Está en la página 1de 24

2015-16 IPPF Topic Primer

Resolved: Genetically modified organisms


are essential to global food security.

By Deano Pape, Manager of Collegiate and Organizational Partnerships


for the National Speech & Debate Association

In August 2015, the government of Scotland officially announced that the country would
ban genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In announcing the decision, Richard Lochhead, the
Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment cited Scotlands environmentallyfriendly reputation. He stated, Scotland is known around the world for our beautiful natural
environment - and banning growing genetically modified crops will protect and further enhance
our clean, green status (BBC 2015). For the Scottish government, there is a fear of its
substantial food and drink markets to be negatively affected by allowing for genetically-modified
foods.
As Scotland and other EU nations pass more restrictions on GMOs, Kenya is moving in
the opposite direction. Kenya will be lifting its ban on GMOs in October 2015 (All Africa
2015). In his announcement of the lifting of the ban, Kenyas Deputy President William Ruto
stated, Going into the future, any meaningful development is going to be knowledge-based and
technology driven. We therefore cannot, as the people of Kenya, be left behind when the world is
discussing matters of biotechnology. The public should embrace science because it is what is
going to lead to more advancement. Rutos announcement frames the same technology banned
in Scotland as a necessary and welcome advancement for the good of his country.
Watching the differinge trajectories of these two countries shows that the public,
scientific, environmental and political debates about GMOs are far from resolved. The stark
contrast in the approaches of these two nations prompts the consideration of a variety of related
issues. What effects would ripple across the global food supply if other countries, both developed
and developing, also banned GMOs? Are GMOs a necessity for feeding a growing world
population if a developed country or region like Scotland or the EU can limit their development
substantially?

These issues form the basis of the topic discussed in this years International Public
Policy Forum (IPPF) competition: Resolved: Genetically modified organisms are essential to
global food security. The resolution gives debaters the opportunity to delve into two of the most
pressing global issues today: food security and GMOs.
This topic promotes debate on the role of GMOs in the struggle to feed an ever-growing
population. One of the reasons IPPF chose this topic was to offer the world the chance to debate
issues surrounding food security without debating the value of food security in and of itself. The
resolution asks debaters to consider what role GMOs should play in achieving the goal of global
food security, not if achieving global food security is an ethical or practical goal to have.
Debaters should note that the resolution assumes global food security is both a realistic
possibility and a goal that we as a global society should strive to achieve.
Food security is a multifaceted issue and GMOs are just one part of the complex
puzzle. Natural disasters, government corruption, terrorism, business fraud and a myriad of
other systemic problems can interfere with a country achieving food security. The focus of this
resolution, however, is on the role of GMOs specifically; other issues related to food security
should only be discussed as they relate to the usage of GMOs. In crafting cases and rebuttals
debaters should pay careful attention to ensure that their arguments (and those of their
opponents) are clearly linked to and in response to genetically-modified organisms and food
security.

Definitions of Important Terms


In order to have a healthy and productive debate it is important that the terms used in the
resolution are defined. The definitions described below are the most widely used in the literature
and are provided as a starting point for the discussion of GMOs that follows. By no means,
3

however, should these sources be the last word on the official definition on any of these terms.
Debaters are encouraged to conduct more research and provide nuance on each of the terms
provided below.
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines genetically modified foods that are as
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.
Sometimes referred to as genetically-engineered (GE) or genetically modified (GM),
these organisms have had their DNA modified in ways that are not produced as a result of
mating or natural recombination. Individual genes may be transferred from one organism to
another.
Genetic engineering involves one of the following processes taking place:
1) a desired gene of an organism is isolated, spliced out of the surrounding genetic
sequence, cloned using laboratory techniques, and inserted into the host organism which is being
modified. The host crop then displays the desired manifestations of the gene;
2) the removal of a specific gene from the DNA of the target crop, which then prevents
the plant from manifesting that gene (MIT 2013). Genetic engineering takes less time than
selective breeding, and in some cases is able to carry out genetic changes that would not occur
naturally.
The World Health Organization (1996) defines food security as when all people at all
times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life. This
definition also takes into account cultural and religious considerations of food. For example, if a
predominantly Muslim area were given pork products, this would not be considered food secure,
as Muslims have a religious objection to eating pork.

The WHO further explains that food security is built on three pillars: availability, access
and use. These three pillars come together to create food security. The first pillar is food
availability, defined as sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent basis. This is what
most frequently comes to mind when discussing food security. In order to be food secure a
person or group should simply have enough food to eat. The second pillar is food access, which
means, having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet. Food
access issues are frequently found with economic and political issues. The third and final pillar
of food security is food use, or appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care,
as well as adequate water and sanitation. Food cannot exist in a vacuum. In order for people to
be food secure they should have adequate infrastructure to prepare, store and consume food
safely. Combined, these pillars illustrate the multifaceted nature of food security. Debaters would
be well advised to consider how various Affirmative or Negative arguments affect the goals of
these pillars.
This topic briefing is organized into an overview of prominent arguments that can be
advanced by the Affirmative and Negative along with considerations within the arguments, such
as potential responses by the Negative or Affirmative, as well as other perspectives to keep in
mind while researching. These arguments are neither comprehensive nor exhaustive. This
approach should promote healthy debate among ones own team as well as engage students
critical thinking skills and promote further research.

Overview: Benefits of GMOs & Argument Considerations


Benefits of GMOs typically are derived from advances in food production, nutrition, and
the ability to lessen impacts on the environment. Crop yields often increase as a result of the use

of GMOs. Genetically-modified crops have been shown to reduce the amount of pesticides used
to eliminate insect populations. Drought-resistant crops have demonstrated a lessened demand
for fresh water. Genetically-modified crops can encourage environmental sustainability by
reducing the impact of agriculture on the environment. Genetically-engineered crops resist the
effects of common herbicides, allowing them to work more effectively to target invasive weeds.
As you can see, there are many arguments for the Affirmative, and it might be easy for
the Affirmative to believe that putting forward volumes of scientific studies will win most of their
debates. However, in order to dig deeply into the resolution, the Affirmative should do two things
very effectively:
1) explain why a scientific advancement is important, not merely state that a scientific
advancement has taken place;
2) link evidence and analysis to the specific issue of global food security. The resolution
states that GMOs are essential to food security. Evidence presented by the Affirmative needs to
show that GMOs are necessary for food security, not just a contributing factor.
Greater crop production is a significant benefit of GMOs. Quoting Peter BrabeckLetmathe, chairman and former CEO of Nestle Corporation, If you look at those countries that
have introduced GMOs, you will see that the yield per hectare has increased by about 30% over
the past few years. Whereas the yields for non-GMO crops are flat to slightly declining (Carney
2011). The population continues to grow planet-wide, with the UN estimating a need for 70%
more food to be grown by 2050 just to keep up with demand (Freedman 2013). As the effects of
climate change continue to be measured in weather extremes, adapting plants quickly to adjust to
temperature increases and drought conditions will be essential to food security.

On the surface, one might expect that this piece of evidence speaks for itself, and that
high yields are naturally good. However, this argument is not self-evident, and demands further
explanation. The Negative may argue that we already grow sufficient food to feed the world now,
but that the food is hoarded by wealthier nations who dont need the high volume of calories
available. The Negative might also argue that these GMO crops cannot reach their targeted
audience due to corrupt regimes preventing distribution. The Affirmative should present the case
that high yields are vital to global food security. If weather extremes shrink the availability of
arable land, the yield arguments become more justifiable.
Scarcity of food is a very significant problem for many parts of the developing world.
Quoting Brabeck-Letmathe once again, What we call today the Arab Spring really started as a
protest against ever-increasing food prices (Carney 2011). Brabeck-Letmathe contends that
people in developing nations spend 80% of their disposable income on food. If the price of corn
or flour doubles or triples in the Third World, hundreds of millions of people go hungry
(Carney 2011).
Carneys argument is that, among the citizens of wealthier nations, certain cost increases
are an inconvenience, but ultimately have little or no impact on the citizens of those countries.
Impoverished countries will suffer the most from a poor crop or lower yields. It is important to
read the entire article, however, as Carney also argues that much of our food yield that we gain
is lost to the production of fuels, most notably ethanol. The Negative may argue that GMO gains
actually have a negative effect on food security because of the higher costs for crops that might
otherwise feed a very hungry world. Both the Affirmative and the Negative should be especially
careful to ensure that these arguments remain topical to the resolution. Global economics and

corruption at all levels can inhibit food security; the debate, however, needs to focus on the
relationship of GMOs to corruption, not the mere existence of corruption in and of itself.
While scarcity of food is a significant problem, so is malnutrition. There are various
forms of malnutrition, described by Lucy Carter in Science & Engineering Ethics:
(1) overnutrition, a condition not commonly thought of as an example of malnutrition,
occurs predominantly in developed countries and commonly leads to illnesses associated with
high caloric intake such as heart-disease, hypertension and diabetes;
(2) secondary malnutrition occurs from an inability to absorb or digest food, usually as a
consequence of disease such as diarrhea, intestinal parasites or respiratory illness;
(3) macronutrient malnutrition refers to insufficient protein-calorie intake, is usually
characterized as acute hunger and results in undernourishment over a distinct period and is
reflective of physical wasting and starvation and finally;
(4) micronutrient malnutrition is caused by a diet lacking in sufficient primary
micronutrients such as iron, vitamin A, iodine and zinc (2007).
Malnutrition seems like a very simple concept, but as Carter demonstrates, there are
many different types, each with varying impacts. The idea that we can suffer from overnutrition,
with the resultant effects of diabetes and heart disease, is not one that many would expect to
encounter. The questions the Affirmative should ask at this stage are, which of these have the
greatest impact on global food security, and how do GMOs provide support for global food
security? This debate is far more than simply, GMOs do many good things.
Rice is the most important food crop of the developing world and the staple food of more
than half the global population. Worldwide, more than 3.5 billion people depend on rice for more
than 20% of their daily calorie intake (Demont & Stein 2013). Golden rice may be an effective

response in the need to combat micronutrient malnutrition. Named for scientists engineering of
rice genes to include beta-carotene, an essential component in the production of Vitamin A,
golden rice may be able to save eyesight around the globe. In addition, vitamin A deficiencies
kill an estimated 1 million people every year (Freedman 2013). Since a vast proportion of the
worlds poor consume rice as a staple food, the distribution of Golden Rice would,
theoretically, improve the nutritional quality of rice and therefore improve the overall health of
individuals in developing countries (Carter 2007). This addresses a serious health concern and
improves quality of life at the same time.
Golden rice is a key example that many Affirmative debaters may emphasize in response
to micronutrient malnutrition. If the Affirmative can demonstrate that global food supplies can
be improved or enhanced to save a great many lives, then the food supply provides value beyond
standard caloric or nutrient intake of the crop. It is here where Negatives will likely respond
with long-term health questions and environmental concerns, including contamination of nonGMO crops. Thus, the Affirmative will need to be prepared for a number of potential responses
to the development of golden rice. The Affirmative should also examine contemporary
applications of GMO crop improvements, including the reduction of diarrhea with rice enriched
with lactoferrin, and draw attention to secondary malnutrition solutions as well.
GMO crops have also been engineered to address abiotic and biotic stress resistance in
crops. Abiotic stress resistance includes non-biological factors, such as environmental
considerations of frost, salinity levels, and water, including runoff. Food security is invariably
interconnected with water security because water is needed to produce the food that feeds the
billions of people on our planet. Currently, the agricultural sector uses 75 percent of global
water. In a world in which access to abundant, clean, freshwater is becoming more difficult, the

amount of agricultural water use threatens future global water security. Our ability to produce
staple crops, which comprise the majority of the agricultural sector and constitute a large part of
peoples diets, will become a growing concern as water supplies dwindle (MIT 2013).
This article focuses on the staple crops of corn, rice, and wheat. Drought tolerance is
factored with multiple studies by Monsanto to test abiotic stress resistance; in this case, water
loss to the environment. It will become vitally important for the Affirmative to recognize the
attacks on huge, multi-national corporations that will occur, most notably with Monsanto. The
Affirmative can focus on additional advancements, including salt tolerance among rice crops,
and the ability to grow longer root systems to take in water further below ground. As with all
research, teams need to read the entire articles, as there is ample evidence and argumentation
that the Negative will use that is contained in the study.
In addition to abiotic stressors, GMOs can be designed to combat biotic stressors as well,
which include biological factors such as pests, which can create substantial crop damage. This, in
turn, reduces the use of insecticides by farmers. In Spain, for example, the European corn borer
can cause farmers to lose up to 15 per cent of their maize yield in years with high insect
infestation. In 2011, Spanish farmers cultivated almost 98,000 ha [hectare] of GM insect tolerant
MON810 maize. Decreased insecticide use has a beneficial environmental impact, as well as
beneficial impact on farmer health. Calculations based on data from 2002 to 2004 in Spain
showed that, primarily due to reduced pesticide spraying, there was an economic benefit to
farmers from growing the GM insect-resistant maize ranging from 3 to 135 per ha (EU
Briefing 2012).
This evidence supports an important Affirmative argument while also bringing to the fore
an example from a European nation; the European Union overall has been very resistant to the

10

development of any type of genetically-modified organisms unless used for animal consumption.
The Negative may argue that this doesnt address hunger if the corn is not used for human
consumption; however, it does support other evidence, such as higher yields and reduction of
pesticides. Farmers can receive an economic benefit and also greater health for the farmers,
which is net-advantageous for global food security if the farmers are benefiting.

Overview: GMOs Are Not Essential to Food Security & Argument Considerations
The World Health Organization provides many potential issue areas for those who would
argue against genetically-modified organisms, including The capability of the GMO to escape
and potentially introduce the engineered genes into wild populations; the persistence of the gene
after the GMO has been harvested; the susceptibility of non-target organisms (e.g., insects which
are not pests) to the gene product; the stability of the gene; the reduction in the spectrum of other
plants including loss of biodiversity; and increased use of chemicals in agriculture. Other topics
debated by consumer organizations have included allergenicity and antimicrobial resistance.
Consumer concerns have triggered a discussion on the desirability of labelling GM foods,
allowing for an informed choice (WHO).
While the Affirmative should resist the urge to dump scientific study after scientific study
into their case, the Negative should resist the urge to substitute pathos for logic. Much fear is
stoked by activists who want to see a complete ban on GMOs. The Negative does not have to ban
GMOs under this resolution. The resolution is focused upon global food security, and the
Affirmative should not only defend GMOs, but demonstrate that GMOs are essential for global
food security (not merely one factor among many). Negative cases should focus on issues of
global food security. When reviewing the literature, it is easy to find references to Monsatan

11

for Monsanto, and to presume that corporate interests are being placed above feeding the
masses. Profit margins, alone, are insufficient evidence to assert this argument. The Negative
cannot simply say, GMOs are bad. The Negative should rise above surface-level arguments to
win these debates.
The World Health Organization provides criteria to assess the safety of geneticallymodified foods, specifically: (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 (WHO).
The Negative should understand the risk-assessment and approval process for GMOs in
great detail. The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) segment on GM foods should be
reviewed thoroughly as it establishes standards and guidelines to be used for international food
safety. The United States and the European Union have very different processes for approval.
At the heart of their push for approval was the concept of Substantial Equivalence.
Essentially, the argument put forth was that GM plants are roughly equivalent to their natural or
conventionally bred counterparts. The enzymes and proteins produced by the plant are close
enough to the ones that humans have been ingesting for tens of thousands of years (Portfolio 21,
2014).
Substantial Equivalence, in the realm of food security, is the idea that if one product is
substantially like another, it may be deemed safe. Opponents of genetically-modified foods argue
that these foods have been given a pass by the Food & Drug Administration in the United States.
The Affirmative may argue that gene manipulation does not change the food product -- a
genetically-modified papaya is substantially like any other papaya, for example. The Negative

12

should make specific arguments that certain foods, once engineered, do not meet the substantial
equivalence standard if they are going to take this position.
Food security and safety may be threatened by gene transfer and outcrossing. 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 (WHO). Outcrossing takes place when genes migrate from genetically-modified
crops into conventional crops. 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 countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear
separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown (WHO).
Although many countries have tried to separate fields, it is very difficult, if not
impossible, to prevent cross-contamination of fields and therefore open the opportunity for
outcrossing. Farmers have also been sued for using organisms that end up on their land (see
below). Negative teams need to thoroughly read all of these articles as the WHO is not
inherently anti-GMO. Their articles are meant to inform on all sides of the issue and there are
definitely Affirmative arguments and evidence embedded across the board.
The protein (lectin) that the modified organisms produced varied significantly between
trials. Furthermore, the rats digestive systems did not appear to be processing the GM potato
like conventional ones. Brains, livers, and testes were less developed, while there was a
proliferation of stomach cells, which can facilitate the development of tumors. The immune
system response suggested that the modified potatoes were being treated as foreign bodies. This
was especially disturbing because the lectin gene tested safely in its natural state. The

13

unexplained effects were therefore likely caused by the genetic insertion technique, which is in
direct contradiction to what the parent companies and U.S. FDA had claimed (Portfolio 21,
2014).
This is rare evidence that genetic insertion may have an effect. The Negative should
recognize that much of this evidence is theoretical in terms of its direct impact. However, it does
feed a precautionary principle (see below) argument and provides a counterclaim to the
Affirmatives potentially heavy reliance on scientifically-demonstrated benefits.
Despite the fact that the genes being transferred occur naturally in other species, there
are unknown consequences to altering the natural state of an organism through foreign gene
expression. After all, such alterations can change the organism's metabolism, growth rate, and/or
response to external environmental factors. These consequences influence not only the GMO
itself, but also the natural environment in which that organism is allowed to proliferate. Potential
health risks to humans include the possibility of exposure to new allergens in genetically
modified foods, as well as the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to gut flora (Phillips 2008).
I can tell you without a doubt that we are in our infancy in understanding how genes
interact with the environment. We are constantly finding new interactions that are changing the
way that we view how genetic material is transferred and affects our health. For instance, we
now know that bacteria in our gut are capable of picking up genes from the food that we eat. We
have just found that the genes in our food are not completely broken down in our stomach and
that some of that genetic material finds its way into our bloodstream where it has effects on our
cells. We have also found that bacteria in the soil are capable of taking up genetic material from
the plants that grow in that soil. Indeed what we are finding is that there are no boundaries to
genetic flow (Mathews 2014).

14

There are several important variables to consider in these articles. Some Negative papers
will want to focus on the negative effects of Bt corn (see full article for explanation) because of
the direct effect on monarch butterfly populations. However, independent scientists and
researchers concluded that the effect was not substantial, and therefore, although important to
know in the event it is developed as an argument, is not particularly effective today. Instead,
these two articles provide evidence that science does not yet understand all of the potential
impacts on human health and food security.
Managing the agricultural system in more sustainable ways is made harder by the spread
of monocultures and large-scale, mechanized farming. In the developing world especially, GM
monoculture and the industrial approach to agriculture have spread hand in hand. Yields may be
higher, but they are not, in the very long run, sustainable. Mechanized agriculture, in some form,
is likely necessary to feed the number of people in the world today. GM agriculture is not. It has
so far provided insufficient and inconsistent benefits for the amount of risk it entails. Genetically
modified agriculture, as it is currently practiced, should be far down the list of solutions for
securing the global food supply (Portfolio 21, 2014).
Genetically modified crops threaten to cross-contaminate surrounding farmlands and
natural habitats, leading to monoculture and low biodiversity among food crops. Because the
genetically modified crops are often better adapted to the environments that they were
engineered for, they outcompete naturally occurring plants (MIT 2013).
The arguments the Negative makes regarding agricultural production should be carefully
crafted. Mechanized farming, at a base level, is the application of machinery to agricultural
production. Very few individuals would doubt that the use of tools and machines have
substantially improved productivity levels of farming at all stages. The key argument here is

15

monocultures and a lack of biodiversity. The MIT evidence points to GM crops outcompeting the
natural crops. The Affirmative may argue that modifications made to genetic material in seeds
provides the ability to support repeated plantings of the same crop, in particular in conditions
where the seeds have adapted to droughts or other harsh environmental conditions. The
Negative should show that monocultures created by a devotion to specific high-yield crops is not
appropriate for all environments and that it is harmful to many farmers, which threatens the
viability of food security in all parts of the globe, especially local and regional crop production.
One of the concerns of activists and scientists alike is the development of weeds that will
form a resistance to herbicides in response to the development of genetically-modified crops.
Glyphosate is a commonly used herbicide used worldwide to protect crops. As early as 1998,
only two years after these products were introduced, glyphosate-resistant weeds began to appear.
The instances of these super-weeds has increased quickly, with more than 65 varieties
identified by the end of 2010. Farms deal with this by either increasing the number of glyphosate
applications, or turning to higher-toxicity herbicides (Portfolio 21, 2014).
As glyphosate continues to be studied, additional concerns have arisen. Another study
carried out at the University of Arkansas demonstrated that the use of glyphosate impedes the
rhizobium bacteria, which are present in the roots of soybeans, and affix atmospheric nitrogen
into the soil. Without additional artificial fertilizer added, the yield of the plants was affected by
up to 25% during dry periods (Portfolio 21, 2014).
The Negative should take care with the fear factor here -- even the language of superweeds evokes images of giant plants taking over entire crop fields. The Negative should
demonstrate that the advent of these weeds, or the changes that take place as a result of
glyphosate applications, have an impact on global food security. However, if a side effect of

16

genetic modification is a resistant weed or super-bug (resistant insect), the Negative can make
the argument that there is a significant threat to the global food supply created as a result of
genetic modification.
The super-weeds evidence may promote adherence to the Precautionary Principle.
Europe and, in turn, a number of their trading partners, have moved to block most GM seed from
entering their fields. Citing from the Science & Environmental Health Network (2014), the
authors note that the European approach adheres to the Precautionary Principle, which states
that when an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary
measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established
scientifically. While U.S. policy allows for post-market testing (when obvious environmental or
health risks arise), European policymakers have insisted on independent science-based
assurances before allowing GM products on the market. As of 2014 only two GM crops can be
cultivated in Europe, and neither are used for human consumption (Portfolio 21, 2014).
There is substantial pressure on Europe to adopt more genetically-modified crops. Some
African nations, following Europes lead, have also banned these crops, even in areas of the
world where poverty and starvation are prominent. The Affirmative will cite a number of
instances in which Europeans have been criticized for not acting quickly on GM foods. The
Negative should take care with framing arguments that support the European position as not
coming across as anti-science. This is where the precautionary principle may come into play.
Clearly Europe does not believe that genetically-modified foods are essential to global food
security.
Citing statistics published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2014), Perhaps
the most pervasive argument for GM crops is centered on the message that these crops are

17

needed to feed the world. The underlying assumptions of this argument, however, are simply
incorrect. At current levels of global production, there is enough food for every person on earth
to have 3,000 calories per day (Portfolio 21, 2014).
Such patenting and commercialization, along with cross contamination, can create
problems when it comes to selling seed to farmers. If a farmer has not planted a particular GM
crop, but through cross contamination has the crop growing on their fields, they can be subject to
a lawsuit at the hands of the people who have a patent on said GM crop Also, the company
that owns the patent makes it illegal for the farmer to save the seed from the previous year,
making it easy for farmers to go into debt because they constantly need to find the money to
afford new seed, and thus need to keep increasing their yield. In India, for instance, farmers find
themselves needing to take out loans each year in order to be able to afford the seed. This leads
to farmers finding themselves constantly in debt, and in many parts of the world, an increased
rate of farmer bankruptcies (MIT 2013).
One of the goals of the Negative will be to demonstrate what really IS essential to global
food security. The Affirmative will have very persuasive evidence regarding starvation rates and
health deficiencies. In response, the Negative may wish to take the position that we have
sufficient food, but that food distribution is the key to food security, including overnutrition for
those nations that can readily afford to overconsume. The Negative might also argue that the
treatment of farmers is a key element of food security, and if local farmers are being ruined by
lawsuits (where the corporations have all of the power, since they own the seeds), then the
economic conditions may, if argued well, have an impact on food security worldwide.
There are some recent developments that provide additional alternatives to geneticallymodified foods, including RNA interference. The discovery of RNA interference earned two

18

academics a Nobel Prize in 2006 and set off a scramble to create drugs that block diseasecausing genes. Using this same technology, Monsanto now thinks it has hit on an alternative to
conventional genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. It can already kill bugs by getting them
to eat leaves coated with specially designed RNA. And if the company succeeds in developing
sprays that penetrate plant cells, as its attempting to, it could block certain plant genes, too
(Regalado 2015).
The Negative may be able to demonstrate that there are viable, scientifically-supported
alternatives to genetically-modified foods, in particular with research from the giants of the
industry such as Monsanto.
Imagine a spray that causes tomatoes to taste better or helps plants survive a drought.
Monsanto isnt the only one working on genetic sprays. Other large agricultural biotech
companies, including Bayer and Syngenta, are also investigating the technology. The appeal is
that it offers control over genes without modifying a plants genomethat is, without creating a
GMO. Sprays might be quickly tailored to do battle with an insect infestation or a new type of
virus. Not only could this be faster than creating new GM crops, but the gene-silencing effects of
RNA interference last only a few days or weeks. That means you might spray on traits such as
drought resistance in times of water shortage without affecting the plants performance in times
of normal rainfall (Regalado 2015).
The Negative should keep in mind that, at this point, much of this research is in the
formative stages. In addition, the article explains that there is RNA opposition forming
(specifically from the National Honey Bee Advisory Board), and if the Negative uses the
precautionary principle earlier in their case, they may run into an inherent contradiction. It

19

depends upon how the Negative creates their case and what, ultimately, their arguments are
related to food security.

Summary
This topic paper serves as a general summary of significant arguments that debaters may
choose to argue in their essays. It is not meant as a comprehensive guide to all of the arguments
that may be heard, nor is the bibliography a comprehensive set of resources that may be
consulted and cited. Some of the sources and people cited in this paper may have bias for or
against the topic. However, debaters should be prepared to address specific arguments developed
in these essays, even in situations in which the source of the evidence may be questioned. A
general indictment of a source does not mean that all content contained within that source is
necessarily invalid.
In addition, it is important for both sides to remember that the topic is not just about
whether or not genetically-modified organisms, specifically genetically-modified foods, are good
or bad. The topic concerns whether GMOs are essential to global food security. There is much
ground on either side of the resolution for both Affirmative and Negative teams to link all of
their evidence and arguments on global food security.
Debaters should also keep in mind that their judges may not be scientific experts.
Debaters should avoid using jargon or scientific language unless they clearly define terms and
explain the science. The goal of each teams essay should be to make excellent arguments while
also maintaining clarity regarding the science and societal impacts of GMOs.
Enjoy the debates and good luck in the competition!

20

11, A. R. on A., & 2015. (n.d.). With BioDirect, Monsanto Hopes RNA Sprays Can Someday
Deliver Drought Tolerance and Other Traits to Plants on Demand. Retrieved August 18,
2015, from
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/540136/the-next-great-gmo-debate/
Brewer, M. s., & Rojas, M. (2008). Consumer Attitudes Toward Issues in Food Safety. Journal of
Food Safety, 28(1), 122. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4565.2007.00091.x
Campbell, C. C. (1991). Food insecurity: a nutritional outcome or a predictor variable? The
Journal of Nutrition, 121(3), 408415.
Carney, B. M. (2011, September 3). Can the World Still Feed Itself? Yes, says Nestles
chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, but not if we burn food for fuel, fear genetic
advances and fail to charge for water. Wall Street Journal (Online), p. n/a. New York,
N.Y., United States.
Carter, L. (2007). A case for a duty to feed the hungry: GM plants and the third world. Science
and Engineering Ethics, 13(1), 6982. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0006-y
Coghlan, A. (2013). Embattled grains. New Scientist, 220(2941), 3031.
Demont, M., & Stein, A. J. (2013). Global value of GM rice: a review of expected agronomic
and consumer benefits. New Biotechnology, 30(5), 426436.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2013.04.004
Dona, A., & Arvanitoyannis, I. S. (2009). Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. Critical
Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49(2), 164175.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10408390701855993

21

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (1996, November 13). World
Food Summit - Final Report - Part 1. Retrieved August 10, 2015, from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3548e/w3548e00.htm
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2005). Status of Research and
Application of Crop Biotechnologies in Developing Countries. GOING
AGAINST GMOs. (2014). Better Nutrition, 76(10), 5254.
Green Biotech. (2012, June). EU GMO Policies, Sustainable Farming and Public
Research.
Holmes, C., & Graham, J. E. (2009). Genetically Modified Organisms as Public Goods:
Plant Biotechnology Transfer in Colombia. Culture & Agriculture, 31(1), 2638.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-486X.2009.01016.x
Jacobsen, S.-E., Srensen, M., Pedersen, S. M., & Weiner, J. (2013). Feeding the world:
genetically modified crops versus agricultural biodiversity. Agronomy for
Sustainable Development, 33(4), 651662.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0138-9
Kos, H. C. S. happycog com and D. (n.d.). The Case Against GMOs. Retrieved August
18, 2015, from
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/25/1316668/-The-Case-Against-GMOs
Maghari, B. M., & Ardekani, A. M. (2011). Genetically Modified Foods and Social
Concerns. Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology, 3(3), 109117.
McClung, C. R. (2014). Making Hunger Yield. Science, 344(6185),
699700. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254135

22

McDonagh, J. (2014). Rural geography II: Discourses of food and sustainable rural
futures. Progress in Human Geography, 38(6), 838844.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513514507
Mhagama, H. (By Hilda Mhagama). Tanzania: Stakeholders Say GMOs Not Lasting
Food Security Solution. Tanzania Daily News (Dar Es Salaam). Retrieved
from http://allafrica.com/stories/201507081109.html
Portfolio 21. (2014, September). The Case Against GMOs: An Environmental Investors
View of the Threat to our Global Food Systems.
The Truth about Genetically Modified Food. (n.d.). Retrieved August 18, 2015, from
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified
-food/
Thomson, J. A. (2015). Prospects for the utilization of genetically modified crops in
Africa. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology, 37(2), 152159.
http://doi.org/10.1080/07060661.2015.1035954
Toft, K. H. (2012). GMOs and Global Justice: Applying Global Justice Theory to the
Case of Genetically Modified Crops and Food. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, 25(2), 223237.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu:2048/10.1007/s108
06-010-9295-x
van Rijssen, F. W. J., Eloff, J. N., & Morris, E. J. (2015). The precautionary principle:
Making managerial decisions on GMOs is difficult. South African Journal of
Science, 111(3/4), 19. http://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2015/20130255

23

We Dont Need GMOs -- There Are Other Ways to Feed the World. (2014). Popular
Science, 285(1), 5759.
WHO | Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods. (n.d.). Retrieved
August 18, 2015, from
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modi
fied-food/en/
World Health Organization. (n.d.). WHO | Food Security. Retrieved August 10, 2015,
from http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en/
Yap, C.-W. (2015, March 24). China Seeks to Develop Global Seed Power; Beijing
looks to defend home market against foreign makers like Monsanto and
DuPont. Wall Street Journal (Online), p. n/a. New York, N.Y., United States.

24

También podría gustarte