"Growing and selling genetically modified organisms for human consumption

should be prohibited in the US"

Negative

We believe that the outright ban of growing and selling GMOs for human consumption is unjust and
unfounded. We would like to bring up the following points:

-Banning GMOs does not get rid of pesticides which are the main cause and concern of health
implications in the population

-It is nearly impossible to ban all GMOs, even organic organisms cannot be guaranteed to be GMO free

-Since the majority of our nations crops are GMO, banning them to switch over to organics would be a
waste of crop land, crop products and we cannot guarantee ever meeting the demand of the consumers
at the same rate

-There are no current direct linkages from GMOs to health defects, although they can arise later on, the
lack of research and only the possibility of any complications arising isnt enough reason to ban GMOs
now

-The benefits of helping the population IS backed up by research and should keep GMOs in production

First of all opponents of GMOs believe that GMO crops encourage the use of pesticides and that
organic crops would free us from that detriment. The reality is organic crops use pesticides as
well, they are just not synthetic pesticides. According to Gold et Al. concerning the
carcinogenity of synthetic and organic compounds, a recent study at UC Berkeley compared the
effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and
pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide
(i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted
effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required
to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan. It seems unlikely that 7
applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really better for the environment than 2 applications of
imidan, especially when rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life.It should be
noted, however, that we don't know for certain which system is more harmful. This is because
we do not look at organic pesticides the same way that we look at conventional pesticides. We
don't know how long these organic pesticides persist in the environment, or the full extent of
their effects. When you look at lists of pesticides allowed in organic agriculture, you find
warnings such as, "Use with caution. The toxicological effects of [organic pesticide X] are
largely unknown," or "Its persistence in the soil is unknown." Again, researchers haven't
bothered to study the effects of organic pesticides because it is assumed that "natural" chemicals
are automatically safe.
Then we come to the issue of how plausible is it to actually ban ALL GMOs? Theoretically if
we ban all GMO foods we are left with organic products, however these products arent
guaranteed to be GMO free. To be organic you must be 95% organic by weight. According to
Oregon Tilth Certified Organic, verifying the non-GM status of some ingredients can be
challenging like supplying the ingredient Vitamin E has been controlled by one or two
companies who collected soybean oil from many co-mingled sources. Also the problem is that
organic is a process certification through the USDA. They ask whether the use GMOs not
whether there is GM DNA or protein in the final product. This would defeat the purpose of the
ban. Other factors such as cross contamination also make it hard to determine if the organic
products would remain completely GMO free.
What happens if we do manage to ban GMO crops? Well according to the USDA our current
main crops are all virtually GMO. 88% of corn is genetically modified, 93% of soy is GM, 94%
of cotton is GM, 90% of canola and 54% of sugar beets. Not to mention papaya, which, due to
the ringspot virus there doesnt exist a completely GMO papaya anywhere in the world. These
high percentages of GMO crops mean that a high number of our supply come from GMOs, from
this ban even if we implement a proper phasing into non GM or organic farming system this is
talking about 90% of canola crops all of the sudden being useless and unused due to its GM
properties. We immediately lack the supply for the high consumer demand, and switching to
organic doesnt guarantee that we will ever build back up to that original yield output.

Very importantly, there has been a lot of talk about linking GMOs to allergies, illnesses and
other health defects. Many of these studies though have proven to be flawed. According to Dr.
Touys of McGill university the recent reports claiming that GMOs are causally associated with
cancer development in rats has been debunked by informed opinion, genetically tumour prone
rats were used and the statistical approach used did not satisfy confounding factors. In fact
another study from the international journal of biological sciences found that the statistical and
regulatory tests performed by these anti-gmo experiments were not clear. Fresh GMOs are
regularly and globally eaten in vast quantities without any proven side effects. Compounds such
as bisphenol A and benzopyrenes that are carcinogenic and often associated with GMOs are
actually not derived from GMs. An assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically
modified crops done by Dr. Konig in 2004 confirms that all GMO products that have gone public
were and still are safe to eat according to the assessment scheme. Sure there arent any
immediate effects, and we do acknowledge they may arise later on, but does this MAYBE justify
the ban right now?

Last of all, GMOs can be extremely beneficial to our society. We have read about Golden Rice
and its ability to provide for children in the developing world lacking in Vitamin A. Another
great example of this technology helping those in need is the use of membrane transporters to
improve crops for sustainable food production. Also plants in the Brassica family which include
canola produce gluconisinolates which are potent defence compounds against herbivores and
plant pathogens, a transporter could control the distribution of glucosinolates and may be
engineered to enhance herbivore resistance to reduce application of pesticides. We could
improve the quantity and quality of the foods produced for the general population.

Therefore with all these factors in mind, does it make sense to ban something that is already
beneficial and could potentially be somewhat harmful, but not as harmful as other existing
factors right now?