This rebuttal is my last chance to speak to you; therefore I feel it is necessary to review with you the case. Let me point out for which pieces of evidence carry more weight than others and then we will scrutinize the reasoning used throughout the debate.
The first contention of the affirmative throughout this case had been that there are no regulations on GM foods. However I have read for you the restrictions that FDA has the power to enforce as per the Federal Register. Currently this policy adequately regulates GE products to ensure consumer safety, and to promote awareness by placing labels where needed.
Yet, when we asked the affirmative to give us a single instance of where this law had failed to protect the American public they sidestepped the issue. They made reference to an instance in which soybeans would be engineered to produce proteins from a brazil nut.
While this may be of harm to allergy sufferers they need not be alarmed, for the present FDA policy would require the label of that product to read: "CONTAINS BRAZIL NUT PROTEIN. As you can see from this, there is no harm in the present system and thus no need for the implementation of the policy change that the affirmative is calling for In another attempt to frighten, Ms. Masten told of the instance in 1989 when Japanese manufacturers engineered bacteria to produce the food supplement tryptophan. However Matt has shown this evidence to be irrelevant to this debate, as the deaths in this case came from a contamination during the contamination process. This could have happened with or without the act of genetic engineering, as was even admitted by a strong opponent of genetic engineering, Greenpeace.
Additionally, please note that Ms. Masten has misconstrued the example of Gerber baby food, this illustrated that the industry was responsive to consumers wishes without adding regulations. Further note that the product was not removed because of a health danger or inadequate labeling but rather this recall came from Greenpeace for environmental reasons.
Please consider also that the affirmative plan, besides being unnecessary, carries with is some severe disadvantages. Included in these is the negative connotation that results from a label, the additional costs to consumers, and the drop in the amount of food that the agriculture industry can yield.
Also, note that the affirmative has not extended their B sub point under the first contention and therefore conceded this point. Furthermore, the D sub point of the same contention was also dropped and thus conceded. For these reasons I urge an affirmative ballot.