Genetically Modify Food

Next Debate Previous Debate
GMOCrops Thumbnail Illustration by Thomas James

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Genetically modified (GM) foods have been around for decades. Created by modifying the DNA of one organism through the introduction of genes from another, they are developed for a number of different reasons—to fight disease, enhance flavor, resist pests, improve nutrition, survive drought—and are mainly found in our food supply in processed foods using corn, soybeans, and sugar beets, and as feed for farm animals. Across the country and around the world, communities are fighting the cultivation of genetically engineered crops. Are they safe? How do they impact the environment? Can they improve food security? Is the world better off with or without GM food?

  • Fraley90pxs


    Robert Fraley

    Executive VP & Chief Technology Officer, Monsanto

  • VanEenennaam90px


    Alison Van Eenennaam

    Genomics and Biotechnology Researcher, UC Davis

  • Benbrook90


    Charles Benbrook

    Research Professor, Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources

  • Mellon90pxs


    Margaret Mellon

    Science Policy Consultant & Fmr. Senior Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists

    • Moderator Image


      John Donvan

      Author & Correspondent for ABC News

See Results See Full Debate Video Purchase DVD

Read Transcript

Listen to the edited radio broadcast

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Listen to the unedited radio broadcast

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Subscribe to the Podcast

For The Motion

Robert Fraley

Executive VP & Chief Technology Officer, Monsanto

Dr. Robert Fraley is executive vice president and chief technology officer at Monsanto. He has been with Monsanto for over 30 years, and currently oversees the company’s global technology division which includes plant breeding, biotechnology, and crop protection research facilities in dozens of countries. Fraley has authored more than 100 publications and patent applications. In 2013, he was honored as a World Food Prize Laureate. He is the recipient of numerous awards, including the 2008 National Academy of Sciences Award for the Industrial Application of Science for his work on crop improvement and the National Medal of Technology from President Clinton in 1999.

Learn more


For The Motion

Alison Van Eenennaam

Genomics and Biotechnology Researcher, UC Davis

Alison Van Eenennaam is a genomics and biotechnology researcher and cooperative extension specialist in the Department of Animal Science at University of California, Davis. She received a Bachelor of Agricultural Science from the University of Melbourne, and an MS in Animal Science and a PhD in Genetics from UC Davis. The mission of her extension program is “to provide research and education on the use of animal genomics and biotechnology in livestock production systems.” Her outreach program focuses on the development of science-based educational materials, including the controversial biotechnologies of genetic engineering (GE) and cloning. She has served on several national committees including the USDA National Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture, and as a temporary voting member of the 2010 FDA Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee meeting on the AquAdvantage salmon. Van Eenennaam was the recipient of the 2014 Borlaug CAST Communication Award.

Learn more


Against The Motion

Charles Benbrook

Research Professor, Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources

Charles Benbrook is a research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, Washington State University, and program leader of Measure to Manage: Farm and Food Diagnostics for Sustainability and Health. His career has focused on developing science-based systems for evaluating the public health, environmental, and economic impacts of changes in agricultural systems, technology, and policy. He spent the first 18 years of his career working in Washington, D.C., first for the Executive Office of the President, then as the staff director for a U.S. House of Representatives agricultural subcommittee. He was the ED of the National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture, and has run a small consulting firm since 1991. He moved to the west in 1997, and served as the chief scientist for The Organic Center from 2004-2012. Benbrook has served as an appointed member on the USDA’s AC 21 agricultural biotechnology advisory committee since 2011. His 2012 peer-reviewed study documenting the big increase in herbicide use triggered by the planting of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. has been downloaded over 110,000 times.

Learn more


Against The Motion

Margaret Mellon

Science Policy Consultant & Fmr. Senior Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists

Margaret Mellon is a science policy consultant in the areas of antibiotics, genetic engineering and sustainable agriculture. She holds a doctorate in molecular biology and a law degree from the University of Virginia. In 1993, Mellon founded the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists to promote the adoption of science-based farming systems that are simultaneously productive, environmentally benign, and resilient in the face of stress. The program critically evaluated products of genetic engineering for their contribution to sustainable agriculture and urged the reduction of unnecessary antibiotic use in animal agriculture. After almost 20 years, Mellon stepped down as head of the program in 2012 and, after two additional years as a senior scientist, left UCS in 2014. Mellon has published widely on the potential environmental impacts of biotechnology applications, and served three terms on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture.

Learn more

Declared Winner: For The Motion

Online Voting

Voting Breakdown:

52% voted the same way in BOTH pre- and post-debate votes (29% voted FOR twice, 18% voted AGAINST twice, 5% voted UNDECIDED twice). 48% changed their minds (2% voted FOR then changed to AGAINST, 1% voted FOR then changed to UNDECIDED, 9% voted AGAINST then changed to FOR, 3% voted AGAINST then changed to UNDECIDED, 22% voted UNDECIDED then changed to FOR, 10% voted UNDECIDED then changed to AGAINST) | Breakdown Graphic

About This Event

Event Photos

PrevNext Arrows
    PrevNext Arrows


    • Comment Link Joseph Muita Saturday, 18 June 2016 07:38 posted by Joseph Muita

      Thank you for this interesting read. I agree that the disconnect between evidence and public opinion is very real. The GMO debate can be taken under so many angles that I have yet to see an article that speaks to all aspects of the GMO problem.

      To me, there are two issues with GMO: the irreversible character of environmental pollution that GMO generate and the control that biotechnology firms have over farmers around the world through the patenting of seeds. These two issues have been expressed from the start of the GMO debate, but I rarely see them expressed in public debates. Maybe because it is hard to relate for the general public, the non-GMO movement is using health and safety as a way to reach the public.

      As an agricultural engineer, I have followed the debate for many years. %featured%My main concern is that GMO research is very costly and takes the biggest share of agricultural research funding, while it is unlikely to deliver soon on the key promises put forward, such as crop that yield more grain while using less water
      It’s important that governments and independent institutions continue to fund studies on the environmental and gene flow effects of GMOs.

    • Comment Link Atsuko Aguirre Wednesday, 16 March 2016 11:49 posted by Atsuko Aguirre

      This seems to be a problem to some people. I know most of you eat corn,soda, soy,and sugar once and a while. I think this should not be protest against. Genetically Modified Organisms are a part of daily life and help our crops grow. They get rid if viruses killing our crops.

    • Comment Link bob Tuesday, 23 February 2016 23:48 posted by bob

      GMO IS BAD

    • Comment Link The flash Wednesday, 17 February 2016 20:57 posted by The flash

      People have been changing genes of all the creatures all the time. The crops we eat today is not what they looks in the ancient time. The pet dogs are the wolves captured by humans long time ago. Genetically modifying is a new tech that still needs developing. No tech is perfect once it is invented, neither is genetically modifying. GM food is a way to solve the problem, but people need to take baby steps. I think if people use organic way to plant GM crops, it would be much better. Also about the concern of creating the super insects that can eat GM crops, farmer can plant some normal crops among the GM crops in order to make sure that insects won't be naturally selected.

    • Comment Link MK Wednesday, 17 February 2016 20:45 posted by MK

      I guess even if we care about GM food and we think it's a problem. We still can't do anything because the market has already lots of GM food. Also, some people are complining about that many companies don't mark their food just because they want to sell it. Another thing is GM food could be great idea for those people how don't have enough money to buy food because it is a little bit expensive so, they can buy cheap food.

    • Comment Link DianneP Monday, 07 September 2015 13:17 posted by DianneP

      The proof in in the pudding so to speak. On a personal note, I have not eaten gmo corn, soy or canola in 4 years, including derivative products listed on ingredients.. My weight has been stable and my energy is great for my age.

      After much reading, the use of roundup topically is of real concern regarding GMO signature crops that have gone on to create super weeds requiring even more herbicide. Monsanto has basically promoted spraying roundup to control the super weeds
      I read this in so many sites, but this quote is succinct.

      “The truth is, Roundup targets enzymes found in both plants AND people — specifically in our gut bacteria — which are vulnerable to potent pesticides like Roundup. Monsanto’s claim — that Roundup targets enzymes ‘not found in people’ — is objectively false and inherently misleading.”

    • Comment Link Jonathan Thursday, 04 June 2015 03:40 posted by Jonathan

      The debate was about the breeding method Genetic Engineering and it's use on crops that we eat.

      Pro said
      We have more cheap food with increased yield and lower environmental impact

      Con said
      but you use Round up on GE crops

      What I would have liked to hear based on what I've heard here
      First. is an unbiased study of effect on human health of eating non-gmo conventional vs gmo conventional vs organic conventional vs no pesticides vs sustainable farming. My guess is no noticeable effect as the over 2000 other studies suggest.

      The second thing I'd like to know is if GE pesticide resistant crops helping speed up the evolution of pesticide resistant weeds. The anthology being we have antibiotic resistant diseases but we haven't made genetically engineered hosts. This could mean that the round up causes round up resistant crops instead of suggestions that GE RR crops help make RR weeds.

    • Comment Link Don Tuesday, 17 March 2015 01:25 posted by Don

      All these lame excuses for the anti-side not doing well. Everybody who doesn't oppose GM food is a liar, being paid by monsanto, the debaters were unprepared and so on.

      BTW - " Malthusian Paul R. Ehrlich, in his 1968 book The Population Bomb, said that "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980" and "Hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs."[34] Ehrlich's warnings failed to materialize when India became self-sustaining in cereal production in 1974 (six years later) as a result of the introduction of Norman Borlaug's dwarf wheat varieties."

    • Comment Link Cameron Stewart Wednesday, 11 February 2015 20:53 posted by Cameron Stewart

      Robert Fraley essentially made the best point of the debate - in my opinion - that it is more important to trust innovation and scientific discovery than regulate it and pick apart its efficacy to the point of dilution. I understand scientists are not impervious to ethical faults but to limit our brightest minds only puts on impotence on solving our world's problems

    • Comment Link Don hute Thursday, 22 January 2015 14:10 posted by Don hute

      This is good but hard to sit through

    • Comment Link Brandon Paddock Tuesday, 06 January 2015 18:07 posted by Brandon Paddock

      Ann - That's actually a myth. While Monsanto does enforce their patents against farmers who buy their seeds and then violate the license agreement by planting the seeds grown from them, they have never sued anyone for accidentally growing patented crops.

      In fact, Monsanto were the ones sued by a group of organic farmers and seed businesses who claimed they were "pre-empting" possible cases where accidental contamination of a field could result in Monsanto asserting their patents against innocent farmers. Because Monsanto has never done that, and has promised they never will, the judge threw it out.

      This issue would be a lot easier to debate if myths like that weren't spread around.

      Jacyntha Crawley -

      You should also then insist that we label all food containing crops harvested by red tractors, so that customers can choose whether they want to eat products containing red-tractor-farmed plants. There is just as much scientific reason to do this as there is to label foods containing "GMO" ingredients.

    • Comment Link Ann Elk Tuesday, 06 January 2015 01:11 posted by Ann Elk

      I was thinking along the same line as the commenter who said it seemed "suspicious that the topic of food sovereignty and patent law was completely absent from the debate." Even if we knew for certain that GMO foods were harmless biologically, they're a legal and political minefield if one considers Monsanto's history of aggressive assertion of its patent rights when their GMO crop pollen contaminates the adjacent fields of farmers not using their product. Whether pesticide-resistant or engineered productivity and nutrient traits, the manufacturers of these plants ultimately want to wrest control over seed ownership and access. This is the uncontrovertible danger of GMOs to all farmers and nations.

    • Comment Link Jacyntha Crawley Sunday, 04 January 2015 18:41 posted by Jacyntha Crawley

      At Ki Publishing Co-operative we really believe that all GM Food should be labelled as such when it is used as an ingredient. Then it is up to the individual consumer to choose how to spend their money

    • Comment Link Kevin Kreneck Sunday, 28 December 2014 19:17 posted by Kevin Kreneck

      I agree.
      With so many confirmed problems surrounding GMO's, the CON team sounded woefully unprepared and vague.
      All GMO's do is lead to an even more highly centralized Agricultural industry. Farmers have to go back to the same company over and over for updated seeds since they can't propagate new ones from the old stock.
      But let's take a look at the waking nightmare in Eastern Europe.
      Farmers there planted GMO seeds and are finding that they don't work at all. Plants are subject to every disease imaginable and harvests have been a complete disaster.
      Very much like this "debate".

    • Comment Link Travis Cronkhite Wednesday, 24 December 2014 06:59 posted by Travis Cronkhite

      I found it very suspicious that the topic of food sovereignty and patent law was completely absent from the debate.

    • Comment Link Scottish Bob Saturday, 20 December 2014 05:24 posted by Scottish Bob

      Terrible proposition, what were they meant to be arguing for and against? No more a debate topic than 'bread!'. Not sure we can blame the debaters here?

    • Comment Link Bill Crabtree Friday, 19 December 2014 04:20 posted by Bill Crabtree

      A very good debate, the results speak for themselves. The anti-GM group lost their way trying to find a path to win. The science of conventional breeding is poorly understood by the general public and this debate with a smart audience were easily able to sift the wheat from the chaff. Congrats, science is the winner.

    • Comment Link Josh Cox Wednesday, 17 December 2014 00:34 posted by Josh Cox

      I was very disappointed with this debate. The panellists were weak, particularly the CON side. They lacked the ability to stay on point, and present a compelling argument, not for a lack of available argument. The PRO side, while clearly better at presentation, was also weak when it came to addressing some of the major issues and questions that were raised.

      I almost always like John Donvan, but I felt like he didn't present a good debate and unnecessarily overruled some key questions from the audience that were not discussed in the debate and as a result I feel like he made some critical errors. One such example of this was the question of the impacts of GMO on human health over the long term. Regardless of one's formed opinion of this point, he inaccurately stated that this had been addressed already. A discussion of animal health does not necessarily correlate to human health when consuming those animals. There are plenty of examples of this like bioaccumulation (plankton consumes toxin, works its way up the food chain, then killer whales start washing up on the shore dead from poisoning, meanwhile all the plankton are fine at the bottom of the chain). I would have liked the panellists to address this and at least attempt to prove it in the debate.

    • Comment Link Eric Monday, 15 December 2014 22:13 posted by Eric

      This was the worst debate so far. Did the Con side make one valid point? I kept waiting.. So much hype over GMOs and not a single valid point was made that called them into question...

    • Comment Link anthony Sunday, 14 December 2014 22:57 posted by anthony

      So many good points by posters, it's unfortunate the arguments against didn't include some of these points.
      Even the arguments for didn't address in explicit detail the challenges ahead if something is not done or perhaps should not be done.

      Normally I'm at the edge of my seat during a iq2 debate going "oh oh.. what about..?" Usually to have my exact point or concern stated by one of the participants.
      not the case this time. For once, such an important issue and the motion against felt half hearted.

      One quarter of the US gdp is food.
      so much money, I wouldn't want to go toe to toe with that juggernaut. When people are wondering where their next meal will come from, it's a hard sell to ask them to consider the implications of their choice of plentiful inexpensive food.

      Perhaps some people feel they can hide from the implications by shopping at whole foods if they have the money. I know I thought I could.

    Leave a comment

    Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated. HTML code is not allowed.