Do we know enough to lift all bans on GMO's?

(LR: Minerva Tabije, Abraham Guiyab, Grant Delfin, Stacey Gutierrez, Nino Runes, Joaquin Montesclaros)

21 May 2008. The debate was on whether knowledge today was sufficient to justify lifting all bans on genetically modified organisms.

Government (Tabije, Gutierrez, Delfin) argued that there have not been sufficient evidence to show that GMO’s are unsafe for human consumption. They further argued that the development of commercial products like Flavr Savr tomatoes, beta-carotene enhanced food, salt resistant plants, and a variety of medicines and vaccines provide solutions to the world’s food and health problems. GMO’s save lives.

Opposition (Guiyab, Runes, Montesclaros) argued that is not sufficient evidence about the long term risks of GMO’s, particularly the ecological risks. They argued that effects such as the loss of biodiversity, the evolution of insect resistance, and the spread of resistance genes, could take several generations to observe. Furthermore, if a serious adverse effect is observed, it will be impossible to recall the errant genes, for they would have spread through nature. GMO’s are a Pandora’s box.

This debate involved weighing the short term benefit of saving lives against the long term risk of ecological damage. The way to solve the dilemma is to ask whether the evidence now allows us to predict the long term risk. To assess this, it is necessary to know the details of how genetic modification is performed. These details differ somewhat from one organism to another; thus, the assessment should be made on a case-to-case basis.

As chief adjudicator, I felt that it was Government’s job to show data that 1) suggest there is little risk to health; and 2) suggest there is little ecological risk, which would include a discussion of the technology and its inherent flaws. The Government was not very clear on these.

On the other hand, the Opposition provided data on potential risks. They cited the case of the monarch butterfly, the larvae of which are killed when they ingest large amounts of genetically modified pollen (modified to contain an inserted insecticidal peptide). Although genes do spread in the environment, their argument that they do through the food chain is, however, inaccurate.

Nonetheless, we gave this to the Opposition because we did not think Government was able to satisfactorily rebut the ecological argument of the Opposition.