This house agrees that GM is a rational approach to meeting food demand

Is there enough evidence to say that genetically modified food can help more people get the food they need? Even if there is enough evidence, is it rational to push on with GM while many people oppose the idea? Are alternatives to GM less controversial and more effective? Do you have a view? Or do you just want to find out why you should care either way?

This is not a pro-GM or an anti-GM event. Everyone in the debate (yes, you!) has the same status to propose a motion, explain their view or ask for more info. We will vote on the title motion and motions suggested on the night. With the results of these votes, we’ll produce a policy recommendation for our politicians in Westminster.

Welcome to the pilot sitting of the Rational Parliament, an experimental debating society. This tester event is free, but we may need to charge for future sittings on different topics to keep the parliament going.

Our rationalism is this: as individuals we want to listen to every view, distinguish between our own views and those of others and then make our own minds up. This includes hearing from scientists, researchers, campaigners, business people and political commentators. A rational approach to political questions uses free and critical thinking, not dogma or scientism. We use publicly funded research as a starting point for discussion.