According to the United Nations, 21,000 people worldwide die each

day from hunger or starvation. This quantifies to 7.6 million per year,
630,000 per month, and that means, by the time this round ends, 675
people will have perished from malnutrition and related causes. These 675
lives in jeopardy are why my partner and I affirm the resolution: On balance, the
benefits of genetically-modified-foods outweigh the harms. Before we begin, we
would like to define some key terms. The term on balance puts both sides on an
equal playing field, so at least one net benefit must be seen by the end of todays
debate. We would also like to put in place that to win todays debate, the con must
make the impact of their harms connect to humans, otherwise no harms can be
seen to the general public, and that we must only show the benefits or harms of
GMFs, since we are not arguing the implementation of GM crops worldwide.
Contention 1: GMFs Reduce Malnutrition and Lessen Starvation
Subpoint 1- Increased Crop Yields
As already stated, by the end of this round, almost 700 people will have died
from malnutrition and other hunger-related causes, most of them being in SubSaharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Most of the suffering are children, going to bed
hungry each night, not knowing where their next meal will come from. However,
with the mass production of Genetically-Modified-Foods, this may no longer be the
case. According to a 2005 study done by Rutgers University, a Chinese Rice farm
simultaneously grew 2 strands of genetically-modified rice along with conventional
rice. The genetically-modified rice, at the time of harvest, had a 9-percent higher
yield than the conventional methods of growing rice. But this is not only an isolated
example. According to PG Economics, Hawaii saw increased yields of 40% as a
direct result of implementing virus-resistant papaya, and Mexico, Romania, the
Philippines, and India saw an increase in yields from 10-50% from using similar GM
crops. This shows that genetic modification can solve hunger worldwide, not just in
the United States.
Subpoint 2- Enhanced Nutritional Values
The benefits are not only limited to quantity, but quality as well. Geneticallymodified-foods, according to multiple studies, have been able to carry more
nutrients vital to growth and development of the human body. One such example of
this comes from Queensland University, a research college centralized in Australia.
The college sent a mass shipment of Cavendish bananas modified with increased
levels of pro-vitamin A and Iron. These modifications could help malnourished men,
women, and children recover and fight many diseases. Another Miracle Crop, as
these have been called, is Golden Rice, a strand of rice with increased levels of
Vitamin A. According to the British Medical Journal, Vitamin A deficiency kills
668,000 children under the age of 5 each year. The use of Golden Rice can remedy
this problem. According to the American Journal for Clinical Nutrition, 50 grams, or 2
oz., Golden Rice can provide 60% of the daily need for Vitamin A. The rice was

implemented for a large-scale farm in South China, and the surrounding community
saw a significant decrease in malnutrition-related deaths as a result of the rice
being used.
Contention 2: Genetically Modified Foods Improve the Environment
The enhancements made to these foods can reduce fertilizers, pesticides,
and preservatives that damage our ecosystems. Changes made to these plants can
naturally keep away dangerous insects without increasing greenhouse gases, as
well as being able to naturally replenish the surrounding soil with nutrients without
using harmful, diluted nitrogen fertilizers. According to PG Economics, The reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions associated with GM crops for 2006 is estimated to be
equal to removing more than half a million cars from the road, and that on average,
the volume of herbicide used on corn has dropped 20-25% as a result of herbicidetolerant corn being introduced on the market in 1996.
Contention 3: Genetic Modification of Foods can Reduce Poverty
Worldwide
With the increased crop yield stated in our first contention, this is not only a
benefit in the sense of eating, but also in economics. Basic logic states that if there
is increased crop yield per acre, that revenue collected from that specific crop will
be greater than traditional crops. However, this argument is not based on logic
alone. The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture conducted a study in 2000
measuring the effects of Bt-corn, a genetic strand resistant to pesticides, against
traditional corn crops. Not only did the Bt-corn produce a higher yield, at 52 to 49
for bushels per acre production, but also outsold the traditional corn at market, at
$160 to $147 per bushel. Another example could be the Chinese Government. The
Republic of China started implementing research for GMFs in 1988, but did not
release them to the market until enough research had been done to eliminate
potential harms. About 10 years later, GM crops were released on the market.
Almost immediately the national economy got a boost, currently pulling in a net
profit of upwards of $30 million. This shows that regardless of location, GMFs help
our current poverty level.
In conclusion, the Affirmative has outlined multiple benefits for GeneticallyModified-Foods, and with the current knowledge on the topic, can only urge an
affirmative ballot.