Page 1 of 7
[PASSED] On Genetically Modified Foods
Posted:
Sat May 07, 2011 3:40 pmby Mahaj WA Seat
It'll be at vote in 32 minutes.
At vote discussion starts
hereFree trade, mildThe World Assembly,
RECOGNIZING the existence and development of genetically modified foods,
AWARE that nations have different opinions on Genetically Modified Foods,
DEFINES Genetically Modified Foods as food or food products that have the genome of the organism directly manipulated through the process of genetic engineering via the introduction of foreign DNA or synthetic genes into the organism of interest.
DECLARES that all genetically modified foods crossing international borders be clearly labeled as being genetically modified,
CONVINCED that through proper labelling of genetically modified foods, less confusion will occur about the GM status of different foods, enabling trade to be quicker and more efficient,
DECLARES that this resolution applies to foods both genetically modified and foods genetically engineered,
CREATES the GM Foods Database as a gathering of genetically modified foods related information,
ENCOURAGES nations to contribute to this database,
STRONGLY URGES nations to abstain from imposing additional restrictions than in this Act on the import or export of genetically modified foods over natural food.
Thoughts?
Posted:
Sat May 07, 2011 4:02 pmby Lordieth
The resolution needs to define what Genetically Modified food is.
It may also need to protect against accidental cross breeding with non-GM crops by enforcing segregated planting areas.
What information will the database hold?
Posted:
Sat May 07, 2011 4:40 pmby Mahaj WA Seat
Lordieth wrote:The resolution needs to define what Genetically Modified food is.
It may also need to protect against accidental cross breeding with non-GM crops by enforcing segregated planting areas.
What information will the database hold?
1) done
2) I don't see the point of that, to be honest.
3) Advice, lists of organisms that produce wonderful results when modified, contact information of experts, ect.
Posted:
Sat May 07, 2011 4:55 pmby Glen-Rhodes
I think the title shouldn't be so generic. This isn't a manifesto on GM foods. It's a simple labeling requirement, so the title should be reflective of that. Also, the acronym is counter-intuitive. 'WHAGMFD' is too much to remember and too difficult to say; we're probably just going to call it the GM Food Database. But the database itself just seems kind of pointless. It could belong to a more science-focused resolution on GM foods, rather than here.
I would say that Glen-Rhodes would tentatively support this. However, if it somehow develops into a blocker on future GM legislation, which I fear is more probable than not, we would most certainly oppose this vigorously.
- Dr. B. Castro
Posted:
Sat May 07, 2011 4:56 pmby Flibbleites
Category & Strength?
Bob Flibble
WA Representative
Posted:
Sat May 07, 2011 5:00 pmby Mahaj WA Seat
Glen-Rhodes wrote:I think the title shouldn't be so generic. This isn't a manifesto on GM foods. It's a simple labeling requirement, so the title should be reflective of that. Also, the acronym is counter-intuitive. 'WHAGMFD' is too much to remember and too difficult to say; we're probably just going to call it the GM Food Database. But the database itself just seems kind of pointless. It could belong to a more science-focused resolution on GM foods, rather than here.
I would say that Glen-Rhodes would tentatively support this. However, if it somehow develops into a blocker on future GM legislation, which I fear is more probable than not, we would most certainly oppose this vigorously.
- Dr. B. Castro
I like the title. I've changed the acronym, and i'm keeping the database.
Thanks for your tentative support, i don't want this too blocker-ish.
Posted:
Sat May 07, 2011 5:01 pmby Mahaj WA Seat
Flibbleites wrote:Category & Strength?
Bob Flibble
WA Representative
The strength is mild, easily, as for the category, i'm torn between human rights and social justice, but it seems like human rights to me (the right to know whether your food is GM or not)
Posted:
Sat May 07, 2011 5:03 pmby Flibbleites
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:Flibbleites wrote:Category & Strength?
Bob Flibble
WA Representative
The strength is mild, easily, as for the category, i'm torn between human rights and social justice, but it seems like human rights to me (the right to know whether your food is GM or not)
In other words, you're going to try a shoehorn.
Bob Flibble
WA Representative
Posted:
Sat May 07, 2011 5:04 pmby Mahaj WA Seat
Flibbleites wrote:Mahaj WA Seat wrote:The strength is mild, easily, as for the category, i'm torn between human rights and social justice, but it seems like human rights to me (the right to know whether your food is GM or not)
In other words, you're going to try a shoehorn.
Bob Flibble
WA Representative
If thats how you want to put it.
Human Rights is a fine category for this.
Posted:
Sat May 07, 2011 5:05 pmby Flibbleites
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:Flibbleites wrote:In other words, you're going to try a shoehorn.
Bob Flibble
WA Representative
If thats how you want to put it.
Human Rights is a fine category for this.
Since you wrote it without having a category in mind, yeah, you're shoehorning it.
Bob Flibble
WA Representative
Posted:
Sat May 07, 2011 5:08 pmby Mahaj WA Seat
Flibbleites wrote:Mahaj WA Seat wrote:If thats how you want to put it.
Human Rights is a fine category for this.
Since you wrote it without having a category in mind, yeah, you're shoehorning it.
Bob Flibble
WA Representative
I never denied that.
But I have a category, I have a strength, I have a resolution, do you have any other comments about it? I'd love to hear them.
Posted:
Sat May 07, 2011 5:24 pmby Glen-Rhodes
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:Human Rights is a fine category for this.
I don't think it is. Who can really argue that people have a human right to know when food is GM? Maybe you can call that a civil right or something. But calling it a human right diminishes actual human rights. Nor is this proposal Social Justice, as it doesn't do anything to reduce income inequality.
I would say to try and find an argument about how it boosts Free Trade. Europe tried to argue that when it attempted to require mandatory labeling, although I'm not sure of what the specifics were. Obviously, it'd be much easier to place this into a Fair Trade category, but admins haven't caught up to the modern WA yet.
Posted:
Sun May 08, 2011 6:10 amby Bears Armed
Maybeso this might be better as part of a wider 'Truthful Labelling' proposal, instead?
Posted:
Sun May 08, 2011 7:19 amby Mahaj WA Seat
Bears Armed wrote:Maybeso this might be better as part of a wider 'Truthful Labelling' proposal, instead?
no, I don't think thats the way I want to go. I want to focus on GM foods, while not doing too much.
And i'm going to try and see what I can do to get this into Free Trade.
Posted:
Sun May 08, 2011 8:30 amby Mahaj WA Seat
BARS nations from imposing additional restrictions on the import or export of genetically modified foods then they would normal food.
I think that clause can put it in free trade.
Posted:
Sun May 08, 2011 10:28 amby Charlotte Ryberg
CREATES the GM Foods as a gathering of genetically modified foods related information,
ENCOURAGES nations to contribute to this database,
I do not think a committee is required at all. It is just as effective as to just demand that all GM foods are labelled clearly as such. Therefore Ms. Harper suggests doing away with those clauses.
BARS nations from imposing additional restrictions on the import or export of genetically modified foods then they would normal food.
But now, what about countries that refuse to allow GM food? However, I can only agree that member countries should not place an arbitrary tax which puts GM food at an unfair advantage or disadvantage over Normal Food.
Posted:
Sun May 08, 2011 10:33 amby Mahaj WA Seat
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:CREATES the GM Foods as a gathering of genetically modified foods related information,
ENCOURAGES nations to contribute to this database,
I do not think a committee is required at all. It is just as effective as to just demand that all GM foods are labelled clearly as such. Therefore Ms. Harper suggests doing away with those clauses.
Its not really a committee. its a database full of information accessible to nations. It doesn't serve as a committee. It might contain
Advice, lists of organisms that produce wonderful results when modified, contact information of experts, ect.
BARS nations from imposing additional restrictions on the import or export of genetically modified foods then they would normal food.
But now, what about countries that refuse to allow GM food? However, I can only agree that member countries should not place an arbitrary tax which puts GM food at an unfair advantage or disadvantage over Normal Food.
The arbitrary tax would be a restriction, which would be disallowed. Basically the clause requires nations to treat GM food as equal to normal food for imports and exports, which does reduce a barrier to trade, the definition of free trade.
Posted:
Sun May 08, 2011 10:54 amby Charlotte Ryberg
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:Its not really a committee. its a database full of information accessible to nations. It doesn't serve as a committee. It might contain
Advice, lists of organisms that produce wonderful results when modified, contact information of experts, ect.
Okay, but I think you might have left out the word "database" out, after "GM Foods".
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:The arbitrary tax would be a restriction, which would be disallowed. Basically the clause requires nations to treat GM food as equal to normal food for imports and exports, which does reduce a barrier to trade, the definition of free trade.
But this doesn't answer the question about allowing member countries to disallow the import or export of GM foods for various reasons such as health and ethics. Will this resolution allow member countries to ban GM crops for a good reason?
Posted:
Sun May 08, 2011 11:14 amby Mahaj WA Seat
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Mahaj WA Seat wrote:Its not really a committee. its a database full of information accessible to nations. It doesn't serve as a committee. It might contain
Advice, lists of organisms that produce wonderful results when modified, contact information of experts, ect.
Okay, but I think you might have left out the word "database" out, after "GM Foods".
whoops. Fixed.
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:The arbitrary tax would be a restriction, which would be disallowed. Basically the clause requires nations to treat GM food as equal to normal food for imports and exports, which does reduce a barrier to trade, the definition of free trade.
But this doesn't answer the question about allowing member countries to disallow the import or export of GM foods for various reasons such as health and ethics. Will this resolution allow member countries to ban GM crops for a good reason?
The way I was going to approach this was that countries have to allow the import/export of GM crops as they would others, however, they still would retain full freedom to prevent it from going to stores or being sold.
Posted:
Sun May 08, 2011 12:38 pmby Charlotte Ryberg
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:The way I was going to approach this was that countries have to allow the import/export of GM crops as they would others, however, they still would retain full freedom to prevent it from going to stores or being sold.
What's the good about allowing the import of GM crops if it isn't going to be sold anyway?
Posted:
Sun May 08, 2011 1:22 pmby Mahaj WA Seat
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Mahaj WA Seat wrote:The way I was going to approach this was that countries have to allow the import/export of GM crops as they would others, however, they still would retain full freedom to prevent it from going to stores or being sold.
What's the good about allowing the import of GM crops if it isn't going to be sold anyway?
It wouldn't. So it'd encourage consumption and acceptance of GM crops.
Posted:
Sun May 08, 2011 2:03 pmby Charlotte Ryberg
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:Charlotte Ryberg wrote:What's the good about allowing the import of GM crops if it isn't going to be sold anyway?
It wouldn't. So it'd encourage consumption and acceptance of GM crops.
Not all member states are going to accept GM crops, full stop, honoured ambassador. I'm afraid as it is written Ms. S. Harper will have to oppose this fully.
Posted:
Sun May 08, 2011 2:23 pmby Mahaj WA Seat
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Mahaj WA Seat wrote:It wouldn't. So it'd encourage consumption and acceptance of GM crops.
Not all member states are going to accept GM crops, full stop, honoured ambassador. I'm afraid as it is written Ms. S. Harper will have to oppose this fully.
If I made the last clause focus solely on exports, or make it a little less strong (URGES instead of BARS) would you support?
Call for a distinction presequent to a mandate
Posted:
Mon May 09, 2011 6:06 amby Rosetania
We propose a distinction between Genetically 'Modified' and Genetically 'Engineered' foods. This should be clear and unambiguous. There certainly are differences, the main one being that genetic engineering only includes what might be called 'selective breeding' when refering to animals (Citing Ch.4 of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species and further works on the selective breeding of pigeons, orchids and tulips) and Genetic Modification as the direct human manipulation of an organism's genome using modern biotechnological methods such as the introduction of unnatural, man-made chemicals (that may require their own definition) into plant cells and DNA.
Although Rosetania does not reject either of these techniques when used for the furthering of science in the interests of the survival of all species (humans, plants AND animals). We reject, to the upmost degree, the use of these techniques in the interest of material/monetary profit and look forward to a resolution banning the private copyrighting of genetic information/properties.
Posted:
Mon May 09, 2011 8:30 amby The Ainocran Embassy
Due to the demand of feeding our interstellar empire we must be opposed to this. Genetically modified crops are the only way we can possibly hope to feed all the people. Our own scientists rigorously test any new crops for safety and interaction with other species before approving them for general use.