The recent debate over GMO’s that was hosted by Intelligence Squared was interesting to say the least. Four individuals from opposing sides addressed the issue of whether or not we should grow genetically modified foods, with the participating audience voting for or against the motion both before and after the debate. Robert Fraley from Monsanto and Alison Van Eenennaam from UC Davis argued the positive; Charles Benbrook, research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources WSU, and Margaret Mellon, a consultant for the Center for Food Safety argued the negative. The for side argued that GM crops have been in our food system for twenty years with no known health risks to humans, and that food security will be improved through GM crops that increase yields and can fight off pests and disease. The against side argued that GMO’s have not lived up to their early promises, GMO safety is not adequately assessed with our current regulatory system, and that GMO crops pose environmental threats. Before the debate the audience was 30% for, 30% against and 38% undecided. At its conclusion the vote was 60% for, 31% against and 9% undecided.