Kohai (PRO)Since the beginning of agriculture, humans have exploited and altered the genetic information in plants and animals to create new biological variations through artificial selection and crossbreeding. The main difference between genetic engineering and traditional breeding methods is that genetic engineering allows for us to isolate, copy, turn on, and introduce genes into other organisms. (Jones) This is done by identifying the gene of interests, isolating that trait, inserting that trait into the desired organism, and then propagating that organism. (Powell) However, the concept of a “genetically modified organism,” also known as a GMO, has been difficult to properly define by regulatory law because it is an imprecise category used to classify products that have had their genetic content engineered to cancel undesirable traits or express desired or added traits. (Tagliabue) Here is a helpful visual to demonstrate the genetic modification process (Powell):
There are different types of genetic modification and at least three different ways in which GMOs are produced: 1) Transgenic – plants that have genes from another species; 2) Cisgenic – plants that are made by using genes from the same species or a closely related species; and 3) Subgenic – a crop whose entire genome has been edited. In recent years, several regulatory bodies and states have attempted to require labeling of foods containing ingredients that have been modified. Because there are different techniques used for genetic modification, different crops are modified for different reasons. The papaya, for example, was modified to help resist the Papaya Ringworm Virus which nearly drove the Hawaiian Papaya to extinction
Today, there are only eight crops on the market today that have been genetically modified. Those are soybeans, cotton, canola, alfalfa, sugar beets, papaya, and squash. Although most of the food in the market is not itself GM, about 70 to 80% of food likely contains processed ingredients from GM plants (Hart). Recently, however, GM salmon and a GM apple (called the "Arctic apple") was approved by regulators in the U.S. and Canada though they are not currently on the market.
II. Genetic Modification and Our Health
Although the primary aspect of genetic modification is for crops, the same technology that is used for crops can also be used for pharmaceutical purposes. Take, for instance, insulin. Prior to GM technology, insulin was made with insulin from ground up pork and beef pancreases. In the late 1970s, scientists were able to use genetic engineering to piece the gene for human insulin with E. Coli or yeast cells. The results were that the new insulin was far more effective and there were less reactions to it (Knight).
In 2016, scientists were able to use the CRISPR gene editing tool to edit out HIV from a genome. Although HIV was able to overcome the attack, there is the promise of using gene editing therapy to help patients with HIV (Callaway). Gene editing therapy is currently used to help patients who suffer from Leukemia.
One more potential impact is the Golden Rice Project. In many third world countries, there is a strong vitamin A deficiency that causes blindness. By genetically modifying rice to contain beta-carotene, the source of vitamin A. This will be a significant help to those who are malnourished.
III. Are GMOs safe?
One of the contentions used by opponents of GM technology and GM crops is a question over its safety. There has been extensive testing on GM crops and the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of GMOs. The AAAS wrote:
“There are several current efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants, commonly known as GM crops or GMOs. These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested.”
The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”
Similarly, in April of this year, over 100 Nobel prize laureates signed a letter to Greenpeace stating, "We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against 'GMOs' in general and Golden Rice in particular."
IV. Conclusion
In conclusion, GM crops are very promising for the future in both improving agriculture and improving our health. The technology used for GMOs is safe, effective, and affordable. We should embrace this technology because within the next 50 years, the global population is expected to climb to over 9.1 billion people. We need
References
Knight, Meredith. Anti-GMO advocates try to scare diabetics off life-saving genetically engineered drug treatment. 2014. (n.p.) <https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/01/anti-gmo-advocates-try-to-scare-diabetics-off-life-saving-genetically-engineered-drug-treatment/>.
Powell, Chelsea. How to Make a GMO. 2015. (n.p.) <http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/how-to-make-a-gmo/>.
Reardon, Sara. "Leukaemia Success Heralds Wave of Gene-editing Therapies." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 05 Nov. 2015. Web. 31 July 2016. <http://www.nature.com/news/leukaemia-success-heralds-wave-of-gene-editing-therapies-1.18737>.Return To Top | Posted:
admin (CON)I'd like to thank Kohai for doing this debate with me. Unfortunately he had to concede my 100th debate on the site to me, so maybe by completing this debate we can make up for it. It's a great topic.
Return To Top | Posted:
Kohai: Thank you so much for accepting this debate. Do you agree that there are advantages to genetic modification that can lead to tremendous benefit for humanity?admin: No. Do you agree we sometimes need to be cautious about embracing science?Kohai: Sure. Why do you disagree with the benefits of GMOS? Also why would you reject the scientific consensus admin: Well Kohai, lucky for you, I just spent a really long round justifying why I don't think GMOs are of tremendous benefit to humanity. I don't know that this goes against any scientific consensus. Science is a process for finding out more about the natural world. It is not something that can inform us in a moral sense or otherwise. That's why you agreed just now that sometimes, people need be cautious about blindly embracing science. Do you intend to address such issues also in the debate, and if so, what positive values do you associate GM technology with?Kohai: Yes, I will discuss this extensively in the next round. The positive values I see GM technology is improving medicine (i.e. insulin, gene editing therapy etc.) Also improving agriculture to be able to sustain a larger population. Kohai: Genetic modification is a broad category. We should be careful not throw the baby out with the bathwater. admin: Alright so to clarify, is your principle value here health?Kohai: Yes, my principle value here is improving health and improving agriculture. Kohai: Do you see any possible benefit with using GM technology? If so, what are they? If not, why not?admin: There may be benefits, but I don't see them as outweighing the harms. I think you've done a pretty good job of explaining some of the benefits while also overstating them, and ignoring the potential costs.admin: Just to press you on this point regarding health and agriculture, would you also promote banning McDonalds or other unhealthy food outlets? Would you burn down low-yielding crops in the name of science?Kohai: Sounds good. In the next round, I will respond to the harms in depth. Kohai: I would not promote banning McDonalds or unhealthy foods, nor would I burn down low-yielding crops. Allow me to reverse the question, would you burn down GM fields (as have been done), or promote banning GM technology?admin: I would support that insofar as it is legally permissible. I can openly admit that, for example, when New Zealand legalized GM field trials, I was marching against that decision. Given that you feel that science should not always mandate a minimum agricultural yield or level of health, where exactly do you draw the line? When does your value hold and when does it not hold?Kohai: I don't really draw a line. Farmers should have a choice in whether or not they will grow GM Crops. admin: But you agree that we should embrace GM for the sake of health, but not embrace banning McDonalds for health, right? Surely there's a line drawn between those two somewhere?admin: To clarify the question, really what I'm asking is when are exceptions made to these principles, since you agree they are not absolute.Kohai: I will discuss those questions in the next round as there is not enough space to adequately discuss it during C-X. Kohai: But just to clarify my positions, the primary benefits I see in GM technology is the following: 1) Improving and innovating agriculture to sustain a growing population; 2) Improving medications (i.e. insulin); 3) Using gene therapy to aid in fighting diseases; and 4) Improving nutrition in foods.Return To Top | Speak Round
Kohai (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
@admin just a quick correction, where it says "In April of this year," it should read, "In June of this year." Look forward to your reply and CXPosted 2016-07-31 06:15:46
@admin would love to debate you on it Posted 2016-07-31 03:09:10
@Kohai would you mind if I take this?Posted 2016-07-31 00:45:37