**TL;DR - Genetically modified organisms should be banned, because artificially engineered food can cause health problems and benefit the big companies over small businesses**. There are many reasons why people have developed the technology to modify their food, some of which are speed of production, durability, nutrition, and sales. However, there is evidence that GMOs may be a risk to public health, as there is the 'potential to 'provoke allergic reactions (“allergenicity”)' as well as 'outcrossing', which is the unintended release and mixing (...) of genes from GM plants into non-GM crops or wild plants'. ('debating Europe'). Tampering with nature in this way can cause unexpected damaging of natural products and cause allergies unaccounted for in the present or in the future. While there is scientific and financial reasoning behind GMOs, the 'purpose' of GMOs has not been fulfilled. Bill Christison, president of the US National Family Farm Coalition, says that '[t]he promise was that you could use less chemicals and produce a greater yield. But let me tell you none of this is true'. Instead, there is a huge role of 'multinational corporations in agriculture and GM-related research', Rachel A. Ankeny argues, which pressure farmers. One enormous disadvantage of GMOs is that they benefit 'big business over small farmers' ('debating Europe'). We should support small businesses that provide naturally grown food to the industry. Works Cited Ankeny, Rachel A., 'To ban or not to ban genetically modified crops? That's not the question' (2019) <https://phys.org/news/2019-08-genetically-crops.html> [accessed 23 February 2021]. Christison Bill, in '10 Reasons Why We Don't Need GM Foods' <https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/10-reasons-why-we-dont-need-gm-foods> [accessed 23 February 2021]. 'Should GMOs be banned across Europe?' (2019) <https://www.debatingeurope.eu/2019/09/06/gmos-banned-across-europe/#.YDTE3Gj7RPY> [accessed 23 February 2021].

**TL;DR - GMOs have been massively successful at increasing food production and food security since the green revolution, but they also have a negative impact; environmental damage, inequality, and in some cases political and social conflict.** This is a difficult point to address due to both the necessity and the bitter consequences of GMOs. On one hand, the Green Revolution and the development of genetically altered crops were a massive success in terms of increasing agricultural production and crop resistance. On the other, biochemical companies and their practices are dangerous not only to biodiversity, but also to scientific, economic, and governmental institutions. From a demographic standpoint, GMOs and other agrochemicals involved in the process impactfully reduced food scarcity which led to a population boom in both developed and developing countries. For example, the United States imported over half its wheat in the 1940s, and after altering crop genetics in the 1950s they became self-sufficient and became an exporter [1]. Big state-funded biochemical GM companies became predominant because of their ability to secure food production around the world. Although most people would believe that GMOs can be dangerous because of potential long-term health concerns from genetic engineering practices, there's a wide scientific consensus against this claim [2] [3] [4]. Regardless of their positive impact and safety, they do have drastic negative consequences. The negative impact comes from the inequalities and environmental damage created by the influence of GM companies. For example, studies show that GMOs can harm biodiversity and conventional organic crops, but governments are unlikely to take major actions because they prioritize food production and exports [5]. In the United States, GMO products don't require labeling due to GM companies' massive lobbying influence (so massive that Monsanto lobbyists were directly appointed to run the Food and Drug Administration) [6]. A greater concern than GMOs should the GM companies' authority on scientific and public discourse. Packed with executives, scientists, lobbyists, and high market demand; biochemical companies can shift public perception to get their way across resulting in unsurmountable damage. For example, the green revolution and crop modification in developing countries are considered a huge success since more agricultural output led to faster development. Biochemical companies and scientists are portraited as saviors for introducing crop modification to the Punjab region of India saving people from starvation and setting in motion a population boom. However, historians and academics rarely talk about the corruption, ecological damage, political violence, and religious tension caused by the Indian government aggressively pushing for these agricultural advances [7]. So with that said, there is no reason for GMOs to be illegal, but they should certainly be more restrained or at very least regulated to reduce damage to the ecosystem and communities. Works Cited [1] History and Overview of the Green Revolution https://www.thoughtco.com/green-revolution-overview-1434948 [2] American Medical Association (AMA) https://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/htm/articles/Position/ama.htm [3] Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf [4] A decade of EU-funded GMO research http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf [5] Genetically modified food controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Biodiversity [6] Obama Gives Former Food Lobbyist Michael Taylor a Second Chance at the FDA https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-gives-former-food-lobbyist-michael-taylor-a-second-chance-at-the-fda/ [7] The Violence of the Green Revolution https://www.zedbooks.net/shop/book/the-violence-of-the-green-revolution/

**TL;DR: Many vital medical advances rely on GMOs, for example the production of insulin used to treat diabetes.** I disagree because many advances in medicine that are used commonly today depend on genetically modified organisms. One key medical advance, that thousands of people with diabetes rely on every day, is the large-scale production of human insulin. This is achieved using bacterial organisms that has been genetically modified. I think the way this works is really amazing. First, a human gene that holds the blue print to make insulin is taken from a human cell. Insulin is the human hormone that is needed to help control our blood sugar levels and is used to help control Type 1 and 2 Diabetes. This gene, which tells a cell to make insulin, is then inserted into a bacteria’s DNA. This bacterial cell is now a genetically modified organism and can make human insulin when it is then placed in a big fermentation tank. In this tank, the conditions allow the safe bacteria to multiply really fast. The large-scale production of these genetically modified organisms mean scientists can now make loads of human insulin safely, and we do not need to rely on extracting insulin from animals like pigs which is more likely to be rejected by the human body than GMO-made human insulin. Around 7% of the UK are currently living with diabetes, with the NHS spending around 10% of its annual budget on diabetes management, and 80% on treating complications associated with diabetes. I think to ban GMOs would be a big problem, risking backtracking in many necessary medical advances. References: https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12934-014-0141-0 https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/fromdnatobeer/exhibition-interactive/recombinant-DNA/recombinant-dna-technology-alternative.html#:~:text=put%20the%20%E2%80%9Crecombinant%E2%80%9D%20bacteria%20in,as%20a%20medicine%20for%20people. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1755738020958752 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dme.14225