NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate] - Version 4

[The Union of the West]

Have you already written the replacement?

No, but I have a very clear idea of what it would be.

Just a repeal?

[Mediciano]

Have you already written the replacement?

No, but I have a very clear idea of what it would be.

Remember that not all GMOs are bad, some are actually quite useful for places with highly specialized environmentsor certain environmental restrictions.

[Regnum Dominae]

No, but I have a very clear idea of what it would be.

Remember that not all GMOs are bad, some are actually quite useful for places with highly specialized environmentsor certain environmental restrictions.

I know. I support GMOs and think the hysteria against them is ridiculous.

[The Union of the West]

Remember that not all GMOs are bad, some are actually quite useful for places with highly specialized environmentsor certain environmental restrictions.

I know. I support GMOs and think the hysteria against them is ridiculous.

I just think consumers should be able to know what they're consuming.

[Regnum Dominae]

I know. I support GMOs and think the hysteria against them is ridiculous.

I just think consumers should be able to know what they're consuming.

And the current bill doesn't have the consumer being told WHY their food is being genetically modified. Instead it just says "WARNING this food is genetically modified" or something like that which serves to present genetic modification as a bad thing when in fact it is a very good and often quite necessary thing. My bill would have it so that consumers were told WHY their food was genetically modified.

"This food was genetically modified in order to increase the nutrient content of <NUTRIENT>."
"This food was genetically modified in order to reduce the need for pesticides in the growing of this food."
"This food was genetically modified in order to increase crop yield."

That sort of thing. The science overwhelmingly agrees with the conclusion that GMOs are no less safe or less healthy than non-GMO food.

[Mediciano]

I just think consumers should be able to know what they're consuming.

If aspartame, monosodium glutamate, sodium nitrite, butylated hydroxytoluene and yellow #5 don't need special labels, then neither do GMOs. Let's focus on chemical additives that are actually detrimental to your health, instead of the ones that only (in some cases) marginally decrease nutritional value (which is represented in the "Nutrition Facts" anyway.)

[Aragon-Francho]

I still don't understand why people were opposed by NIGMOLA, why can't people know about what is in their food?

Because it is meant to spark fear about "teh ebul frankenstein food" instead of actually educating the consumer, which my replacement would do.

And becayse whether food is gmo is about as relevant to its safety as whether it was handled by black people.

It never criminalizes or makes GMOs and GMF out as "teh ebul frankenstein food", it only says to put nutrition labels on food products and at restaurants.

[Ainin]

And becayse whether food is gmo is about as relevant to its safety as whether it was handled by black people.

[Aragon-Francho]

I just think consumers should be able to know what they're consuming.

If aspartame, monosodium glutamate, sodium nitrite, butylated hydroxytoluene and yellow #5 don't need special labels, then neither do GMOs. Let's focus on chemical additives that are actually detrimental to your health, instead of the ones that only (in some cases) marginally decrease nutritional value (which is represented in the "Nutrition Facts" anyway.)

I agree with you, however, I think their should definitely have all the ingredients and labeling as needed.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

Submitting this

Chemical Safety Act
Author: Soviet Canuckistan (NDP) | Co-sponsors: Regnum Dominae (ALM), Unicario (RG), Skeckoa (LPA), Beta Test (ALM), New Freedomland (PWP), The Nihilistic View (ALM), Geilinor (NDP), Glasgia (MSP) | Category: Health | Urgency: Medium

I. Introduction

APPALLED that Aurentina currently has no measures to inform and protect its citizens from dangerous chemicals in the workplace and in their residences.

RECOGNIZING the need for Aurentines to have access to information on dangerous chemicals used by companies in case of industrial spills, household accidents, or during use in the workplace.

RECOGNIZING the danger posed by many of these products such as life-threatening and crippling injuries such as cancer and the possibility of death from the use of these products.

Hereby,

CREATES the Aurentine Council on Chemical Safety, to be referred to as the ACCS. This council shall be charged with enforcing the laws and regulations in this act so as to protect Aurentines from exposure to harmful chemicals.

REQUIRES Aurentina to comply with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) so as to comply with international standards for chemical classification and labeling.

II. Workplace Safety

MANDATES that all Aurentine companies and companies with workplaces in Aurentina will give their employees access to copies of a Safety Data Sheet (SDS) that complies with the GHS for all chemicals that an employee will work with that pose a danger to the health or safety of the employee. This SDS will be in Aurentine and English inside Aurentina and English and the official language(s) of any foreign country, where the Aurentine company has workplaces. However, if these rules conflict with those of another country, the regulations of that country will take precedence.

REQUIRES that all containers for dangerous chemicals will carry the appropriate hazard symbols as outlined in the GHS and that those symbols will be clearly visible on the container and legible.

MANDATES that all employees dealing with dangerous chemicals be trained in the use, disposal and emergency procedures for the chemicals they are working with and for how to read an SDS and recognize all GHS hazard symbols in courses created by the ACCS and taught by certified ACCS instructors.

REQUIRES all companies to release complete SDS forms for all dangerous chemicals used in their manufacturing processes to the public within one month of the passing this act.

MANDATES that all workplaces must have or have quick access to all the appropriate equipment to deal with spills and first aid needed for injuries (ex. eye wash stations) and that employees must be provided protection from exposure to dangerous chemicals

III. Household Safety

REQUIRES that all household products not designed for human consumption (ex. cleaning products and other household chemicals) will carry all GHS symbols necessary. These symbols must be easily visible for consumers.

MANDATES that all household products not designed for human consumption will carry appropriate and complete instructions on safety precautions such as safety equipment to be used, how to dispose of the chemical in an environmentally-responsible manner, and to detail what injuries may result from use of the product.

REQUIRES all companies to release complete SDS forms for all products distributed by them for public use.

IV. Student Safety

MANDATES that students in all Aurentine educational institutions be allowed to view all SDSs for all chemicals they use or are exposed to in experiments and in classroom demonstrations.

V. Services of the ACCS

The ACCS shall,

CREATE a telephone service, accessible 24 hours a day and everyday of the year for anyone involved in a chemical spill or accident to contact for emergency procedures and instruction to clean up spills and to treat injuries relating to exposure.

CREATE an online database for citizens to access safety data sheets on all products and chemicals distributed by Aurentine companies or used in Aurentine manufacturing.

CREATE courses on GHS procedures and regulations for manufacturers, distributors, employees and consumers.

CREATE a way for the Aurentine public to report violations of this act for the ACCS to investigate and remedy these problems.

PROSECUTE all violators of this act according to Aurentine law.

VI. Definitions

Hereby defines,

“Dangerous chemicals”- as any chemical that can injure, cause death or have negative effects on humans during dosages and exposures commonly encountered in the workplace and that have acute or chronic effects.

“Workplace”- as any area or situation where people are working or volunteering

“Aurentine Company”- as any company headquartered in Aurentina, whether or not it has workplaces in Aurentina or not

“Household”- as any place of residence

“Educational Institution”- any school, university or other institution where educational services are offered

[The Union of the West]

I just think consumers should be able to know what they're consuming.

And the current bill doesn't have the consumer being told WHY their food is being genetically modified. Instead it just says "WARNING this food is genetically modified" or something like that which serves to present genetic modification as a bad thing when in fact it is a very good and often quite necessary thing. My bill would have it so that consumers were told WHY their food was genetically modified.

"This food was genetically modified in order to increase the nutrient content of <NUTRIENT>."
"This food was genetically modified in order to reduce the need for pesticides in the growing of this food."
"This food was genetically modified in order to increase crop yield."

That sort of thing. The science overwhelmingly agrees with the conclusion that GMOs are no less safe or less healthy than non-GMO food.

The bill was originally going to do that, but do you realize how big that label could get?

[The Nihilistic view]

And becayse whether food is gmo is about as relevant to its safety as whether it was handled by black people.

classic.

[Regnum Dominae]

And the current bill doesn't have the consumer being told WHY their food is being genetically modified. Instead it just says "WARNING this food is genetically modified" or something like that which serves to present genetic modification as a bad thing when in fact it is a very good and often quite necessary thing. My bill would have it so that consumers were told WHY their food was genetically modified.

"This food was genetically modified in order to increase the nutrient content of <NUTRIENT>."
"This food was genetically modified in order to reduce the need for pesticides in the growing of this food."
"This food was genetically modified in order to increase crop yield."

That sort of thing. The science overwhelmingly agrees with the conclusion that GMOs are no less safe or less healthy than non-GMO food.

The bill was originally going to do that, but do you realize how big that label could get?

It could easily fit within a half a square inch (3 square cm for the non murricans) if not less.

[Aragon-Francho]

And becayse whether food is gmo is about as relevant to its safety as whether it was handled by black people.

[Geilinor]

Because it is meant to spark fear about "teh ebul frankenstein food" instead of actually educating the consumer, which my replacement would do.

And becayse whether food is gmo is about as relevant to its safety as whether it was handled by black people.

It never criminalizes or makes GMOs and GMF out as "teh ebul frankenstein food", it only says to put nutrition labels on food products and at restaurants.

NIGMOLA did not state how they would be labeled. If it will be labeled, it shouldn't be a warning label but one that educates.

[Aragon-Francho]

It never criminalizes or makes GMOs and GMF out as "teh ebul frankenstein food", it only says to put nutrition labels on food products and at restaurants.

NIGMOLA did not state how they would be labeled. If it will be labeled, it shouldn't be a warning label but one that educates.

Yeah, I agree.

[The Liberated Territories]

Remember that not all GMOs are bad, some are actually quite useful for places with highly specialized environmentsor certain environmental restrictions.

I know. I support GMOs and think the hysteria against them is ridiculous.

Not as bad as the anti-fracking crew

[Regnum Dominae]

I know. I support GMOs and think the hysteria against them is ridiculous.

Not as bad as the anti-fracking crew

The antivaxxers and the anti nuclear people are the absolute worst imo.

[Ainin]

I know. I support GMOs and think the hysteria against them is ridiculous.

Not as bad as the anti-fracking crew

No, because opposition to induced hydraulic fracturing has a scientific base, unlike opposition to genetically-modified foods.

[The Liberated Territories]

Not as bad as the anti-fracking crew

No, because opposition to induced hydraulic fracturing has a scientific base, unlike opposition to genetically-modified foods.

The benefits far outweigh the harm.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/16/m ... new-study/

[Regnum Dominae]

No, because opposition to induced hydraulic fracturing has a scientific base, unlike opposition to genetically-modified foods.

The benefits far outweigh the harm.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/16/m ... new-study/

I agree to a point, but it is still legitimately debatable unlike gmos.

[Ainin]

No, because opposition to induced hydraulic fracturing has a scientific base, unlike opposition to genetically-modified foods.

The benefits far outweigh the harm.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/16/m ... new-study/

I don't see how your link supports your claim.

[The Liberated Territories]

The benefits far outweigh the harm.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/16/m ... new-study/

I don't see how your link supports your claim.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/fracki ... t-p,28131/

[Ainin]

I don't see how your link supports your claim.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/fracki ... t-p,28131/

...OK?

I still don't see how the survey you linked supports your claim that "the benefits far outweigh the harm".

[Regnum Dominae]

I don't see how your link supports your claim.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/fracki ... t-p,28131/

>the onion