Motes, Dr. William C. “Modern Agriculture and Its Benefits – Trends, Implications
and Outlook.” Global Harvest Initiative. March 2010. Web. 4 October 2014.
<http://www.globalharvestinitiative.org/Documents/Motes%201
%20Modern%20Agriculture%20and%20Its%20Benefits.pdf>.
Champion Briefs
216
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
“Many activists misstate reality in another way, as well, the paper suggests. Despite
assertions that the modern food production is ―corporatized,‖ it is not. For
example, in the United States, families own almost 96 percent of the 2.2
million farms, including the vast majority of the largest operations. SmallZ
scale agriculture, rather than being driven out, is on the upswing with growing
numbers of such operations, although—after years of rapid growth—organic
foods and beverages still account for less than 3 percent of US food sales.
Scientifically advanced farming and largerZscale operations produce nearly all
of the foodstuffs consumed by the average American family, as well as the bulk
of US exports.”
Answer: Industrial Agriculture has multiple benefits.
Warrant: Utilizing industrial agriculture is the only way to meet the demand for food in the
future.
Motes, Dr. William C. “Modern Agriculture and Its Benefits – Trends, Implications
and Outlook.” Global Harvest Initiative. March 2010. Web. 4 October 2014.
<http://www.globalharvestinitiative.org/Documents/Motes%201
%20Modern%20Agriculture%20and%20Its%20Benefits.pdf>.
“Now, at the beginning of a new century, the global population is much larger—
6.1 billion in 2000 and expected to exceed 9 billion by 2050. The combination
of population and economic growth, especially in developing countries means
that the world must nearly double food production—yet again—but, in only the
next 40 years. This daunting challenge is further exacerbated by resource
limits that mean that available arable land will be approximately static while
availability of water and nitrogen could decline—even as new challenges
associated with climate change begin. It also is clear from this discussion that
that the only feasible approach that can permit the world to meet the
Champion Briefs
217
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
competing demands it faces while more effectively dealing with its physical,
economic and social constraints is through increasingly rapid innovation and
productivity growth. It also has shown that these goals are feasible, given the
necessary public and private support, including support for both continued
modernization of agriculture and food systems in the developed world, and for more
effective assistance for developing nations to modernize their agricultural sectors. It
also emphasized the need to build in new and more effective safeguards all along the
way to minimize the unintended problems that sometimes arise. Across
agriculture today and in many of the world’s most powerful institutions, there
is a growing consensus that the sector is well positioned to meet expected
2050 needs at the same time it undertakes to alleviate the poverty, hunger and
malnutrition now afflicting more than one billion people. Numerous
prestigious international groups have assigned their most urgent priorities to these
concerns, including, for example, the G120 group of international leaders, the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in its recent food summit, the
World Bank, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Royal Society of London,
among many others. Each has advocated urgent attention to agriculture, food
security and the alleviation of hunger, malnutrition and poverty.”
Warrant: These industrial Agriculture practices are the reason why people have food
today; areas without these practices are the most impoverished.
Motes, Dr. William C. “Modern Agriculture and Its Benefits – Trends, Implications
and Outlook.” Global Harvest Initiative. March 2010. Web. 4 October 2014.
<http://www.globalharvestinitiative.org/Documents/Motes%201
%20Modern%20Agriculture%20and%20Its%20Benefits.pdf>.
“More people the world over eat more and better because of modern
agriculture. Increased production continues to enable steadily improving
diets, reflecting increased availability of all foods, dietary diversity and access
to highZprotein food products; The additional food modern systems provide
Champion Briefs
218
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
has enabled hundreds of millions of people to realize more of their potential
and better lives—thus enhancing the achievements of all, from students to retirees.
It increases workforce productivity and generally supports human development and
growth; The current hunger and malnutrition that extends to some one billion
people reflects poor policies, low productivity and low incomes. Failure to
continue to apply new technologies to advance productivity on the farm and
across the food system simply worsens every aspect of these problems,
especially those forced on individuals and families who live in poverty. To a
very large extent, current food insecurity problems reflect bad policies, poor
infrastructure and low economic productivity in the nations where these
conditions occur, rather than a physical lack of food or food production capacity;”
Analysis: The responses here engage the argument on two levels; first, it engages it on
straight impacts, and argues that the negative impacts don’t materialize, or that overall
they’re beneficial. The last answer allows you to argue on a systemic level; it says that even
if every argument that the con makes is true, the long term benefits actually go pro because
the only way to have any sustainable system of agriculture for future population demands
is through industrial agriculture. The extra resources used are worth it because they keep
people alive.
Champion Briefs
219
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
CON – Unknown risks
Warrant: Research can’t check this issue back; often times they just don’t report
unintended effects, and it’s impossible to know how often this happens.
Holdredge, Craig. “Understanding the Unintended Effects of Genetic Manipulation.”
Nature Institute. 2008. Web. 6 Oct 2014.
<http://natureinstitute.org/txt/ch/nontarget.php>.
“Reports in the scientific literature handle unintended effects in widely differing
ways:

In the kinds of cases Dougherty and Parks refer to, unintended effects are
simply not reported, although some may have been observed. There is no
way to know how often this occurs.

Sometimes no unintended effects are explicitly reported, although the research
article gives evidence that they were present. We have found articles in which,
for example, the morphology of plants was illustrated, but the visually
evident abnormal development was not described as such (see Müller et al.
2006).

The intended effect is the focus of the article, but unintended effects are also
reported.

Unintended effects are the primary subject of the research. Such investigations
include risk assessment studies to establish whether there are unintended effects
and, if so, whether they present safety or health concerns.”

Warrant: There’s a significant medical risk that GMO’s could undermine the effectiveness
of anti1biotic medication in humans.
Champion Briefs
220
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Hagedorn, Charles.” Scientific Basis of Risks Associated with Transgenic Crops.”
Virginia Tech. February 2000. Web. 6 October 2014.
<http://www.sites.ext.vt.edu/newsletter1archive/cses/2000102/risks.html>.
“Antibiotic Resistance
Genetic engineering often uses genes for antibiotic resistance as "selectable
markers." Early in the engineering process, these markers help select cells
that have taken up foreign genes. Although they have no further use, the genes
continue to be expressed in plant tissues. Most genetically engineered plant
foods carry fully functioning antibiotic1resistance genes. The presence of
antibioticZresistance genes in foods could have two harmful effects. First,
eating these foods could reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics to fight disease
when these antibiotics are taken with meals. AntibioticZresistance genes
produce enzymes that can degrade antibiotics. If a raw tomato with an
antibiotic1resistance gene is eaten at the same time as an antibiotic, it could
potentially destroy the antibiotic in the stomach. Second, the resistance genes
could be transferred to human or animal pathogens, making them impervious
to antibiotics. If transfer were to occur, it could aggravate the already serious
health problem of antibioticZresistant disease organisms. Although
unmediated transfers of genetic material from plants to bacteria are highly
unlikely, any possibility that they may occur requires careful scrutiny in light
of the seriousness of antibiotic resistance. In addition, the widespread presence
of antibiotic1resistance genes in engineered food suggests that as the number of
genetically engineered products grows, the effects of antibiotic resistance should be
analyzed cumulatively across the food supply.”
Warrant: Risks involving the toxicity of gmo food via heavy metals could have health
impacts on humans.
Champion Briefs
221
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Hagedorn, Charles.” Scientific Basis of Risks Associated with Transgenic Crops.”
Virginia Tech. February 2000. Web. 6 October 2014.
<http://www.sites.ext.vt.edu/newsletter1archive/cses/2000102/risks.html>.
“Production of New Toxins
“Many organisms have the ability to produce toxic substances. For plants, such
substances help to defend stationary organisms from the many predators in
their environment. In some cases, plants contain inactive pathways leading to
toxic substances. Addition of new genetic material through genetic engineering
could reactivate these inactive pathways or otherwise increase the levels of
toxic substances within the plants. This could happen, for example, if the
on/off signals associated with the introduced gene were located on the
genome in places where they could turn on the previously inactive genes.
Concentration of Toxic Metals
Some of the new genes being added to crops can remove heavy metals like
mercury from the soil and concentrate them in the plant tissue. The purpose of
creating such crops is to make possible the use of municipal sludge as fertilizer.
Sludge contains useful plant nutrients, but often cannot be used as fertilizer because
it is contaminated with toxic heavy metals. The idea is to engineer plants to
remove and sequester those metals in inedible parts of plants. In a tomato, for
example, the metals would be sequestered in the roots; in potatoes in the leaves.
Turning on the genes in only some parts of the plants requires the use of
genetic on/off switches that turn on only in specific tissues, like leaves. Such
products pose risks of contaminating foods with high levels of toxic metals if
the on/off switches are not completely turned off in edible tissues. There are
also environmental risks associated with the handling and disposal of the metal1
contaminated parts of plants after harvesting.”
Warrant: Virus tolerant genes have a risk of entering viruses and making them more
effective viruses by combining.
Champion Briefs
222
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Hagedorn, Charles.” Scientific Basis of Risks Associated with Transgenic Crops.”
Virginia Tech. February 2000. Web. 6 October 2014.
<http://www.sites.ext.vt.edu/newsletter1archive/cses/2000102/risks.html>.
“Creation of New or Worse Viruses
One of the most common applications of genetic engineering is the production
of virusZtolerant crops. Such crops are produced by engineering components
of viruses into the plant genomes. For reasons not well understood, plants
producing viral components on their own are resistant to subsequent infection
by those viruses. Such plants, however, pose other risks of creating
new or worse viruses through two mechanisms: recombination and
transcapsidation. Recombination can occur between the plant1produced viral
genes and closely related genes of incoming viruses. Such recombination may
produce viruses that can infect a wider range of hosts or that may be more
virulent than the parent viruses. Transcapsidation involves the encapsulation
of the genetic material of one virus by the plantZproduced viral proteins. Such
hybrid viruses could transfer viral genetic material to a new host plant that it
could not otherwise infect. Except in rare circumstances, this would be a one1time1
only effect, because the viral genetic material carries no genes for the foreign
proteins within which it was encapsulated and would not be able to produce a
second generation of hybrid viruses.
Unknown Harms
As with human health risks, it is unlikely that all potential harms to the
environment have been identified. Each of the potential harms above is an
answer to the question, ‘Well, what might go wrong?’ The answer to that question
depends on how well scientists understand the organism and the environment into
which it is released. At this point, biology and ecology are too poorly
understood to be certain that question has been answered comprehensively.”
Champion Briefs
223
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Warrant: New technology has the most probably chance of wiping out humanity because
we have no record of ever surviving the impact of catastrophic technologies.
Coughlan, Sam. “How are humans going to become extinct?” BBC. 24 April 2013.
Web. 6 Oct 2014. <http://www.bbc.com/news/business122002530>.
“An international team of scientists, mathematicians and philosophers at
Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute is investigating the biggest
dangers. And they argue in a research paper, Existential Risk as a Global
Priority, that international policymakers must pay serious attention to the
reality of speciesZobliterating risks. Last year there were more academic papers
published on snowboarding than human extinction. The Swedish1born director of
the institute, Nick Bostrom, says the stakes couldn't be higher. If we get it wrong,
this could be humanity's final century.
Been there, survived it
So what are the greatest dangers? First the good news. Pandemics and natural
disasters might cause colossal and catastrophic loss of life, but Dr Bostrom
believes humanity would be likely to survive. This is because as a species
we've already outlasted many thousands of years of disease, famine, flood,
predators, persecution, earthquakes and environmental change. So the odds remain
in our favour. And in the time frame of a century, he says the risk of extinction from
asteroid impacts and super1volcanic eruptions remains "extremely small". Even the
unprecedented self1inflicted losses in the 20th Century in two world wars, and the
Spanish flu epidemic, failed to halt the upward rise in the global human population.
Nuclear war might cause appalling destruction, but enough individuals could
survive to allow the species to continue. If that's the feel good reassurance out of the
way, what should we really be worrying about? Dr Bostrom believes we've
entered a new kind of technological era with the capacity to threaten our
future as never before. These are ‘threats we have no track record of
surviving’.”
Champion Briefs
224
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Genetic modifications carry existential risk because we don’t know what impact
they’re capable of.
Coughlan, Sam. “How are humans going to become extinct?” BBC. 24 April 2013.
Web. 6 Oct 2014. <http://www.bbc.com/news/business122002530>.
“Unintended consequences
These are not abstract concepts. Seán O'Heigeartaigh, a geneticist at the
institute, draws an analogy with algorithms used in automated stock market
trading. These mathematical strings can have direct and destructive consequences
for real economies and real people. Such computer systems can ‘manipulate the real
world’, says Dr O'Heigeartaigh, who studied molecular evolution at Trinity College
Dublin. In terms of risks from biology, he worries about misguided good
intentions, as experiments carry out genetic modifications, dismantling and
rebuilding genetic structures. ‘It's very unlikely they would want to make
something harmful,’ he says. But there is always the risk of an unintended
sequence of events or something that becomes harmful when transferred into
another environment. ‘We are developing things that could go wrong in a
profound way,’ he says. ‘With any new powerful technology we should think
very carefully about what we know Z but it might be more important to know
what we don't have certainty about.’ And he says this isn't a career in
scaremongering, he's motivated by the seriousness of his work. ‘This is one of the
most important ways of making a positive difference,’ he says.”
Analysis: The argument here is that we really don’t know what gene modifications on food
will have on the long term. The way to use this argument is to weigh existential risk over all
other factors; one way to do this is to argue that nothing else really matters if humans
aren’t alive. For example, greater crop yields and reduced pesticide use don’t mean
anything if humans can’t enjoy those benefits; therefore, existential risk almost functions as
Champion Briefs
225
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
a pre1requisite to any other impact. When dealing with blocks talking about regulation and
scientific analysis, the most effective way to extend this argument is probably to talk about
how those studies can’t account for existential risk because the side affects either won’t be
detectable, will be beyond our control, or will take such a long time that we won’t even
know to be cautious until it hits us.
Champion Briefs
226
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
A2 Z Unknown risks
Answer: Multiple levels of regulation check back the risk of any future harms.
Warrant: Consumers have a choice in accepting risk; 3rd parties are offering labelling services
that the FDA doesn’t.
Allen, Karma. “Is That Corn Genetically Altered? Don’t Ask the FDA.” CNBC. 16 June
2013. Web. 6 October 2014. <http://www.cnbc.com/id/100814375#.>.
“Last year $2.4 billion worth of products were sold with a label saying they do not contain
ingredients from genetically modified organisms, but the claim wasn't backed by
any government regulatory agency. Instead, it came from the Non-GMO Project, a
nonprofit organization that offers third-party verification that food products are not
genetically modified. Unlike items labeled organic, non-GMO products do not
receive endorsement from the Department of Agriculture or the Food and Drug
Administration. Those regulators have specific criteria for organic products, and
consumers know that any food with an organic label has met those standards.
Brands such as Silk, Kashi and Simply Soy Yogurt have turned to the GMO Project for
support to tout their products as non-GMO. ‘Consumers want non-GMO choices, so we
are working with food companies and retailers to make sure that [these options are]
available," said Megan Westgate, executive director of the Non-GMO Project. "Our
efforts do not hinge on government regulations or decisions about whether or not to
label.’ ‘They were getting a lot of questions from shoppers about how to avoid GMOs. It
became clear that in the absence of mandatory labeling we needed to have a third-party
verification system,’ she said. Since 2008 the organization has supplied a verification
mark for products that have undergone its review process. More than 500 brands
carry the Non-GMO seal. The process of earning the label is rigorous, and ongoing
testing is required for all ingredients that are at high risk of GMO contamination,
Westgate said.”
Champion Briefs
227
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Science will check back; GMO’s are one of the most studied subjects in the biotech
field; risks will be caught before they affect the public.
Wendell, Joanna. “With 2000+ global studies affirming safety, GM foods among most
analyzed subjects in science.” Genetic Literacy Project. 8 Oct 2013. Web. 6 Oct
2014.
<http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-
studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/>.
“A popular weapon used by those critical of agricultural biotechnology is to claim
that there has been little to no evaluation of the safety of GM crops and there is no
scientific consensus on this issue. Those claims are simply not true. Every major
international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies—
in some cases numbering in the hundreds—in coming to the consensus conclusion
that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods, but the
magnitude of the research has never been evaluated or documented. Still the claim that
GMOs are ‘understudied’—the meme represented in the quotes highlighted at the
beginning of this article—has become a staple of anti-GMO critics, especially activist
journalists. In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian
scientists cataloged and analyzed 1783 studies about the safety and environmental
impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number. The researchers couldn’t find a
single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or
animals. ‘The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant
hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,’ the
scientists concluded. The research review, published in Critical Reviews in
Biotechnology in September, spanned only the last decade—from 2002 to 2012—
which represents only about a third of the lifetime of GM technology.”
Champion Briefs
228
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Federal regulations check risks back; they’re guaranteed to be as safe as any other
food.
“FDA's Role in Regulating Safety of GE Foods.” Food and Drug Administration. 9 May
2014. Web. 6 Oct 2014.
<http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm352067.htm>.
“Safety
Food and food ingredients derived from GE plants must adhere to the same safety
requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act that apply
to food and food ingredients derived from traditionally bred plants. FDA encourages
developers of GE plants to consult with the agency before marketing their products.
Although the consultation is voluntary, Keefe says developers find it helpful in
determining the steps necessary to ensure that food products made from their plants are
safe and otherwise lawful. The developer produces a safety assessment, which includes
the identification of distinguishing attributes of new genetic traits, whether any new
material in food made from the GE plant could be toxic or allergenic when eaten, and a
comparison of the levels of nutrients in the GE plant to traditionally bred plants. FDA
scientists evaluate the safety assessment and also review relevant data and
information that are publicly available in published scientific literature and the
agency's own records. The consultation is complete only when FDA's team of
scientists are satisfied with the developer's safety assessment and have no further
questions regarding safety or other regulatory issues. As of May 2013, FDA has
completed 96 consultations on genetically engineered crops. A complete list of all
completed consultations and our responses are available at
www.fda.gov/bioconinventory.”
Answer: Magnitude is outweighed by probability and timeframe if the probability is near 0.
Warrant: The risk of genes being transferred and causing harm to humans is almost 0.
Champion Briefs
229
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Palmer, Roxanne. “GMO Health Risks: What The Scientific Evidence Says.”
International Business Times. 30 March 2013. Web. 6 October 2014.
<http://www.ibtimes.com/gmo-health-risks-what-scientific-evidence-says1161099>.
“The one major study of GMO feeding in humans that looked at horizontal gene
transfer was published in 2004 in the journal Nature Biotechnology. Researchers
looked to see if the Roundup Ready transgene -- the one that codes for the
herbicide-resistant enzyme -- showed up in waste collected from seven volunteers
who had had their large intestines removed for medical reasons. While a small
amount of the transgene was found in bowel microbes in three of the seven subjects, the
gene-transfer rate did not increase after they ate the transgenic soy, leading the
researchers to conclude that whatever gene transfer occurred did not happen
during the experimental period. In subjects with fully intact intestinal tracts, the
transgene did not survive passage. The results indicate that while horizontal gene
transfer after eating GM crops might be feasible at low rates in certain medically
compromised people, it would probably be quite rare in most consumers. A 2008 paper
in the journal Environmental Biosafety Research by an Australian researcher who
reviewed the risks of GMOs associated with horizontal gene transfer concluded the
potential danger was ‘negligible.’”
Analysis: The way to use these arguments is simply impact mitigation, which is what every
single piece of evidence above is saying, by weighing probability over magnitude. The
arguments made are based on the idea that magnitude outweighs probability because life
functions as almost a pre-requisite to an impacts mattering at all. To deal with that, you can
argue that actual risk of existential harms are almost zero, and show that you’re impacts
outweigh on probability; higher crop yields and reduced pesticide yields. You should also act to
use timeframe as a powerful weighing mechanism; at the point where it’s uncertain when
existential harm occurs, the fact that we can solve issues today with almost 100% certainty
means that the benefits of saving lives today is more important than saving the world a million
years down the road.
Champion Briefs
230
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
CON – Genetically modifying humans
Warrant: Changing genes in humans is risky; genes tend to have multiple effects.
Simmons PhD, Danielle. “Genetic Inequality: Human Genetic Engineering.” Nature
Education. 2008. Web. 5 October 2014.
<http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic1inequality1human1
genetic1engineering1768>.
“Trait selection and enhancement in embryos raises moral issues involving
both individuals and society. First, does selecting for particular traits pose health
risks that would not have existed otherwise? The safety of the procedures used for
preimplantation genetic diagnosis is currently under investigation, and because this
is a relatively new form of reproductive technology, there is by nature a lack of long1
term data and adequate numbers of research subjects. Still, one safety concern
often raised involves the fact that most genes have more than one effect. For
example, in the late 1990s, scientists discovered a gene that is linked to
memory (Tang et al., 1999). Modifying this gene in mice greatly improved
learning and memory, but it also caused increased sensitivity to pain (Wei et
al., 2001), which is obviously not a desirable trait.”
Warrant: Genetically modifying people involves uncertainty; some inherited diseases may
not be easy to track, so healthy children might be eliminated.
Gorvett, Zaria. “Warning: Genetically Modified Humans. Scientific American. 4 Oct
2012. Web. 5 Oct 2014. <http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest1
blog/2012/10/04/warning1genetically1modified1humans/>.
“Inevitably, the technique is vulnerable to abuse and will empower parents to
discriminate the characteristics of their progeny preZemptively, in a step
Champion Briefs
231
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
towards ‘designer babies’. Nevertheless, there is a more immediate concern.
Screening for inheritable disorders requires knowledge of their genetic basis,
which can be dangerously precarious. Some conditions, such as Down’s
syndrome; characterised by the presence of an extra chromosome, are
glaringly obvious. Others have more subtle and complex genetic origins.”
Warrant: Changes in the human genome will permanently alter the human genome
without the consent of future generations.
“Human Genetic Engineering Current Science and Ethical Implications.” Council for
Responsible Genetics. Web. 5 Oct 2014.
<http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pagedocuments/yn3rbrq4g
o.pdf>.
“Another similar concern is the potential for any health issues introduced by
the donor mitochondria to be passed down to future generations.32
Mitochondrial DNA is passed from the maternal parent to the offspring, so if the
child resulting from the mitochondrial DNA transfer procedure is female, she
will give her donated mitochondrial DNA to her own future children; her
germZline is forever altered. Though some people can accept genetic engineering
when it affects only the current individual, it is often viewed as unethical to make
modifications to genetic material that will be passed on to future generations.
GermZline alternations are concerning because of the possibility of serious
and debilitating health issues continuing through future generations.33,34
Even if mitochondrial transfer can be proven safe, critics have voiced
apprehensions about the idea of modifying whole genetic lines of human
beings. They say that future individuals have the right to an unmodified
human genome, and to use mitochondrial DNA transfer technology would be
essentially changing their genome without their consent. 35,36 Also, since the
technology is so new and untested, it would be most prudent for resulting children
Champion Briefs
232
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
to participate in follow1up studies years after their conception, and possibly the
entirety of their lives—both to monitor their own health, and to provide information
about the technique that can be used to ensure greater safety of users in the future.
Since their participation would clearly need to be voluntary, there is no guarantee
that such follow1up studies would be successful, which would add to the danger of
the procedure.”
Warrant: The child is not able to consent to these changes; they may have impacts to their
identity, personality, and livelihood; it violates their right to “an open future”
“Human Genetic Engineering Current Science and Ethical Implications.” Council for
Responsible Genetics. Web. 5 Oct 2014.
<http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pagedocuments/yn3rbrq4g
o.pdf>.
“A related issue is the fact that the unborn child has no say in whether he or
she wishes to participate in this experimental procedure and work with the
accompanying complications.38 These complications include the obligation to
participate in research studies, any abnormalities that may occur as a result of
the mitochondrial DNA transfer (both medical and others), and any societal
implications that may result. Someone else must make the decision for the
child, without her direct consent, which is problematic.39 In addition, some
argue that the child’s very identity is altered. They argue that the simple fact
that the child is not ill will change their identity. 40 To make such a drastic
change in the child’s genome and self, the argument goes, is a violation of the
child’s right to “an open future.”41 Also, the child will know that he or she is
different, and that there might be unforeseen consequences that could affect
him/her or their future decedents. The individual will realize that she is
essentially a test subject—knowledge that might be disturbing. According to
some, this knowledge will become a part of the individual’s identity, and it is
Champion Briefs
233
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
unethical to place such a burden on him or her.42Furthermore, some scientists
argue that there is evidence to support that mitochondria do influence
important qualities that participate in the identity of a person—in addition to
the nuclear DNA that is traditionally thought to be the source. They are therefore
concerned about altering the mitochondrial DNA, because they say it could lead to
unforeseen changes in the child’s identity without his or her permission.”
Warrant: Genetically engineering kids robs them of their agency, and risks creating a
hierarchy between those than can afford genetic modification for “preferable genes” and
those that can’t.
Simmons PhD, Daniel. “Genetic Inequality: Human Genetic Engineering.” Nature
Education. 2008. Web. 5 October 2014.
<http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic1inequality1human1
genetic1engineering1768>.
“Beyond questions of safety, issues of individual liberties also arise. For
instance, should parents be allowed to manipulate the genes of their children
to select for certain traits when the children themselves cannot give consent?
Suppose a mother and father select an embryo based on its supposed genetic
predisposition to musicality, but the child grows up to dislike music. Will this alter
the way the child feels about its parents, and vice versa? Finally, in terms of society,
it is not feasible for everyone to have access to this type of expensive
technology. Thus, perhaps only the most privileged members of society will be
able to have "designer children" that possess greater intelligence or physical
attractiveness. This may create a genetic aristocracy and lead to new forms of
inequality.”
Warrant: The impacts of genetic engineering will have impacts that can’t be predicted;
experiments on other animals aren’t enough to prove safety.
Champion Briefs
234
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Darnovsky, Marcy. “Genetically Modified Babies.” New York Times. February 23,
2014. Web. 5 Oct 2014.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/opinion/genetically1modified1
babies.html>.
“Unfortunately, there are now worrisome signs that opposition to inheritable
genetic modifications, written into law by dozens of countries, according to our
count, may be weakening. British regulators are also considering mitochondrial
manipulations, and proponents there, like their counterparts in the United States,
want to move quickly to clinical trials. Researchers at Oregon Health and Science
University have produced five macaque monkeys using one of these
techniques. Four are now adults and all five appear healthy. But we won’t
know for years how subsequent generations may be affected. And the O.H.S.U.
researchers themselves report a difference between their experience with the
macaques and their work so far on fertilized human eggs. More than half of
the human zygotes — single cells formed by the merging of an egg and sperm
— had abnormalities not observed in the fertilized eggs of the monkeys. ‘It
looks like human oocytes are more sensitive,’ the lead researcher, Shoukhrat
Mitalipov, a reproductive biologist, told Nature.”
Warrant: Even for medical purposes, human genome engineering is not ethical, because of
the risk of a slippery slope.
“Human Genetic Engineering Current Science and Ethical Implications.” Council for
Responsible Genetics. Web. 5 Oct 2014.
<http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pagedocuments/yn3rbrq4g
o.pdf>.
Champion Briefs
235
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
“A secondary line of criticism is the fear that genetic engineering techniques
like mitochondrial DNA transfer will lead to genetic engineering for
enhancement purposes rather than purely medical ones, acting as a “gateway”
genetic engineering technique that could lead to eugenic applications. Some
critics of mitochondrial DNA transfer also feel that interfering with something as
powerful as mitochondrial DNA would be essentially “playing God.”44 They believe
that once we take the first step into modifying the genome, it will be a slippery
slope to continue along this path and begin allowing parents to choose
“desirable” traits for their children—such as high intelligence, height, and
specific hair colors.45 This first foray into genetic engineering could therefore lead
to a world where designer babies are commonplace.46 It is important to note that
in most cases genomic science has not developed to a point where scientists are able
to identify the components of the genome responsible for particular traits, because
biological systems too interconnected and the mechanisms are as of yet unknown.”
Warrant: Genetic engineering isn’t needed and doesn’t save lives; adoption or in vitro
fertilization can solve these issues.
Darnovsky, Marcy. “Genetically Modified Babies.” New York Times. February 23,
2014. Web. 5 Oct 2014.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/opinion/genetically1modified1
babies.html>.
“Some media accounts about these techniques have misleadingly referred to
“saving lives,” as if they were aimed at people who are sick and suffering.
Others have failed to note how very few women would be candidates for even
considering them. And they could turn to safer and simpler alternatives. An
affected woman could adopt or use in vitro fertilization with another woman’s
eggs. Of course, the resulting child would not be genetically related to her, but
neither would the child be put at grave risk by an extreme procedure.”
Champion Briefs
236
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Analysis: The argument here is centered around weighing the rights of a child against and
the systemic changes that modifying humans would have on society, over short term
impacts to health, or weighing them against benefits of reduced pesticide and increased
income caused by genetically modified crops. This can be done on multiple levels; first, the
slippery slope evidence gives you a very powerful link; it can be used to say that we need to
reject all forms of genetic modification, because they inevitably lead to this end of human
modification. Then, you can argue that the systemic issues of hierarchy and classism that
this technology will engender are more problematic than the benefits, because kids can be
adopted, and agricultural benefits can be achieved through alternative means such as
sustainable agriculture. Lastly, it’s possible to win this argument off the 3 pieces of evidence
from the Council for Responsible genetics, which show that genetically modifying
humans is unjust and robs children of agency and consent; it requires you to reframe good
as being just, or argue that fairness or justice are the most important issues in the round.
Champion Briefs
237
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
A2 Z Genetically modifying humans
Answer: Insofar as genetically modifying humans prevents harm, it is justifiable.
Warrant: Mitochondrial disease causes lifelong diseases.
Katnelson, Alla. “Freeing human eggs of mutant mitochondria.” Nature. 14 April 2010.
Web. 5 Oct 2014.
<http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100414/full/news.2010.180.html>.
“Proof of principle
As many as 1 in 250 people carry a potentially disease-causing mitochondrial
mutation. Mutations in mitochondrial DNA, when passed down from a mother to
her offspring, are linked to diseases causing neurological, muscle and heart
problems, as well as deafness and type 2 diabetes. Many people carry a mixture of
normal and mutated mitochondrial DNA — a proportion of more than 50% or so of
mutant mitochondria is needed to cause disease — but the percentage of mutated
mitochondrial DNA that will be transmitted from mother to child is almost impossible to
predict, says Thorburn.”
Warrant: Genetic modification at birth can solve these diseases; experiments have shown
success.
Katnelson, Alla. “Freeing human eggs of mutant mitochondria.” Nature. 14 April 2010.
Web. 5 Oct 2014.
<http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100414/full/news.2010.180.html>.
“Porting the nuclear DNA of an affected egg into an unaffected one could provide a
solution for women at high risk of bearing severely affected children, says Douglass
Turnbull at Newcastle University, one of the lead authors of the new study. Working with
abnormally fertilized eggs unsuitable for IVF — for example, those fertilized by two
Champion Briefs
238
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
sperm instead of one — Turnbull and his team transferred nuclei from 80 embryos
just after fertilization. Of those, 18 continued to develop to beyond the eight-cell
stage, and a small number of those reached the blastocyst stage of 100 cells. On
average, the procedure carried over about 2% of mitochondrial DNA from the
donor to the recipient embryo, which would not be enough to cause disease. "We've
proved in principle that this sort of technique can be used to prevent transmission of
mitochondrial diseases in humans," says Turnbull. The task now, he says, is to show
that the technique is safe and to boost the survival rate of manipulated embryos — factors
that were difficult to assess in this study because abnormally fertilized eggs develop less
well than normal embryos.”
Warrant: Success with experiments in primates shows that it is feasible.
Cyranoski, David. “DNA swap could avoid inherited diseases.” Nature. 26 Aug 2009.
Web. 5 Oct 2014.
<http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090826/full/news.2009.860.html>.
“In experiments using rhesus macaques, US researchers transferred DNA from the
nucleus of one egg into another egg which had had its nucleus removed, without
carrying over any mitochondrial DNA in the process — a crucial improvement on
existing DNA-transfer techniques. The eggs were then fertilized with sperm and
implanted into females, which produced offspring that had mitochondrial DNA
from one female and nuclear DNA from another1. Leaving behind all the
mitochondrial DNA that could carry disease-causing mutations, and the fact that it was
done in primates, make the work ‘highly innovative and very promising’, says David
Thorburn, a geneticist specializing in mitochondrial disease at the Murdoch Childrens
Research Institute in Melbourne, Australia. ‘It should be able to mimic the human
situation more closely than mice. If proven safe [in humans] this could provide a
huge advance.’”
Answer: We have a moral obligation to allow parents to genetically modify their kids.
Champion Briefs
239
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Warrant: At the point where there isn’t hard evidence that cosmetic changes will actually harm
individuals or society, parent’s ought to have the right to choose.
Keim, Brandon. “Designer Babies: A right to Choose.” Wired. 9 March 2009. Web. 5 Oct
2014.
<http://www.wired.com/2009/03/designerdebate/>.
“When a Los Angeles fertility clinic offered last month to let parents choose their kids’
hair and eye color, public outrage followed. On March 2, the clinic shut the program
down — and that, says transhumanist author James Hughes, is a shame. According to
Hughes, using reproductive technologies — in this case, pre-implantation genetic
diagnosis (PGD), in which doctors screen embryos before implanting them — for
cosmetic purposes is just an old-fashioned parental impulse, translated into 21st
century technology. If nobody gets hurt and everybody has access, says Hughes,
then genetic modification is perfectly fine, and restricting it is an assault on
reproductive freedom. ‘It’s in the same category as abortion. If you think women
have the right to control their own bodies, then they should be able to make this
choice,’ he said. ‘There should be no law restricting the kind of kids people have,
unless there’s gross evidence that they’re going to harm that kid, or harm society.’”
Warrant: We have a moral obligation to use genetic engineering to prevent characteristics that
would make kids a danger to themselves or society.
Alleyne, Richard. “Genetically engineering 'ethical' babies is a moral obligation, says
Oxford professor.” The Telegraph. 16 Aug 2012. Web. 5 Oct 2014.
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9480372/Geneticallyengineering-ethical-babies-is-a-moral-obligation-says-Oxford-professor.html>.
“Professor Julian Savulescu said that creating so-called designer babies could be
considered a ‘moral obligation’ as it makes them grow up into ‘ethically better
children’. The expert in practical ethics said that we should actively give parents the
Champion Briefs
240
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
choice to screen out personality flaws in their children as it meant they were then
less likely to ‘harm themselves and others’. The academic, who is also editor-in-chief
of the Journal of Medical Ethics, made his comments in an article in the latest edition of
Reader's Digest. He explained that we are now in the middle of a genetic revolution and
that although screening, for all but a few conditions, remained illegal it should be
welcomed. He said that science is increasingly discovering that genes have a
significant influence on personality – with certain genetic markers in embryo
suggesting future characteristics. By screening in and screening out certain genes in
the embryos, it should be possible to influence how a child turns out. In the end, he
said that ‘rational design’ would help lead to a better, more intelligent and less
violent society in the future. ‘Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or
a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?’ wrote Prof
Savulescu, the Uehiro Professor in practical ethics. ‘So where genetic selection aims to
bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents
the choice.”
Warrant: It isn’t fair to kids to subject them to the genetic lottery; and this doesn’t constitute
eugenics because it isn’t forced.
Alleyne, Richard. “Genetically engineering 'ethical' babies is a moral obligation, says
Oxford professor.” The Telegraph. 16 Aug 2012. Web. 5 Oct 2014.
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9480372/Geneticallyengineering-ethical-babies-is-a-moral-obligation-says-Oxford-professor.html>.
“‘To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our
squeamishness and irrationality. ‘Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality
flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could
argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children. ‘They are,
after all, less likely to harm themselves and others.’ ‘If we have the power to intervene
in the nature of our offspring — rather than consigning them to the natural lottery
— then we should.’ He said that we already routinely screen embryos and foetuses
Champion Briefs
241
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Down’s syndrome and couples can test
embryos for inherited bowel and breast cancer genes. Rational design is just a
natural extension of this, he said. He said that unlike the eugenics movements, which
fell out of favour when it was adopted by the Nazis, the system would be voluntary
and allow parents to choose the characteristics of their children. "We’re routinely
screening embryos and foetuses for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Down’s
syndrome, and there’s little public outcry," he said. "What’s more, few people
protested at the decisions in the mid- 2000s to allow couples to test embryos for inherited
bowel and breast cancer genes, and this pushes us a lot close to creating designer
humans." "Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now.
Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance.’”
Analysis: These two arguments really hinge on the idea that we can realistically reduce suffering
in society without any negative or unfair externalities. We can prevent diseases, and make
cosmetic changes and changes that objectively prevent harm to society. This argument is very
utilitarian, and it’s necessary to argue that consent isn’t necessary when dealing with children, or
when subjecting someone that will objectively help them, or at least not harm them. It might be
useful, when dealing with a lay judge, to use a metaphor, like how we subject children to school
without their consent, because it objectively benefits them and society, even if it might override
their consent.
Champion Briefs
242
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
CON – Human health risks
Argument: The use of GMO’s creates risks to human health
Warrant: The FDA often hides health risks in an attempt to protect big industry companies
"Health Risks." Institute for Responsible Technology. Web.
<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/health-risks>.
“In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration claimed they had no information
showing that GM foods were substantially different from conventionally grown
foods. Therefore they are safe to eat, and absolutely no safety studies were required. But
internal memos made public by a lawsuit[2] reveal that their position was staged by
political appointees who were under orders from the White House to promote
GMOs. In addition, the FDA official in charge of creating this policy was Michael
Taylor, the former attorney for Monsanto, the largest biotech company, and later their
vice president.” In reality, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can
create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new
diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were
ignored. Today, the same biotech companies who have been found guilty of hiding toxic
effects of their chemical products are in charge of determining whether their GM foods
are safe. Industry-funded GMO safety studies are too superficial to find most of the
potential dangers, and their voluntary consultations with the FDA are widely
criticized as a meaningless façade.”
Warrant: Tests done by large companies like Monsanto are insufficient and do not accurately
reflect the health risks of GMOs.
Spiroux De Vendômois, Joël. "Debate on GMOs Health Risks after Statistical Findings in
Regulatory Tests." International Journal of Biological Sciences. Ivyspring
Champion Briefs
243
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
International, 5 Oct. 2010. Web.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2952409/
“We wish to reassert that our work does not claim to demonstrate the chronic toxicity of
the GMOs in question, especially since it is based on the data originating from
insufficient tests that were accepted by regulatory authorities and Monsanto et al., a fact
for which we are not in any way responsible. For the regulatory authorities, as well as
Monsanto et al, these tests prove chronic innocuousness for mammalian and human
public health. And they claim it is not essential to demonstrate the GMOs
innocuousness. This again raises the same issues and consequences. We have
revealed the inefficiency both of these tests and of their statistical analysis and
biological interpretations, for the various reasons detailed above. However, some of
the in vivo 90-day tests are not performed any longer today to get worldwide commercial
authorizations, especially for GMO with “stacked events” (i.e., producing one or several
insecticides and tolerating one or two herbicides), and this is even more seriously
inadequate since the so-called “cocktail effects” are not taken into consideration.”
Warrant: Genes from viruses and bacteria are often forced into GMO DNA
"Health Risks." Institute for Responsible Technology. Web.
<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/health-risks>.
“GM plants, such as soybean, corn, cottonseed, and canola, have had foreign genes
forced into their DNA. The inserted genes come from species, such as bacteria and
viruses, which have never been in the human food supply. Genetic engineering
transfers genes across natural species barriers. It uses imprecise laboratory
techniques that bear no resemblance to natural breeding, and is based on outdated
concepts of how genes and cells work.[4] Gene insertion is done either by shooting genes
from a "gene gun" into a plate of cells or by using bacteria to invade the cell with foreign
DNA. The altered cell is then cloned into a plant.”
Champion Briefs
244
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Warrant: The insertion of new genes leads to an increase in health risks
Dona, Artemis. "Health Risks of Genetically Modified Food." Taylor and Francis Group.
University of Athens, Medical School. Web. 4 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.unionccs.net/images/library/file/Agricultura_y_alimentacion/Health
_Risks_GMOs.pdf>.
“The insertion of a new gene can sometimes lead to increase in existing levels of
anti-nutrients, some of which cannot be reduced with heat treatment (BakkeMcKellep et al., 2007). One of the most widely available commercial GM products
nowadays glyphosate-resistant Roundup Ready soybean may display an increase in antinutrients. Heat-stable anti-nutrients such as phytoestrogens, glucinins, and phytic
acid were also found to cause infertility problems in sheep and cattle, allergenic
reations and binding to phosphorus and zinc thereby making them unavailable to
the animal respectively.”
Impact: GMO’s have been shown to have health risks to consumers.
Dona, Artemis. "Health Risks of Genetically Modified Food." Taylor and Francis Group.
University of Athens, Medical School. Web. 4 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.unionccs.net/images/library/file/Agricultura_y_alimentacion/Health
_Risks_GMOs.pdf>.
“Possible hazards of GM food for animals and populations exposed to a diet containing
GM products include the potential for pleiotropic and insertional effects, effects on
animal and human health resulting from the increase of anti-nutrients, potential
effects on human health resulting from the use of viral DNA in plants, possible
transfer of antibiotic resistant genes to bacteria in gastrointestinal tract, and
possible effects of GM foods on allergic responses.” Body weight might be
significantly altered as it has been shown with the consumption of Mon863 corn
(Seralini et al.,2007) and GM rice on rats (Li et al., 2004).”
Champion Briefs
245
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
"Health Risks." Institute for Responsible Technology. Web.
<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/health-risks>.
“In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) stated that,
"Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with genetically
modified (GM) food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging,
faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal
system. The AAEM has asked physicians to advise all patients to avoid GM foods.”
Analysis: GMOs are often clouded with DNA from unknown organisms, sometimes even
bacteria and viruses, that can lead to huge human health risks including infertility, immune
problems, effects on the gastrointestinal system, etc. Many big companies hide this information
from the public by funding studies that try to prove this is not true and muddle evidence.
Champion Briefs
246
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
A2 – Human Health Risks
Answer: Genetic modification of plants and animals is not a new or dangerous concept
Warrant: Humans have been altering their food for centuries
Novella, Steven. "No Health Concerns for GMO." James Randi Educational Foundation.
Web.
<http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/2225-no-health-
concerns-for-gmo.html>.
“Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, remain controversial, but like so many
other politically hot topics, the controversy is more cultural than scientific. A
disconnect between public opinion and scientific evidence is not uncommon, and
represents a serious challenge to scientists, science communicators, and those
involved in public policy. As is often the case, specific and important public policy
decisions depend upon understanding the science. Concerns about GMO stem from
several premises. The most flimsy of which is nothing more than the naturalistic fallacy –
that GMO are somehow unnatural and therefore hazardous. Humans have been altering
plants and animals for their own use for thousands of years, however. Almost
nothing that you eat is the product of evolution without extensive human tinkering.”
Answer: Genetically modified crops have not been proven to create human health risks
Warrant: There is no sufficient scientific evidence that proves human health risks result from
consuming GMOs.
"Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods." AAAS Archives and Records Center.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. Web.
http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=464
Champion Briefs
247
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
“As a result and contrary to popular misconceptions, GM crops are the most extensively
tested crops ever added to our food supply. There are occasional claims that feeding
GM foods to animals causes aberrations ranging from digestive disorders, to
sterility, tumors and premature death. Although such claims are often
sensationalized and receive a great deal of media attention, none have stood up to
rigorous scientific scrutiny. Indeed, a recent review of a dozen well-designed longterm animal feeding studies comparing GM and non-GM potatoes, soy, rice, corn
and triticale found that the GM and their non-GM counterparts are nutritionally
equivalent. Results obtained from testing GM food and feed in rodents indicate that large
(at least 100-fold) 'safety' margins exist between animal exposure levels without observed
adverse effects and estimated human daily intake. Results of feeding studies with feed
derived from GM plants with improved agronomic properties, carried out in a wide
range of livestock species, are discussed. The studies did not show any biologically
relevant differences in the parameters tested between control and test animals.”
Warrant: GM crops have passed risk assessment tests
"Modern Food Biotechnology, Human Health and Development: An Evidence-based
Study." World Health Organization. Department of Food Safety. 2005. Web.
<http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/biotech_en.pdf>.
“The use of GMOs may also involve potential risks for human health and development.
Many genes used in GMOs have not been in the food supply before. While new types of
conventional food crops are not usually subject to safety assessment before marketing,
assessments of GM foods were undertaken before the first crops were commercialized.
To provide international consistency in theassessment of GM foods, principles developed
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (a joint programme of WHO and the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; FAO) now cover food safety, while the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety covers environmental safety of GMOs. Many countries
have established specific premarket regulatory systems in accordance with this
international guidance that require a case-by-case risk assessment of each GM food. Risk
Champion Briefs
248
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
assessment methodology undergoes continuous improvements, a fact that is recognized by
the Codex principles, including the need for risk assessments to consider both the
intended and unintended effects of such foods in the food supply. GM foods currently
traded on the international market have passed risk assessments in several countries
and are not likely, nor have been shown, to present risks for human health.”
Warrant: No health problems have been attributed to genetic engineering in humans
Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods. Washington, D.C.: National Academies, 2004.
Print.
“All evidence evaluated to date indicates that unexpected and unintended compositional
changes arise with all forms of genetic modification, including genetic engineering.
Whether such compositional changes result in unintended health effects is dependent
upon the nature of the substances altered and the biological consequences of the
compounds. To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have
been documented in the human population.”
Analysis: The PRO team must respond to the health risks argument with a lot of evidence that
says there is no sufficient proof that these health risks actually do result from genetically
modified crops. Press the CON team for statistics on how many people have been affected by
health problems as a result of consuming genetically modified crops.
Champion Briefs
249
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
CON – GMO Industry Drives Out Competition
Argument: GMO Industry Drives Out Competition
Warrant: The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of large biotech companies giving them more
patent enforcement power.
Hubbard, Kristina. “Monsanto’s Growing Monopoly.” Salon. Columbia University. 30
May 2013. http://www.columbia.org/pdf_files/osa5.pdf
“When the Supreme Court unanimously sided with Monsanto recently, it upheld
the company’s right to prohibit the replanting of patented seed – handing the
biotech giant a major victory. The court ruled that the doctrine of “patent exhaustion,”
which an Indiana farmer argued should apply after the first sale of patented seed, “does
not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without
the patent holder’s permission.” It’s not surprising the court ruled in Monsanto’s favor.
Still, the case had merit: The farmer, Vernon Hugh Bowman, wasn’t challenging
Monsanto’s claims that he knowingly planted seed with its protected genetics. Instead, he
challenged the way patent law is currently applied to self-replicating products – a worthy
effort, considering the injustices patents on seed have sown across America.”
Warrant: Patent laws have been applied to GM crops.
Hubbard, Kristina. “Monsanto’s Growing Monopoly.” Salon. Columbia University. 30
May 2013. http://www.columbia.org/pdf_files/osa5.pdf
“Bowman’s case reflected that complexity. He was not only trying to save money, but
challenging a relatively new paradigm in agriculture. It is only since another Supreme
Court decision in 2001 that patent law – that is, the U.S. Patent Act governing utility
patents, or “patents for inventions” has applied to living organisms. Soon after,
Congress passed the Plant Variety Protection Act. The law, passed in 1970,
Champion Briefs
250
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Represented a compromise between their hesitance to patent seed and mounting pressure
to provide seed developers stronger intellectual property protections. Before the 2001
ruling, seed developers largely relied on protections afforded through “Certificates of
Protection” under the PVPA, providing seed developers exclusive marketing rights of
their new varieties for 20 years (like a patent). But the law includes two critical
exemptions: Farmers can save seed and breeders can use protected varieties to
innovate, including the development of new varieties. The Patent Act provides no
such exemptions, with devastating consequences.”
Warrant: US anti-trust laws do not break up big agriculture.
Wise, Tim. “Monopolies are Killing our Farmers.” East Texas Review. Tufts University.
13 April 2010.
http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/WiseMonopoliesAndFarms13Apr10.pdf
“U.S. anti-trust law has always recognized buyer power as an anti-competitive
practice, but authorities have rarely taken the issue seriously when reviewing the
agribusiness mergers that in the last two decades have placed the majority of the
world’s food in the hands of a small number of corporations. Wal-Mart and other
ever-larger supermarket chains force down prices from their giant suppliers, which in
turn demand rock-bottom prices from theirs.”
Warrant: Monsanto controls a huge portion of US agriculture.
Wise, Tim. “Monopolies are Killing our Farmers.” East Texas Review. Tufts University.
13 April 2010.
http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/WiseMonopoliesAndFarms13Apr10.pdf
“Monsanto is a textbook case of monopoly selling power. It controls seeds globally,
including an estimated 93 percent of the U.S. soybean seed market. U.S. seed prices
overall have risen an astounding 146 percent since 1999, and 64 percent in just the last
Champion Briefs
251
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
three years. An Iowa grain farmer told the crowd that he had no choice but to buy
Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds, and that their rising prices eroded any gains he
gets from higher output. Other farmers told of legal threats from Monsanto for planting
its patented seeds without a license.”
Warrant: The four largest companies control almost all agriculture
“The Economic Costs of Food Monopolies.” Food and Water Watch. November 2012.
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/CostofFoodMonopolies.pdf
“The agriculture and food sector is unusually concentrated, with just a few companies
dominating the market in each link of the food chain. In most sectors of the U.S.
economy, the four largest firms control between 40 and 45 percent of the market, and
many economists maintain that higher levels of concentration can start to erode
competitiveness.1 Yet according to data compiled by the University of MissouriColumbia in 2012, in the agriculture and food sector, the four largest companies
controlled 82 percent of the beef packing industry, 85 percent of soybean processing,
63 percent of pork packing, and 53 percent of broiler chicken processing.”
Warrant: Agribusiness companies try to justify consolidation with efficiency, but the consumers
do not see the benefit.
“The Economic Costs of Food Monopolies.” Food and Water Watch. November 2012.
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/CostofFoodMonopolies.pdf
“For decades, the U.S. Department of Justice and the USDA have taken a hands-off
approach to food system consolidation, on the grounds that increased concentration has
not directly harmed consumers. Agribusiness companies contend that through
mergers and acquisitions, they can provide efficiencies of scale that benefit
consumers. But in reality, consumers rarely see a decrease in what they pay for food
at the grocery store.”
Champion Briefs
252
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Agribusiness companies provide much of the skewed data
“The Economic Costs of Food Monopolies.” Food and Water Watch. November 2012.
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/CostofFoodMonopolies.pdf
“The economic harm caused by the concentration of the food system is real, but is often
neglected. The largest players in agribusiness have been providing most of the data,
allowing them to perpetuate the myth that the economy has benefited from the
efficiency offered by the industrialized agriculture system. Meanwhile, independent,
small and mid-sized producers offer first-hand examples of the sorely needed
competition-related reforms.”
Impact: Agriculture corporations that do not face competition can lie to consumers about health
risks
Spiroux De Vendômois, Joël. "Debate on GMOs Health Risks after Statistical Findings in
Regulatory Tests." International Journal of Biological Sciences. Ivyspring
International, 5 Oct. 2010. Web.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2952409/
“We wish to reassert that our work does not claim to demonstrate the chronic toxicity of
the GMOs in question, especially since it is based on the data originating from
insufficient tests that were accepted by regulatory authorities and Monsanto et al., a fact
for which we are not in any way responsible. For the regulatory authorities, as well as
Monsanto et al, these tests prove chronic innocuousness for mammalian and human
public health. And they claim it is not essential to demonstrate the GMOs
innocuousness. This again raises the same issues and consequences. We have
revealed the inefficiency both of these tests and of their statistical analysis and
biological interpretations, for the various reasons detailed above. However, some of
the in vivo 90-day tests are not performed any longer today to get worldwide commercial
Champion Briefs
253
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
authorizations, especially for GMO with “stacked events” (i.e., producing one or several
insecticides and tolerating one or two herbicides), and this is even more seriously
inadequate since the so-called “cocktail effects” are not taken into consideration.”
Analysis: The CON team can use this argument independently and as a hidden link to access
many other impacts in the round. In order to successfully win this argument, the CON team must
show that GMOs naturally lead to monopolies in agriculture when corporations merge together.
Because monopolies do not face market pressure, the CON team can use this as a warrant for
why information on GMOs is often skewed and not accurate, so we do not know the full extent
of health risks, the true amount of herbicides used, etc.
Champion Briefs
254
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
A2 – GMO Industry Drives out Competition
Answer: Competitors to the market exist
Warrant: Organic farming is often preferred by consumers.
“Organic Agriculture in Wisconsin.” University of Wisconsin. 2011.
http://www.cias.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/growing-demand.pdf
“With U.S. consumers pinching pennies, cutting corners and seeking out the lowest
prices, one might think that demand for organic food would have fallen since the start of
the economic downturn in 2007. Instead, the opposite is true. While total U.S. food sales
have been nearly flat, the organic food industry is growing and consumer interest in
organic food is on the rise.
A 2011 survey by the Organic Trade Association found that more than three
quarters-78 percent- of US families are buying organic food, up from 73 percent in
2009. Forty percent of families say they are buying more organic food now than they
were a year ago.”
Warrant: Organic farming is growing
“Organic Agriculture in Wisconsin.” University of Wisconsin. 2011.
http://www.cias.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/growing-demand.pdf
“In 2010, the U.S. organic food and beverage industry grew at a rate of 7.7 percent,
posting total sales of $26.7 billion. In comparison, growth in total food sales
stagnated at .6 percent. Organic food accounted for four percent of the $673 billion
food industry in 2010.”
Champion Briefs
255
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Answer: Lack of competition is not the fault of GMOs themselves, but rather faulty government
policy
Warrant: The FDA protects GMOs by hiding critical information
"Health Risks." Institute for Responsible Technology. Web.
<http://www.responsibletechnology.org/health-risks>.
“In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration claimed they had no information
showing that GM foods were substantially different from conventionally grown
foods. Therefore they are safe to eat, and absolutely no safety studies were required. But
internal memos made public by a lawsuit[2] reveal that their position was staged by
political appointees who were under orders from the White House to promote
GMOs. In addition, the FDA official in charge of creating this policy was Michael
Taylor, the former attorney for Monsanto, the largest biotech company, and later their
vice president. In reality, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can
create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new
diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were
ignored. Today, the same biotech companies who have been found guilty of hiding toxic
effects of their chemical products are in charge of determining whether their GM foods
are safe. Industry-funded GMO safety studies are too superficial to find most of the
potential dangers, and their voluntary consultations with the FDA are widely
criticized as a meaningless façade.”
Warrant: Courts have upheld monopolies in agriculture
Hubbard, Kristina. “Monsanto’s Growing Monopoly.” Salon. Columbia University. 30
May 2013. http://www.columbia.org/pdf_files/osa5.pdf
“But Bowman thought that by purchasing soybean seed from a grain elevator he
had found a legal way to plant seed from subsequent generations. He assumed the
Champion Briefs
256
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
seed contained patented geneticsbut argued that the patent exhaustion doctrine allowed
him to plant them anyway. Nevertheless, the Federal Circuit Court ruled, and the
Supreme Court agreed, that Mr. Bowman must pay Monsanto more than $80,000.
Needless to say, Bowman is not alone in his desire to use seed from subsequent
generations. More than 150 farmers have been targets of patent infringement
lawsuits filed by Monsanto. And legislative initiatives at the federal level also
highlight the demand. Rep. Marcy Kaptur, of Ohio, introduced legislation in 2004 and
again this year to establish a registration and fee system that would allow farmers to
legally save patented seed. “Companies deserve a fair return, not an exorbitant return,”
Kaptur has said.”
Warrant: New government policy could solve the problem
“The Economic Costs of Food Monopolies.” Food and Water Watch. November 2012.
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/CostofFoodMonopolies.pdf
“The USDA should have a special counsel’s office on agricultural consolidation in
the food and farm sector to effectively coordinate between the agencies with
jurisdiction over competition policy. Many farmers raise livestock or crops under
contract with large agribusinesses, but because the few firms have tremendous leverage,
farmers are often forced into take-it-or-leave-it contracts that can be unfair or abusive.
Fair contract practices should be spelled out in regulation and law.”
Analysis: Notice that the CON warrant of government protection of agriculture industry can be
turned against the CON based on its topicality. If it is not the GMOs themselves that promote
monopolies in agriculture, but rather the government, then it is not the fault of the GMOs.
Additionally, look to organic agriculture as a competitor against GMOs. If a competitor exists
and is growing, the CON’s argument is not true.
Champion Briefs
257
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
CON – Pesticide Resistant Crops Decrease Diversity
Argument: Genetically modified foods cause the rapid erosion of plant varieties from farmers’
fields all over the world, varieties that have been developed over hundreds and thousands of
years and are now forever extinct.
Warrant: The pesticide resistant genetically modified crops discourage the use of pest
management methods that benefit biodiversity.
Garcia, Maria Alice. “Transgenic Crops: Implications for Biodiversity and Sustainable
Agriculture.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 25, No. 4, August
2005.
<http://agroeco.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/garcia-altieri.pdf>
“GM crops available so far encourage agricultural intensification, and as long as the
use of these crops follows closely the high-input, pesticide paradigm, such
biotechnological products will reinforce the “pesticide treadmill” usually associated
with genetic uniformity and reduction of biodiversity in agro- ecosystems. To the
extent that transgenic crops further entrench the current clean crop monoculture
system, they discourage farmers from using other ecologically based pest
management methods (Altieri, 1996), including simple ecological approaches like biodiversity islands, field margins, and corridors. Monocultures also limit the extent to
which farm lands— which cover large areas of the world (e.g., 70% on the United
Kingdom; Hails, 2003)—can contribute to conservation of wildlife.”
Warrant: The GMO-induced decrease in genetic diversity has harmful economic impacts.
Garcia, Maria Alice. “Transgenic Crops: Implications for Biodiversity and Sustainable
Agriculture.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 25, No. 4, August
2005.
<http://agroeco.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/garcia-altieri.pdf>
Champion Briefs
258
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
“Since the onset of agricultural modernization, farmers and researchers have been
faced with an ecological dilemma arising from the homogenization of agricultural
systems: an increased vulnerability of crops to unpredictable arthropod pests and
diseases, which can be devastating when infesting genetically uniform, large-scale
monocultures (R. A. Robinson, 1996). Examples of disease epidemics associated with
homo- geneous crops abound in the literature, including the $1 billion disease-induced
loss of maize in the United States in 1970 and the 18 million citrus trees destroyed by
pathogens in Florida in 1984 (Thrupp, 1998).”
Warrant: Herbicides also decrease biodiversity by completely removing all types of weeds.
Garcia, Maria Alice. “Transgenic Crops: Implications for Biodiversity and Sustainable
Agriculture.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 25, No. 4, August
2005.
<http://agroeco.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/garcia-altieri.pdf>
“Accordingly, perhaps the greatest problem associated with the use of HT crops is
the fact that associated broad-spectrum herbicides offer scope to completely remove
weeds from fields, reducing plant diversity in agroecosystems. This contrasts with
herbicidal weed management approaches in conventional crops where selective herbicide
use may leave some weed taxa present. Many studies have produced evidence that the
manipulation of a specific weed species or a particular weed control practice can
affect the ecology of insect pests and associated natural enemies (Altieri &
Letourneau, 1982). Even though HT crop/herbicide package could potentially allow more
rational weed management with potential benefits for arthropod pest management, the
goal of achieving season-long total weed control in all crops reinforces the loss of
diversity and biological services in conventional farms. By reviewing weed phenologies
and population models, Freckleton et al (2004) showed that weed diversity is unlikely
to increase in HT fields because spraying is generally delayed to the point that most
weeds do not set seeds. These authors suggested that the positive effects on
biodiversity observed in some trials are likely to be transient, and therefore, one
Champion Briefs
259
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
cannot expect that beneficial arthropods and birds using resources from weeds will
benefit from the use of herbicide-tolerant crops.”
Warrant: This is empirically proven, herbicide tolerant crops can entirely eradicate weed
populations that birds depend on.
Watkinson, A.R [University of East Anglia]. “Predictions of Biodiversity Response to
Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant Crops.” Science, Sept 1 2000. Web. Oct
7 2014. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/289/5484/1554.full
“We simulated the effects of the introduction of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant
(GMHT) crops on weed populations and the consequences for seed-eating birds. We
predict that weed populations might be reduced to low levels or practically
eradicated, depending on the exact form of management. Consequent effects on the
local use of fields by birds might be severe, because such reductions represent a
major loss of food resources. The regional impacts of GMHT crops are shown to
depend on whether the adoption of GMHT crops by farmers covaries with current weed
levels.”
Warrant: Bird populations have decreased along with the increased genetic concentration of
agriculture.
Krebs, John. “The Second Silent Spring?” Nature, Aug 12 1999. Web. Oct 7 2014.
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v400/n6745/full/400611a0.html>
“In the past 20 years, ten million breeding individuals of ten species of farmland
birds have disappeared from the British countryside. For example, the corn bunting
(Emberiza calandra) and tree sparrow have declined for periods of up to a decade at an
average rate of more than 5% per year. The declines in bird numbers in part reflect
those in the invertebrate and plant populations upon which they depend. Can we be
sure that the bird declines in the United Kingdom are caused by agricultural
Champion Briefs
260
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
intensification? Most of the evidence is by association, but in sum total it is damning. For
example, annual BTO censuses of 42 species of breeding birds show that 13 species
living exclusively in farmland, such as the skylark (Alauda arvensis) and corn bunting,
declined by an average of 30% between 1968 and 1995, while 29 species of habitat
generalists, such as the carrion crow (Corvus corone) and the wren (Troglodytes
troglodytes), have increased by an average of 23% (ref. 2). More direct evidence is that
the declines of four species have actually been reversed, at least on a local scale, by
'experimental' changes in farming.”
Analysis: This argument can be very intuitive if debaters do not get bogged down in the
scientific complexities of it. If debaters can clearly articulate to judges that genetically modified
crops inherently decrease genetic diversity, they can then link into a multitude of impacts.
Biodiversity is important for protecting water, protecting soil, cycling nutrients, breaking down
pollution, stabilizing climate, maintaining ecosystems, providing food, containing medicine,
preserving culture, and providing recreation. Any of these impacts, and more, can be accessed as
long as the diminished genetic diversity of GM crops is established, and debaters can tell a
powerful story of how a Con vote will protect the environment from this harm.
Champion Briefs
261
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
A2 – Pesticide Resistant Crops Decrease Diversity
Argument: Biodiversity is actually benefitted by the growing of GM crops.
Warrant: The worst harm to biodiversity, habitat loss, is mitigated by GMOs.
Carpenter, Janet. “Impact of GM crops on biodiversity.” Landes Bioscience, March 2011.
Web. Oct 7 2014.
<https://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/CarpenterGMC2-1.pdf>
“The most direct negative impact of agriculture on biodiversity is due to the
considerable loss of natural habitats, which is caused by the conversion of natural
ecosystems into agricultural land. Increases in crop yields allow less land to be
dedicated to agriculture than would otherwise be necessary. A large and growing body
of literature has shown that the adoption of GE crops has increased yields, particularly in
developing countries. A review of the re- sults of global farmer surveys found that the
average yield increases for developing countries range from 16% for insect-resistant
corn to 30% for insect-resistant cotton, with an 85% yield increase observed in a
single study on herbicide-tolerant corn. On average, developed-country farmers report
yield increases that range from no change for herbicide-tolerant cotton to a 7% increase
for herbicide-tolerant soybean and insect-resistant cotton. Researchers have estimated
the benefit of these yield improvements on reducing conversion of land into agricultural
use. They estimate that 2.64 million hectares of land would probably be brought into
grain and oilseed production if biotech traits were no longer used.“
Champion Briefs
262
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Warrant: The benefits to biodiversity of genetically modified crops outweigh any cost.
Carpenter, Janet. “Impact of GM crops on biodiversity.” Landes Bioscience, March 2011.
Web. Oct 7 2014.
<https://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/CarpenterGMC2-1.pdf>
“Knowledge gained over the past 15 years that GM crops have been grown
commercially indicates that the impacts on biodiversity are positive on balance. By
increasing yields, decreasing insecticide use, increasing the use of more
environmentally friendly herbicides and facilitating the adoption of conservation
tillage, GM crops have already contributed to increasing agricultural sustainability.
Overall, the review finds that currently commercialized GM crops have reduced the
impacts of agriculture on biodiversity, through enhanced adoption of conservation
tillage practices, reduction of insecticide use and use of more environmentally benign
herbicides and increasing yields to alleviate pressure to convert additional land into
agricultural use.”
Analysis: Yield increase due to GMOs, among other benefits, can be logically explained (or
crossapplied, if debaters run similar arguments in their cases) as responses to this idea. As long
as the Pro team can win that yield increases, they then link into the major factor relating to
biodiversity. As long as mainstream agriculture requires more land, it is worse for genetic
diversity.
Response: Farming in general decreases genetic diversity.
Warrant: Because farmers generally only grow a few crops anyway, the land they grow on
would have had more diverse crops if it were not used for farming regardless of whether or not
they are planting GMOS.
“How does agriculture affect biodiversity?” Europa Bio. Web. Oct 7 2014.
<http://www.europabio.org/how-does-agriculture-affect-biodiversity>
Champion Briefs
263
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
“The 2010 biodiversity target to achieve a significant reduction of biodiversity loss, set
by world governments in 2002, has not been met at a global level. Across the globe,
natural systems that support economies, lives and livelihoods are at risk of rapid
degradation, with significant further loss of biodiversity becoming increasingly
likely. Overall, the effects of farming on biodiversity depend mainly on agricultural
practices rather than on the technology used for plant breeding.“
Analysis: This response essentially says that the Con’s logic is non-unique to the resolution
itself. Since the Pro team is not going to argue that all farming is bad, just farming of GM plants,
the burden is on them to prove that the decreasing biodiversity occurring in the status quo is
unique to GM foods.
Champion Briefs
264
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
CON – Death of Honey Bees
Argument: The use of GMO’s leads to the death of honeybees threatening the entire agriculture
industry.
Warrant: Genetic modification makes plant pollen sterile, malnourishing or poisoning
honeybees.
Amos, Brit. "Death of the Bees. Genetically Modified Crops and the Decline of Bee
Colonies in North America." Global Research. 9 Aug. 2011. Web. 4 Oct. 2014.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-of-the-bees-genetically-modified-crops-andthe-decline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/25950?print=1
“The genetic modification of the plant leads to the concurrent genetic modification
of the flower pollen. When the flower pollen becomes genetically modified or
sterile, the bees will potentially go malnourished and die of illness due to the lack of
nutrients and the interruption of the digestive capacity of what they feed on through
the summer and over the winter hibernation process.”
Warrant: Exposure to pollen from GMO plants decreases bee immunity
Gitilin, Boria. "Is Bee Colony Collapse Disorder Linked to GMOs?" GMO Journal. N.p.,
24 Sept. 2009. Web. <http%3A%2F%2Fgmojournal.com%2F2009%2F09%2F24%2Fis-bee-colony-collapse-disorder-linkedto-gmos%2F>.
“While several studies have demonstrated that amounts of Bt proteins produced by the
GM plants are not directly hazardous to bees, researchers have also shown that “a
chance infestation by parasites (microsporidia) resulted in more significant damage
to the Bt-fed colonies.” In other words, even sub-lethal exposure to pollen from Bt
plants affect bee immunity by decreasing their ability to fight off diseases and
Champion Briefs
265
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
parasites. One must wonder how years of on-going exposure may have impacted
bees especially since the majority of the main four industrial crops grown in the U.S.
(i.e., corn, cotton, soy and canola) are now genetically-engineered for pestresistance.”
Warrant: When bees are exposed to the type of pesticide used on GM crops, it kills them.
Holland, Jennifer. “The Plight of the Honeybee.” National Geographic. 10 May. 2013.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130510-honeybee-bee-scienceeuropean-union-pesticides-colony-collapse-epa-science/
“Another adversary in the bees' battle, as the EU reminds us, is pesticides. Pesticides
themselves aren't necessarily a death sentence for bees—and debate rages over whether,
when properly applied, these chemicals can be used safely among pollinators. But
exposure to them seems to open the door to other killers. For example, bees exposed to
sublethal doses of neonicotinoids—the type the EU is banning and that are used
routinely in the U.S. on wheat, corn, soy, and cotton crops—become more easily
infected by the gut parasite Nosema.”
Analysis: Genetically modified crops contain various types of proteins and chemicals that are
potent to honeybee populations. As a result, honeybee populations are on the decline. While this
might not be the sole contributing factor to honeybee declines, the CON team must simply show
that GMOs have a significant effect on populations in order to show net harm.
Warrant: Genetically modified crops are nearly all treated with toxic pesticides that are
extremely dangerous to honeybees and other animals when consumed.
Mercola, Joseph. "GMO Agriculture and Chemical Pesticides Are Killing the
Bees." Global Research. Center for Research on Globalization, 7 May 2013.
Web. 5 Oct. 2014.
Champion Briefs
266
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
“Neonicotinoid pesticides are a newer class of chemicals that are applied to seeds before
planting. This allows the pesticide to be taken up through the plant’s vascular system as it
grows, where it is expressed in the pollen and nectar. These insecticides are highly toxic
to bees because they are systemic, water soluble, and pervasive. They get into the
soil and groundwater where they can accumulate and remain for many years and
present long-term toxicity to the hive as well as to other species, such as songbirds.
Neonicotinoids affect insects’ central nervous systems in ways that are cumulative
and irreversible. Even minute amounts can have profound effects over time… As for
exposure from dust produced during the sowing of treated seeds, the Authority ruled “a
risk to honeybees was indicated or could not be excluded…” Unfortunately,
neonicotinoids have become the fastest growing insecticides in the world. In the US,
virtually all genetically engineered Bt corn crops are treated with neonicotinoids.”
Warrant: One in three foods humans consume directly or indirectly benefits from honeybee
pollination
"Honey Bees and Colony Collapse Disorder." ARS : Honey Bees and Colony Collapse
Disorder. USDA. Web<http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=15572>.
“Bee pollination is responsible for more than $15 billion in increased crop value
each year. About one mouthful in three in our diet directly or indirectly benefits
from honey bee pollination. Commercial production of many specialty crops like
almonds and other tree nuts, berries, fruits and vegetables depend on pollination by honey
bees. These are the foods that give our diet diversity, flavor, and nutrition.”
Impact: Honeybees generate a huge amount of money in the economy
"Fact Sheet: The Economic Challenge Posed by Declining Pollinator Populations." The
White House. N.p., 20 June 2014. Web.
<http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fthe-press-
Champion Briefs
267
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
office%2F2014%2F06%2F20%2Ffact-sheet-economic-challenge-poseddeclining-pollinator-populations>.
“Insect pollination is integral to food security in the United States. Honey bees enable
the production of at least 90 commercially grown crops in North America. Globally,
87 of the leading 115 food crops evaluated are dependent on animal pollinators,
contributing 35% of global food production. Pollinators contribute more than 24 billion
dollars to the United States economy, of which honey bees account for more than 15
billion dollars through their vital role in keeping fruits, nuts, and vegetables in our
diets.”
Analysis: Honeybees are extremely important to the agricultural sector, which provides humans
food and encompasses a large part of the US economy. With a decline in the honeybee
population, critical pollination of crops is reduced, which will affect the food supply and the
economy. The CON team can show that GMOs negatively affect honeybees in one of two waysdirectly or indirectly. In order to show that honeybees are directly affected by GMOs, the team
must demonstrate that components of GMOs have a direct adverse effect on bees (i.e. Bt proteins
found in GMOs). To show that honeybees are indirectly affected by GMOs, the CON team must
simply prove that GMOs use promotes an increase in the use of toxic pesticides, which in turn
kills honeybees when they consume pollen.
Champion Briefs
268
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
A2 – Death of Honey Bees
Answer: GMOs have no effect on honey bees
Warrant: The components of GMOs are not dangerous or potent to honey bees
Duan, Jian. "A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Crops on Honey Bees (Hymenoptera:
Apidae)." PLOS ONE:. 9 Jan. 2008. Web.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.000141 5
“We conducted a meta-analysis of 25 studies that independently assessed potential
effects of Bt Cry proteins on honey bee survival (or mortality). Our results show that
Bt Cry proteins used in genetically modified crops commercialized for control of
lepidopteran and coleopteran pests do not negatively affect the survival of either
honey bee larvae or adults in laboratory settings.”
Warrant: Individual studies do not reveal sufficient information, prefer the meta-analysis
Duan, Jian. "A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Crops on Honey Bees (Hymenoptera:
Apidae)." PLOS ONE:. 9 Jan. 2008. Web.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.000141 5
“To date, no individual tests involving Bt crops or Cry proteins that target
Lepidoptera or Coleoptera have shown significant impacts on honeybees [1], [6].
Despite this, there have been suggestions in the popular press that Bt proteins
produced in insect resistant crops might be contributing to recent declines in
honeybee abundance [10], [11]. Given this speculation about potential adverse impacts
of Bt crops on honeybees and the possibility that small sample sizes may have
undermined the power of prior risk assessment experiments (Table 1: studies to date have
Champion Briefs
269
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
rarely employed more than 2–6 replicates per treatment), a formal meta-analysis,
combining results from existing experiments, may provide more definitive answers.
Meta-analysis increases statistical power and can reveal effects even when each of
the individual studies failed to do so due to low replication [12], [13]. A recent metaanalysis, synthesizing results from 42 field studies involving Bt cotton and
maize [14], did not examine effects on honey bees because very few studies have
reported field data for this group [but see 15]. Here we report a meta-analysis of 25
laboratory studies (Table 1) that focused on the chronic and/or acute toxicity of Bt
Cry proteins or Bt plant tissues (pollen) on honey bee larvae and adults.”
Warrant: Honeybee populations would be on the decline with or without GMOs
"Fact Sheet: The Economic Challenge Posed by Declining Pollinator Populations." The
White House. N.p., 20 June 2014. Web.
<http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fthe-pressoffice%2F2014%2F06%2F20%2Ffact-sheet-economic-challenge-poseddeclining-pollinator-populations>.
“The recent increased loss of honey bee colonies is thought to be caused by a
combination of stressors, including loss of natural forage and inadequate diets, mite
infestations and diseases, loss of genetic diversity, and exposure to certain pesticides.
Contributing to these high loss rates is a phenomenon called colony collapse disorder
(CCD), in which there is a rapid, unexpected, and catastrophic loss of bees in a hive.”
Analysis: If the PRO team can show that without GMOs, declines in the honeybee population
would be just as high, there is no impact directly stemming from GMOs and the effects of GMOs
are non-unique. The PRO team can then discuss the benefits of GMOs that outweigh the impacts
on honeybees that would be occurring anyway.
Answer: Honeybee populations may actually benefit from GMO pollen
Champion Briefs
270
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Studies show higher survival rates amongst bees that consumed GMO proteins
Oliver, Randy. "Sick Bees – Part 18E: Colony Collapse Revisited – Genetically Modified
Plants." Scientific Beekeeping RSS. N.p., Dec. 2012. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.
<http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-18e-colony-collapse-revisitedgenetically-modified-plants/>.
“The toxicity (or lack thereof) of Cry proteins to non-target organisms, especially upon
two “charismatic” species—the honey bee and the monarch butterfly—has been well
studied [21], [22], [23]. A recent and very well-designed experiment on the effect of
GM Bt corn pollen upon the growth and survival of honey bee larvae was recently
performed by a team of independently-funded German researchers [24]. They
added pollen from four different sources to a standard semi-artificial larval diet. Results:
surprisingly, the larvae fed the pollen from the “stacked” GM corn containing a
combination of three different Cry proteins exhibited a higher survival rate (100%),
than those fed non-GM corn pollen! To me, a big plus for this study was that they also
included a positive control of pollen from a wild plant said to be harmful to bees—only
about 30% of those larvae survived! This finding confirmed that even some natural
pollens are quite toxic, and that we should compare any toxicity trials of pesticides with
those of the natural phytotoxins in nature.”
Analysis: GMO exposure has been shown to not only have no effect on bee populations, but
may actually lead to higher survival rates of honeybees when exposed. It is not the GMOs
themselves that cause problems, rather the type of pesticides farmers are using. This does not
demonstrate a problem with GMOs, just a problem with overuse of toxic pesticides.
Champion Briefs
271
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
CON – GMO’s Are Ethically Unsound
Argument: GMO’s Are Ethically Unsound
Warrant: Biotechnology allows corporations to control nature and society
Levidow, Les. “How biotechnology regulation sets a risks/ethics boundary.” Centre for
Technology Strategy. Open University. 20 Nov. 1996.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1007394812312#page-1
“Thus the state separates’risk‘ and ’ethics‘, while assigning both realms to specialists.
The risk/ethics boundary encourages public deference to the expert assessments of
both safety regulators and professional ethicists. Biotechnology embodies a
contentious model of control over nature and society, yet this issue becomes
displaced and fragmented into various administrative controls. At stake arethe
prospects for democratizing the problem-definitions that guide R&D priorities.”
Warrant: Biotechnology encourages scientific manipulation of nature
Burkhardt, Jeffery. “The GMO Debates: Taking Ethics Seriously.” University of Florida.
http://www.farmfoundation.org/news/articlefiles/120-burkhardt.pdf
“Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically modified foods (GM foods)
have become subjects of considerable public debate. The controversies are the result of
differing views concerning the products of “the new biotechnology” — recombinant
DNA (rDNA) technology to be precise. RDNA technology has allowed scientists to
move genes across species’ boundaries, to create traits in plants, animals, and
microorganisms that could never be accomplished using traditional crossbreeding
techniques. For example, genes from cold-water fish can be inserted into tomato plants
to make them more tolerant to colder weather. The reality of transgenic technology has
caused some people to raise questions about the nature and consequences of GMOs. For
Champion Briefs
272
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
example, do GM foods differ in any relevant ways from non-GM foods? Are any
differences significant as to how they will they affect human health or the environment?
How strictly are GMOs being tested? Who oversees the regulation and registration
process? These are scientific and legal-political issues, and they are being discussed
everywhere from grocery stores to the halls of Congress.”
Warrant: Companies and governments do not consider the long-term consequences of GMOs
Dharmananda, Subhuti. “Issues Surrounding Genetically Modified Products.” Institute
for Traditional Medicine. http://www.itmonline.org/arts/gmo.htm
“Perhaps the biggest ethical problem is the one of the "slippery slope." Genetic
engineering has definitely provided some benefits and also appears to have many more
benefits to offer as the technology progresses. Companies and governments may rush
into production one or more products of the new technologies that will turn out to
be harmful, either to the environment or to humans directly. Consider, for example, a
country where a large part of the population is starving (example: North Korea) and
where researchers might find a way to vastly increase the yield of a crop or the nutritional
benefits of a food. There would be a lot of pressure to move quickly to put this GM crop
into commercial use, and to downplay any objections raised (as well as to consider that
any problems that might arise could be resolved later). These genetically modified
organisms are not always confined to the country where they are being used (particularly
in the case where pollen is spread by the wind). Who knows what kind of ecological
disaster might arise from failure to consider the unintended consequences. Similarly,
when bacteria are used in batch cultures to produce proteins (as in the case of producing
insulin), often the bacteria is one that is commonly found in nature (e.g., E. coli). If it
escapes into the environment, could it then cause problems? Might these organisms be
inadequately safe-guarded in some countries?”
Champion Briefs
273
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Warrant: GMOs bring up extrinsic objections.
Eaglesham, Allan. “Genetically Modified Food and the Consumer.” National Agricultural
Biotechnology Council Report. 2001.
http://farmfoundation.biz/news/articlefiles/1069-02-08.pdf#page=183
“Extrinsic objections focus on the potential harms consequent upon the adoption of
GMOs. Extrinsic objections hold that GM technology should not be pursued
because of its anticipated results. Briefly stated, the extrinsic objections go as
follows. GMOs may have disastrous effects on animals, ecosystems, and humans.
Possible harms to humans include perpetuation of social inequities in modern
agriculture, decreased food security for women and children on subsistence farms in
developing countries, a growing gap between well capitalized economies in the
northern hemisphere and less capitalized peasant economies in the south, risks to
the food security of future generations, and the promotion of reductionistic and
exploitative science. Potential harms to ecosystems include possible environmental
catastrophe, inevitable narrowing of germplasm diversity, and irreversible loss or
degradation of air, soils, and waters. Potential harms to animals include unjustified pain
to those used in research and production.”
Analysis: GMOs compromise ethics by many people’s standards. By putting big agriculture into
the hands of a small few along with the ability to manipulate genetics and thus, manipulate
nature, the implications are huge. If corporations are able to manipulate genes of plants and
animals, who is to say corporations can’t also manipulate genes of humans to make “us function
better?” The ethical concerns can be used in a round in conjunction with other arguments, as
well. If the CON team would like to bring up ethical concerns, it should consider running a
framework of extrinsic objections and consequentialism- just because we don’t know something
will necessarily harm us, doesn’t mean we should assume it is good for us.
Champion Briefs
274
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
A2 Z GMO’s Are Ethically Unsound
Answer: GMOs are ethical
Warrant: By utilitarian standards, use of GMOs maximizes ethics by maximizing good for the
most amount of people
Paarlberg, Robert. “The Ethics of Modern Agriculture.” Wellesley College. 21 Nov.
2008.
http://www.agrobiomexico.org.mx/uploaded/documento38.pdf
“Using a utilitarian calculus, the productivity enhancements that characterize
modern agriculture have been good for farmers and non-farmers alike. Farmers
benefit because the higher productivity of their land and labor translates into more
material wealth, and the postindustrial affluence enjoyed today by urban and suburban
dwellers in both America and Europe rests on a prior adoption, in the middle years of the
20th Century, of highly productive, science- based farming.”
“Utilitarianism and rights-based ethics: further issues.” Food and Agriculture
Organization. FAO Corporate Document Repository.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/j0902e/j0902e07.htm
“From a utilitarian viewpoint, the increased yields of new varieties more than
justified the collection of germplasm, and researchers saw no ethical issue in using
seeds they had collected this way.”
Warrant: There is not enough evidence to show that organic good is significantly healthier than
consuming GMOs
Paarlberg, Robert. “The Ethics of Modern Agriculture.” Wellesley College. 21 Nov.
2008.
http://www.agrobiomexico.org.mx/uploaded/documento38.pdf
Champion Briefs
275
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
“If there were a clear consumer health or nutrition benefit from consuming
organically grown foods, the higher cost might be more than justified. Yet there is
little convincing evidence of such benefits. On the question of nutrition, Claire
Williamson from the British Nutrition Foundation concluded last year that, “From a
nutritional perspective, there is currently not enough evidence to recommend
organic foods over conventionally produced foods.” On the question of greater
consumer risks from pesticide residues on conventional foods, stronger regulatory
standards against such residues in the conventional food chain have now largely
eliminated the possible advantage of consuming organic.”
Answer: Discouraging GMOs in poorer countries is unethical
Paarlberg, Robert. “The Ethics of Modern Agriculture.” Wellesley College. 21 Nov.
2008.
http://www.agrobiomexico.org.mx/uploaded/documento38.pdf
“For all these reasons, there seems to be little ethical justification — on human welfare
grounds — for using either public resources or public authority in the United States or
Europe to promote an organic alternative to modern conventional farming. And in poor
countries where the productivity of farming is currently low, the promotion of
organic techniques is even more dubious on ethical grounds. In Africa, in order to
reach the annual production growth goals for 2015 set recently by the New
Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), average fertilizer applications will
have to rise from the current level of 9 kg. per hectare up to 49 kg. per hectare. If
organic farming were imposed on Africa, chemical fertilizer applications would have to
move in the other direction and fall to zero. Telling poor and underfed Africans to go
to zero use of chemical fertilizers, and to imitate the labor- intensive composting
strategies favored by a tiny minority of farmers in rich countries, is ethically
dubious. Yet this is the message delivered in Africa today by a number of civil society
groups from rich countries, including the International Federation of Organic Agricultural
Movements (IFOAM) and Greenpeace. These groups actually claim it is an advantage
Champion Briefs
276
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
that so few African farmers use fertilizers, as that means they are already de facto
organic. Nonproductive and poor, but organic.”
Warrant: Under cosmopolitan ethical standards, GM crops are an appropriate solution to world
hunger
Toft, Kristian. “GMOs and Global Justice: Applying Global Justice Theory to the Case of
Genetically Modified Crops and Food.” Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics. 23 Sept. 2010.
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/648/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10806010-9295
x.pdf?auth66=1412890596_68b8610715907108b6e7ed9a7b203928&ext=.pdf
“This is the view that GMOs, as a technology, offer an appropriate solution to the
global food crises, current and future. The main proponent of this is Borlaug who tends
to consider institutions as secondary to the solution.”
Analysis: Utilitarianism encourages the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Under
this standard, feeding as many people as possible is completely ethical. In a round, it is easy to
use utilitarianism as a framework, because most people assume this to be true in their everyday
lives. Cosmopolitanism can also be used as an ethical standard in the round. This philosophy
says that all human ethnic groups belong to a single community- under this interpretation, taking
GM crops away from much needed areas where food is scarce in places like African and poorer
Asian countries would be unjust and unethical.
Champion Briefs
277
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
CON – Pesticide Resistance
Argument: The use of GMO’s reduces weed and bug resistance to pesticides creating
uncontrollable infestations.
Warrant: Herbicide use has increased with the emergence of GMOs.
Benbrook, Charles. "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the
U.S. -- the First Sixteen Years." Environmental Sciences Europe. Environmental
Sciences Europe, 28 Sept. 2012. Web. 5 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24>.
“Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have,
and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in
herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial
increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically
engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The
magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the
reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16%years, and will continue to do so
for the foreseeable future.”
Warrant: Insecticides are used on 100% of planted cotton
Benbrook, Charles. "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the
U.S. -- the First Sixteen Years." Environmental Sciences Europe. Environmental
Sciences Europe, 28 Sept. 2012. Web. 5 Oct. 2014.
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24
“Bt cotton targets the budworm/bollworm complex, but does not affect other insect pests,
including the boll weevil, plant bugs, white flies, and stinkbugs. Applications of broad-
Champion Briefs
278
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
spectrum insecticides are typically made on essentially 100% of planted cotton
hectares to control the budworm/bollworm complex and other insects. Bt cotton will
reduce the use of insecticides on the budworm/bollworm complex, but will only
indirectly impact applications of insecticides targeting other insects.”
Warrant: The use of herbicide-resistant GMOs is correlated with higher uses of herbicides,
which increases weed resistance.
Washington State University. "'Superweeds' linked to rising herbicide use in GM crops,
study finds." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 2 October 2012.
<www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002092839.htm>.
“In the study, which appeared in the open-access, peer-reviewed journal Environmental
Sciences Europe, Benbrook writes that the emergence and spread of glyphosateresistant weeds is strongly correlated with the upward trajectory in herbicide use.
Marketed as Roundup and other trade names, glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic
herbicide used to kill weeds. Approximately 95 percent of soybean and cotton acres,
and more than 85 percent of corn, are planted to varieties genetically modified to be
herbicide resistant. "Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many
farmers reliant on GE crops, and they are now driving up the volume of herbicide
needed each year by about 25 percent," Benbrook said. The annual increase in the
herbicides required to deal with tougher-to-control weeds on cropland planted to
GE cultivars has grown from 1.5 million pounds in 1999 to about 90 million pounds
in 2011. Herbicide-tolerant crops worked extremely well in the first few years of use,
Benbrook's analysis shows, but over-reliance may have led to shifts in weed
communities and the spread of resistant weeds that force farmers to increase
herbicide application rates (especially glyphosate), spray more often and add new
herbicides that work through an alternate mode of action into their spray programs.”
Analysis: This card explains that as more herbicide resistant weeds appear, farmers try to
combat the problem by applying more herbicides in their fields. The appearance of these weeds
Champion Briefs
279
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
has created huge increases in the amount of pesticides used by farmers annually in the last ten
years.
Warrant: The use of herbicide-resistant GMOs is correlated with higher uses of herbicides,
which increases rootworm resistance.
Gassmann, Aaron. "Field-evolved Resistance by Western Corn Rootworm to Multiple
Bacillus Thuringiensis Toxins in Transgenic Maize." Proceedings of the National
Academy of the Sciences of the United States of America. PNAS, 12 Sept. 2013.
Web. 5 Oct. 2014. <http://www.pnas.org/content/111/14/5141.abstract>.
“Crops genetically engineered to produce insecticidal toxins derived from the
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) kill pest insects and reduce the use of conventional
insecticides. However, the evolution of Bt resistance can diminishes these benefits.
The western corn rootworm is a serious pest of maize and is managed with Bt maize.
Beginning in 2009, western corn rootworm with resistance to maize producing the
Bt toxin Cry3Bb1 imposed severe injury to Cry3Bb1 maize in Iowa. We show that
cross-resistance exists between Cry3Bb1 maize and mCry3A maize and is associated with
severe injury to Bt maize in farmers’ fields. These results illustrate that Bt crops
producing less than a high dose of toxin against target pests may select for resistance
rapidly; consequently, current approaches for managing Bt resistance should be
reexamined.”
Impact: Western corn rootworm is a huge threat to maize.
Gassmann, Aaron. "Field-evolved Resistance by Western Corn Rootworm to Multiple
Bacillus Thuringiensis Toxins in Transgenic Maize." Proceedings of the National
Academy of the Sciences of the United States of America. PNAS, 12 Sept. 2013.
Web. 5 Oct. 2014. <http://www.pnas.org/content/111/14/5141.abstract>.
Champion Briefs
280
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
“The widespread planting of crops genetically engineered to produce insecticidal toxins
derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) places intense selective pressure
on pest populations to evolve resistance. Western corn rootworm is a key pest of
maize, and in continuous maize fields it is often managed through planting of Bt
maize. During 2009 and 2010, fields were identified in Iowa in which western corn
rootworm imposed severe injury to maize producing Bt toxin Cry3Bb1. Subsequent
bioassays revealed Cry3Bb1 resistance in these populations. Here, we report that, during
2011, injury to Bt maize in the field expanded to include mCry3A maize in addition to
Cry3Bb1 maize and that laboratory analysis of western corn rootworm from these fields
found resistance to Cry3Bb1 and mCry3A and cross-resistance between these toxins.
Resistance to Bt maize has persisted in Iowa, with both the number of Bt fields
identified with severe root injury and the ability western corn rootworm populations
to survive on Cry3Bb1 maize increasing between 2009 and 2011.
Additionally, Bt maize targeting western corn rootworm does not produce a high dose of
Bt toxin, and the magnitude of resistance associated with feeding injury was less than that
seen in a high-dose Bt crop. These first cases of resistance by western corn rootworm
highlight the vulnerability of Bt maize to further evolution of resistance from this pest
and, more broadly, point to the potential of insects to develop resistance rapidly when Bt
crops do not achieve a high dose of Bt toxin.”
Impact: Superweeds and superbugs have high costs for farmers
"Superweeds." Food and Water Watch. 1 June 2013. Web.
<http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Superweeds.pdf>.
“Farmers face significant costs from herbicide-resistant weeds from reduced yields
and increased production costs to combat weed infestations. These costs can range
from $12 to $50 an acre, or as much as $12,000 for an average sized corn or soybean
farm or $28,000 for an average cotton farm.”
Champion Briefs
281
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Analysis: In order to understand this argument as a whole it is important to understand that
companies are starting to create GM crops that are resistant to herbicides, so they can spray
fields of plants and only kill weeds and bugs that are infesting the areas, however, this is having
the adverse effect of creating weeds and bugs that develop a stronger resistance to herbicides,
because of the increased use of these products. These superweeds and superbugs accrue high
costs for farmers who are victim to them. On the CON, it is important to point out that herbicide
use has increased as a result of GMOs, because the PRO may argue in framework or in response
that superbugs and superweeds are the result of herbicides, not the GMOs themselves.
Champion Briefs
282
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
A2 – Pesticide Resistance
Answer: Increased weed and bug resistance to herbicides has alternative causation.
Warrant: Scientists are still unsure if the cause of increased resistance comes from GMO usage.
Laskawy, Tom. "Turf War: In the Battle for Our Crops, Superweeds Are
Winning." Grist. Columbia, 15 July 2013. Web.
<http://www.columbia.org/pdf_files/fern24.pdf>.
“The same is true for superbugs — specifically pests like the corn rootworm — which
have become increasingly resistant to the forms of Bt pesticide that are exuded by
genetically modified corn, soy, and cotton. Scientists are still exploring the extent of
the problem and whether or not the resistance is due to the GMO crops themselves
or simply the result of random variation among the insects in question. Whatever the
cause, farmers are the ones who have to figure out how to handle the increased threat to
their livelihood.”
Analysis: It is easy to blame GMOs for the creation of superbugs and superweeds, but in reality,
scientists are unsure that GMOs are causing these infestations. Just because GMOs are correlated
with higher uses of pesticides does not mean GMOs are causing these problems.
Answer: Herbicide-resistant weeds have been around forever
Lim, XiaoZhi. "Herbicide-resistant Crops Can Exacerbate ‘superweeds’ but New GM
Versions Can Help Control Problem." Genetic Literacy Project. 27 June 2014.
Web. 5 Oct. 2014. <http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/06/27/herbicideresistant-crops-can-exacerbate-superweeds-but-new-gm-versions-and-judicioususe-can-control-problem/>.
Champion Briefs
283
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
“Herbicide-resistant weeds, sometimes referred to as superweeds, are not new: they
have been around since farmers began using herbicides to control the weeds in their
fields. More recently, herbicide-resistant weeds have posed major challenges as they
invade more fields and become more difficult to control. In Idaho and Oregon, growers
were alerted mid-June to yet another new case of herbicide-resistant weeds in two sugar
beet fields.”
Answer: The growing problem has forced scientists to combat the problem in innovative ways.
Lim, XiaoZhi. "Herbicide-resistant Crops Can Exacerbate ‘superweeds’ but New GM
Versions Can Help Control Problem." Genetic Literacy Project. 27 June 2014.
Web. 5 Oct. 2014. <http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/06/27/herbicideresistant-crops-can-exacerbate-superweeds-but-new-gm-versions-and-judicioususe-can-control-problem/>.
“But the growing problem of herbicide-resistant weeds has weed scientists and
regulators pushing for more solutions to tackle the problem, including the judicious
continued use of chemical herbicides paired with herbicide-resistant crops. One
example, Palmer Amaranth, more commonly known as pigweed, has
already left farmers, scientists and regulators with few control options. Once easily
controllable with glyphosate-based herbicides, pigweed has since developed resistance to
glyphosate and now poses a problem in sections of croplands in the United States and
worldwide. In an attempt to provide farmers with another weapon against this
difficult weed, Dow AgroSciences has developed a new generation of herbicidetolerant crops that are able to withstand more than one herbicide.”
Analysis: While an increase in superweeds may seem like a problem, it has actually pushed big
corporate giants to innovate and search for solutions to eliminate the problem that has been
around for decades. When big companies are funding agriculture, they have the ability to fund
larger projects and develop new crops.
Champion Briefs
284
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Answer: Crop rotation is a simple solution to eliminate problems with superbugs and
superweeds.
Laskawy, Tom. "Corn Free: Cutting Back on Our Dominant Crop Is Easier Said than
Done."Grist. 15 July 2013. Web. 5 Oct. 2014. <http://grist.org/food/turf-war-inthe-battle-for-our-crops-superweeds-are-winning/>.
“But there’s an alternative to better living through chemistry: Farmers can simply stop
planting corn year after year and learn to love oats and alfalfa. As one crop consultant
told NPR, the simplest, cheapest, safest solution is just to switch to another crop for
a bit. Rotating crops, i.e. growing different crops in sequence on the same plot of
land, is an old technique for foiling pests. Very often, a bug that eats one crop won’t
eat a different one. Corn rootworm will starve in a field of oats. So switching up
crops will keep farmers one step ahead. Recent research into crop rotations, however,
indicated that farmers won’t necessarily lose money since they’ll be spending a lot less on
high-priced GMO seeds, chemicals, and even fertilizer. Even the USDA gets this. The
agency has started to promote the adoption of what it calls “multi-cropping” for
improved pest management and climate resilience. The problem is that the agency is
also encouraging biotech companies to keep the herbicide-tolerant seeds coming.”
Analysis: Weeds and bugs become particularly accustomed to certain crops, if farmers rotate
between different crops, when certain ones are not around, the weeds and bugs that prefer that
crop will die out. With an easy solution to the problem of superbugs and superweeds, PRO teams
can come out on top by pressing on the benefits of GMOs that cannot be achieved in any other
way.
Champion Briefs
285
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
CON – GMOs Harm the Environment
Argument: Toxins from GMO crops hurt the environment and can create super pests
Warrant: Bt toxins higher near GM crops and can last for extended periods of time in the
environment
Sirinathsinghji, Dr Eva. "GM Crops and Water - A Recipe for Disaster." GM Crops and
Water - A Recipe for Disaster. British Library, 5 May 2013. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.
“Analysis of the streams and water columns in Midwestern US, where an estimated
91 % of streams are located within 500 meters of maize fields, found that 23 % of
water column sites and 13 % of stream sites had detectable levels of the Bt Cry1Ab
protein 6 months after harvest. Furthermore, 86 % of stream sites contained Bt
maize detritus (organic matter from the plants) [17]. A similar study conducted in
Canada found cry1Ab DNA as far away as 82 kilometers from the nearest Bt maize
field, suggesting that it travels long distances through the water column [18].
Looking at the presence of the cry1Ab DNA, they found it persisted for 21 and 40
days in surface water and sediment, respectively. Sediment-associated cry1Ab gene
from Bt maize tended to decrease with distance from the Bt maize field.”
Warrant: Bt toxins can cause horizontal gene transfer and create new pests
Sirinathsinghji, Dr Eva. "GM Crops and Water - A Recipe for Disaster." GM Crops and
Water - A Recipe for Disaster. British Library, 5 May 2013. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.
“The ability of DNA to bind to clay substances increases its half-life and thus, as the
authors of the study state, increases the risk of horizontal gene transfer (see [19]
Horizontal Gene Transfer from GMOs Does Happen, SiS 38). Horizontal gene transfer
and recombination is the main route for generating new pathogens and spreading
antibiotic and drug resistance, and genetic engineering is nothing if not greatly facilitated
Champion Briefs
286
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
horizontal gene transfer and recombination. Persistence of Bt toxin DNA in our water
systems is therefore a real concern.”
Warrant: GMOs hurt harmless and helpful species
2011, September. Environmental and Health Impacts of GM Crops - the Science (n.d.): n.
pag. Greenpeace. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/PageFiles/434214/GM_Fact%20Sheet_Hea
lth_%20and_Env_Impacts.pdf>.
“Toxic to harmless non-target species. Long-term exposure to pollen from GM insect
resistant maize causes adverse effects on the behaviour1 and survival of the monarch
butterfly, America’s most famous butterfly. Few studies on European butterflies have been
conducted, but those that have suggest they would suffer from pesticide-producing GM crops.
These studies are all based on one type of toxin, Cry1Ab, present in GM maize varieties Bt11
and MON810. Much less is known about the toxicity of other types of Bt toxin (e.g. Cry1F,
present in the GM maize 1507). Cry1F is highly likely to also be toxic to non-target organisms ,
but requires separate study.
• Toxic to beneficial insects. GM Bt crops adversely affect8 beneficial insects
important to controlling maize pests, such as green lacewings9, 10,11,12. The toxin
Cry1Ab has been shown to affect the learning performance of honeybees13. The
environmental risk assessment under which current GM Bt crops have been
assessed (in the EU and elsewhere) considers direct acute toxicity alone, and not
effects on organisms higher up the food chain. But these effects can be important.
The toxic effects to beneficial lacewings came through the prey they ate. The singletier risk assessment has been widely criticised by scientists who call for a more
holistic assessment”
Champion Briefs
287
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Warrant: GMO toxins decrease soil quality
2011, September. Environmental and Health Impacts of GM Crops - the Science (n.d.): n.
pag. Greenpeace. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/PageFiles/434214/GM_Fact%20Sheet_Hea
lth_%20and_Env_Impacts.pdf>.
“A threat to soil ecosystems. Many Bt crops secrete their toxin from their roots into the
soil. Residues left in the field contain the active Bt toxin. The long-term, cumulative
effects of growing Bt maize are of concern.”
Warrant: Billions of dollars at stake due to super pests that eat GM corn
Charles, Dan. "Insects Find Crack In Biotech Corn's Armor." NPR. NPR, 5 Dec. 2011.
Web. 08 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2011/12/05/143141300/insects-find-crack-inbiotech-corns-armor>.
“Hidden in the soil of Illinois and Iowa, a new generation of insect larvae appears to be
munching happily on the roots of genetically engineered corn, according to scientists. It's
bad news for corn farmers, who paid extra money for this line of corn, counting on the
power of its inserted genes to kill those pests. It's also bad news for the biotech company
Monsanto, which inserted the larvae-killing gene in the first place. In fact, the gene's
apparent failure, as reported in the journal PLoS One, may be the most serious threat to a
genetically modified crop in the U.S. since farmers first started growing them 15 years
ago. The economic impact could be "huge," says the University of Arizona's Bruce
Tabashnik, one of the country's top experts on the adaptation of insects to genetically
engineered crops. Billions of dollars are at stake.”
Champion Briefs
288
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
A2 – GMOs Harm the Environment
Answer: GMO crops need significantly less pesticides and help increase natural predators of
pests
Warrant: Pest populations decrease, with spillover benefits to fields not using GMO crops
Carrington, Damian. "GM Crops Good for Environment, Study Finds." The Guardian.
N.p., 13 June 2012. Web. 8 Oct. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com
%2Fenvironment%2F2012%2Fjun%2F13%2Fgm-crops-environment-study>.
"Insecticide use usually kills the natural enemies of pests and weakens the biocontrol
services that they provide," said Professor Kongming Wu at the Chinese Academy of
Agricultural Sciences in Beijing, who led the research team. "Transgenic crops reduce
insecticide use and promote the population increase of natural enemies. Therefore,
we think that this is a general principle." Professor Guy Poppy, an ecologist at the
University of Southampton, said the scale of the work gave "robust" results that
ended a long-running debate pitting plant scientists against ecologists. "The
argument was that, with Bt crops needing no pesticide spraying, other pests would
go crazy so you would subsequently have to spray lots more pesticide," he said. But
the study shows this did not happen for aphids, a major pest. "This is also the first
time it has been shown comprehensively that the surrounding fields benefited from
being next to GM crops."
Warrant: BT crops, due to attracting predators, helps to decrease pests they were not even
designed to prevent
Carrington, Damian. "GM Crops Good for Environment, Study Finds." The Guardian.
N.p., 13 June 2012. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
<http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2F2012%2Fjun%2F
13%2Fgmcros-environment-study>.
Champion Briefs
289
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
“The new research, published in the journal Nature, monitored both insect pests
and predators between 1990 and 2011, during which time Bt cotton swept aside
traditional GM cotton. It examined 36 sites across six big cotton-growing provinces
in northern China, where about 2.6m hectares of cotton and 33m hectares of other crops
– notably maize, peanut and soybean – are grown each year, by more than 10 million
small-scale farmers. The Bt cotton is designed to kill cotton bollworms and does so
very effectively: it is virtually absent in cotton fields. But it does not harm aphids,
which are also a major pest for cotton and other crops. Nevertheless, the researchers
found that, despite the large reduction in pesticide use, aphid populations
plummeted by two-thirds after Bt cotton was introduced. This was due
to a doubling of natural predators, which eat a wide range of pests. "As one of the
measures for pest management, transgenic crops have a great advantage," said Wu.
He noted that predators usually disperse widely and can attack a range of pests: "Not
only can they synchronously attack different insect pests in one field, but they can
also colonise different habitats in different seasons."
Warrant: Current GMO crops are a stepping stone to even better ones
Carrington, Damian. "GM Crops Good for Environment, Study Finds." The
Guardian. N.p., 13 June 2012. Web. 8 Oct. 2014. <http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.theguardian.com
%2Fenvironment%2F2012%2Fjun%2F13%2Fgmcrops-environment-study>.
"GM cotton is actually quite a crude use of genetic engineering, but it was a first use
this technology – developed 30 years ago with government funding. It is a prelude to
our own second generation crops, which will actively use the predator insects, not
just help them." The wheat in Pickett's trial is being developed to produce a
pheromone used by aphids as a chemical alarm signal, because the pheromone also
attracts the predators of those aphids. There are billions of tiny parasitic wasps
naturally present, Pickett said, but currently they do not arrive early enough at the crop to
stop the aphid causing economic damage."
Warrant: Significant reductions in the use op pesticides due to GMO crops
Champion Briefs
290
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
"Pocket K No. 4: GM Crops and the Environment." GM Crops and the Environment.
International Service for the Acquisition of Argo-Biotech Applications, n.d. Web.
08 Oct. 2014. <http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/4/>.
“A study assessing the global economic and environmental impacts of biotech crops for
the first seventeen years (1996-2012) of adoption showed that the technology has reduced
pesticide spraying by 503 million kg and has reduced environmental footprint associated
with pesticide use by 18.7%. The technology has also significantly reduced the release of
greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture equivalent to removing 11.9 million cars from
the roads.2 In the USA, adoption of GM crops resulted in pesticide use reduction of 46.4
million pounds in 2003.3 The use of Bt cotton in China resulted in pesticide use reduction
of 78,000 tons of formulated pesticides in 2001. This corresponds to about a quarter of all
the pesticides sprayed in China in the mid-1990s.4 Additionally, the use of Bt cotton can
substantially reduce the risk and incidence of pesticide poisonings to farmers.5 The
quantity of insecticides used to control bollworm reduced by 96% from 5748 metric tons
of active ingredients in 2001 to as low as 222 metric tons of active ingredients in 2011.”
Warrant: Regulation solves any harms
"Pocket K No. 4: GM Crops and the Environment." GM Crops and the Environment.
International Service for the Acquisition of Argo-Biotech Applications, n.d. Web.
08 Oct. 2014. <http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/4/>.
“The environmental and ecological concerns potentially associated with GM crops are
evaluated prior to their release. In addition, post-approval monitoring and good
agricultural systems need to be in place to detect and minimize potential risks, as well as
to ensure that GM crops continue to be safe after their release. Comparisons among GM,
conventional, and other agricultural practices, such as organic farming, will bring to light
the relative risks and benefits of adopting GM crops.”
Champion Briefs
291
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
CON – GMOs Harm Farmer Psychologys
Argument: Monsanto holds the seed market, which allows them to drive up prices of their
seeds. Drought, GM failure, ans sterile seeds lead to massive farmer debt that they could not get
themselves out of, which drove many to commit suicide
Warrant: Monsanto holds a vice grip on the seed sector in India which puts farmers in a bad
position
Vandana, Dr.Shiva. "The Seeds Of Suicide: How Monsanto Destroys Farming." Global
Research. Center for Research on Globalization, 13 Mar. 2014. Web. 08 Oct.
2014. <http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsantodestroys-farming/5329947>.
“Monsanto’s concentrated control over the seed sector in India as well as across the
world is very worrying. This is what connects farmers’ suicides in India to Monsanto vs
Percy Schmeiser in Canada, to Monsanto vs Bowman in the US, and to farmers in Brazil
suing Monsanto for $2.2 billion for unfair collection of royalty. Through patents on
seed, Monsanto has become the “Life Lord” of our planet, collecting rents for life’s
renewal from farmers, the original breeders. Patents on seed are illegitimate
because putting a toxic gene into a plant cell is not “creating” or “inventing” a plant.
These are seeds of deception — the deception that Monsanto is the creator of seeds
and life; the deception that while Monsanto sues farmers and traps them in debt, it
pretends to be working for farmers’ welfare, and the deception that GMOs feed the
world. GMOs are failing to control pests and weeds, and have instead led to the
emergence of superpests and superweeds.”
Champion Briefs
292
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Warrant: Monsanto's monopoly is causing a spike in profits, and therefore debt for the farmers
in India.
Vandana, Dr.Shiva. "The Seeds Of Suicide: How Monsanto Destroys Farming." Global
Research. Center for Research on Globalization, 13 Mar. 2014. Web. 08 Oct.
2014. <http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsantodestroys-farming/5329947>.
“Monsanto’s seed monopolies, the destruction of alternatives, the collection of
superprofits in the form of royalties, and the increasing vulnerability of
monocultures has created a context for debt, suicides and agrarian distress which is
driving the farmers’ suicide epidemic in India. This systemic control has been
intensified with Bt cotton. That is why most suicides are in the cotton belt. An
internal advisory by the agricultural ministry of India in January 2012 had this to say to
the cotton-growing states in India — “Cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting
to Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe
among Bt cotton farmers.” The highest acreage of Bt cotton is in Maharashtra and this
is also where the highest farmer suicides are. Suicides increased after Bt cotton was
introduced — Monsanto’s royalty extraction, and the high costs of seed and chemicals
have created a debt trap. According to Government of India data, nearly 75 per cent
rural debt is due to purchase inputs. As Monsanto’s profits grow, farmers’ debt
grows. It is in this systemic sense that Monsanto’s seeds are seeds of suicide.”
Warrant: Sterile seeds gives Monsanto even more control
Vandana, Dr.Shiva. "The Seeds Of Suicide: How Monsanto Destroys Farming." Global
Research. Center for Research on Globalization, 13 Mar. 2014. Web. 08 Oct.
2014. <http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsantodestroys farming/5329947>.
Champion Briefs
293
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
“The ultimate seeds of suicide is Monsanto’s patented technology to create sterile
seeds. (Called “Terminator technology” by the media, sterile seed technology is a type of
Gene Use Restriction Technology, GRUT, in which seed produced by a crop will not
grow — crops will not produce viable offspring seeds or will produce viable seeds with
specific genes switched off.) The Convention on Biological Diversity has banned its
use, otherwise Monsanto would be collecting even higher profits from seed.
Monsanto’s talk of “technology” tries to hide its real objectives of ownership and
control over seed where genetic engineering is just a means to control seed and the
food system through patents and intellectual property rights.”
Warrant: Thousands of farmers committed suicide due to this vicious cycle.
Malone, Andrew. "The GM Genocide: Thousands of Indian Farmers Are Committing
Suicide after Using Genetically Modified Crops." Mail Online. Associated
Newspapers, Nov. 2008. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocideThousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modifiedcrops.html>.
“Far from being 'magic seeds', GM pest-proof 'breeds' of cotton have been
devastated by bollworms, a voracious parasite. Nor were the farmers told that these
seeds require double the amount of water. This has proved a matter of life and
death. With rains failing for the past two years, many GM crops have simply
withered and died, leaving the farmers with crippling debts and no means of paying
them off. Having taken loans from traditional moneylenders at extortionate rates,
hundreds of thousands of small farmers have faced losing their land as the expensive
seeds fail, while those who could struggle on faced a fresh crisis. When
crops failed in the past, farmers could still save seeds and replant them the following
year. But with GM seeds they cannot do this. That's because GM seeds contain socalled 'terminator technology', meaning that they have been genetically modified so that
the resulting crops do not produce viable seeds of their own. As a result, farmers
Champion Briefs
294
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
have to buy new seeds each year at the same punitive prices. For some, that means the
difference between life and death.”
Impact: Up to 300,000 farmers have died due to this cycle.
Fernandez, Belen. "Dirty White Gold." - Opinion. Al Jazeera, 8 Dec. 2012. Web. 09 Oct.
2014.<http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/201212575935285501.
html>.
“Nor would the term appear to define a situation in which nearly 300,000 Indian
farmers have committed suicide since 1995 after being driven into insurmountable
debt by neoliberal economics and the conquest of Indian farmland by Monsanto's
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton.”
Analysis: Monsanto's monopoly has allowed it to increase the prices of seeds. Farmers have
been forced to continue to buy these seeds every year due to the fact that what they grow is
sterile. When the crops fail, which they have in many cases despite claims that they were
resistant, farmers face insurmountable debt which has driven many to take their very lives.
Champion Briefs
295
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
A2 – GMOs Harm Farmer Psychology
Answer: BT cotton has not failed in India, therefore there is no reason to believe that it is the
cause of these recent suicides
Warrant: BT cotton has not failed in India
Kiresur, V.R. "Socio-Economic Impact of Bt Cotton — A Case Study of Karnataka."
(n.d.): n. pag. Agricultural Economics Research Review, June 2011. Web. 8 Oct.
2014. <http://core.kmi.open.ac.uk/download/pdf/6614684.pdf>.
“The performance Bt technology and its impact on farming community have been
assessed in northern Karnataka based mainly on primary data processed using production
functions, decomposition analysis and logit model. On an average, per farm area under Bt
cotton was 2.21 ha, accounting for 66 per cent of the total landholding. With a yield of
24 q/ha, Bt cotton has registered 31 per cent higher yield and 151 per cent higher
net return over non-Bt, the net additional benefit being ` 18429/ha. The non-Bt
cotton farmers use chemical fertilizers, organic manures and bullock labour
excessively which result in a lower net returns. Technology has been found the
major contributor to the total productivity difference between Bt and non- Bt
cottons.”
Warrant: BT cotton has had nothing to do with farmer suicides
Guillaume, Gruere. "Publications." Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India. International
Food Policy Research Institute, 2008. Web. 08 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.ifpri.org/publication/bt-cotton-and-farmer-suicides-india>.
“We first show that there is no evidence in available data of a “resurgence” of
farmer suicides in India in the last five years. Second, we find that Bt cotton
technology has been very effective overall in India. However, the context in which Bt
Champion Briefs
296
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
cotton was introduced has generated disappointing results in some particular districts and
seasons. Third, our analysis clearly shows that Bt cotton is neither a necessary nor a
sufficient condition for the occurrence of farmer suicides. In contrast, many other
factors have likely played a prominent role. Nevertheless, in specific regions and
years, where Bt cotton may have indirectly contributed to farmer indebtedness,
leading to suicides, its failure was mainly the result of the context or environment in
which it was planted.”
Warrant: There are a myriad of reasons as to why farmers commit suicide.
Summary, Executive. "Suicide of Farmers in Maharashtra." (n.d.): n. pag. Indira Gandhi
Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, 26 Jan. 2006. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.igidr.ac.in/conf/suicide/ExecutiveSummary_SFM_IGIDR_26Jan06p
pdf>.
“The interrelated and co-existing socio-economic stressors identified in order of frequency
are indebtedness, deterioration of economic status, conflict with other members in the
family, crop failure, decline in social position, burden of daughter’s/sister’s marriage,
suicide in a nearby village, addictions, change in behaviour of deceased, dispute with
neighbours/others, health problem, a recent death in the family, history of suicide in family
or other family members being ill.”
Analysis: Overall the strategy for responding to this argument should start with a debater asking
their opponents to provide causation not simply correlation, and then putting the burden on them
to isolate just how many of these deaths are due to GMO crops seeing as many of the issues are
not specific to GMOs.
Champion Briefs
297
Con Arguments with Pro Responses
November 2014
Answer: Suicide rate no higher than normal.
Warrant: There has not been a spike in farmer suicides in India.
"GM Genocide?" The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 13 Mar. 2014. Web. 08
Oct. 2014. <http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2014/03/gm-cropsindian- farmers-and-suicide>.
“There is only one trouble: there has been no spate of suicides. Ian Plewis, of the University
of Manchester, in Britian, has looked at suicide rates in the cotton-growing areas of India, which
are usually regarded as among the worst-hit. He finds that the suicide rate among male
farmers in the nine main cotton-growing states was just under 30 per 100,000 in 2011. That
is about the same as suicide rates among farmers in France and Scotland, so Indian
farmers do not seem unusual. The rates are slightly lower than among men in those states
who do not work on farms, so Indian cotton farmers are slightly less likely to commit
suicide than their non-farming neighbours. Nor is there any sign that suicides rates
changed significantly after 2002, when GM cotton began to be introduced. Overall, Indian
suicide rates are not especially high. Officially, they are just over 10 per 100,000, slightly more
than Germany and less than half China’s, though of course, the official figures might be
underestimates. The idea that GM cotton drives farmers to suicide has become received
wisdom. But it is wrong.”
Analysis: Obviously if their has not actually been an increase in suicide then this argument has
no impact. Another logical argument that can be made is that the debt issue with farmers is
really a problem with international patenting laws, not with genetically modified crops on
balance.
Champion Briefs
298