[PASSED] Stopping Suicide Seeds

[OUTPOST LIMINAL]

It is the recommendation of our Scientific Advisory Cabinet that all genetically modified organisms be sterilized before release, in order to reduce the risk of ecological catastrophe via invasive transgenic species.

.i la saske gidva bende ku cu stidi lo nu gasnu be lo narfre be fi ro se jgina be lo te galfi be'o be'o be'o tezu'e lo nu fanta be lo nu betri be le jmive ciste be'o ri'a lo nu narvau be lo cnino jutsi

[Araraukar]

The only reason I am able to submit this proposal without violating Resolution 68 is that there is an exception allowing the General Assembly to regulate activities that pose "an extreme hazard to national populations."

And that's where our opinions differ; I don't consider "suicide seeds" to pose "an extreme hazard". I mean, they're not deadly to the population. And your chosen category will make this hit large and small businesses both, so you're not really protecting the smallscale subsistence farmers either.

[Americans]

There are easily foreseeable cases this resolution would certainly be problematic. Not all experiments with altering the genetic code of an organism are for the purposes of the agriculture industry but this resolution fails to address that. It would seem to be an interesting experiment to take a normal plant and experiment with its traits not for expanding the food-base reasons, but just to see the capabilities of science and further understand how genes control traits. Is it possible to make the colour of apple purple? Could we create a version of poison ivy that causes an allergic reaction thousands of times stronger than normal?

Of course such experiments are still possible, but if the government would want to give them any support it would have to violate this resolution or fail to protect the natural environment from a factory-made super plant that could have detrimental effects if allowed to exist in the natural ecosystem.

I have voted against this, and will not obey the mandates within this text should it be passed.

American Ambassador to the WA,
Boris Howard

[Allinlia]

We believe that such seeds engineered to exploit small farmers should certainly be regulated or just banned outright, on that aim we will be giving a tentative vote in favor of this proposal and we only hope that no unforeseen problematic bit of language be discovered later. (as has happened to a couple of resolutions that have proven particularly difficult to repeal, preventing any way for the problems to be fixed.)

[Solorni]

Regulation for sure is necessarily, just as GMOS are necessary to feed the world population. Not sure if this would be my favourite resolution on it but I'm voting as per my policy of voting based on the regional vote.

[Velika Zeta]

The republic of Velika Zeta fully supports this proposal and agrees with all of it's statements. Velika Zeta will take the needs of the small against the needs of the greedy to the heavens and beyond. Furthermore Velika Zeta believes this is a very honourable proposal, and commends Christian Democrats.


Bravo!


Premier Branko Knezevic.

[Araraukar]

There are easily foreseeable cases this resolution would certainly be problematic. Not all experiments with altering the genetic code of an organism are for the purposes of the agriculture industry but this resolution fails to address that.

Instead of V-GURT and T-GURT just call them YO-GURT and tamper away. It's not like anyone'll know if you don't go telling them.

Is it possible to make the colour of apple purple?

We have it from our allies on PPU that the answer is "yes", but that the product is not then viable with past tech nations, since it can't be selectively bred. Incidentally, weird coloured fruits will add 5% to the price of the tree.

Could we create a version of poison ivy that causes an allergic reaction thousands of times stronger than normal?

If you manage to do that, our minister of defence might be interested in buying some. Just to plant in his garden, of course. To keep the neighbour's kids from stealing his peaches. Nothing more sinister than that at all.

[Satori Fore Nirvana]

In Satori Fore Nirvana, humans are a protected species. These "suicide seeds" have a direct, negative impact on the health of humans and MUST BE BANNED for that reason. Although our nation relies heavily on the importation of food to sustain our people, we will not import these genetically modified foods from nations that produce them. Furthermore, our population is growing. The economic benefits to a nation that chooses to export food to Satori Fore Nirvana is significant, and we will pay top dollar for quality, organic foods. Consider that when making your vote.

[Araraukar]

The economic benefits to a nation that chooses to export food to Satori Fore Nirvana is significant, and we will pay top dollar for quality, organic foods. Consider that when making your vote.

OOC: No offence, but a newly-created nation doing the "we won't buy from you if you grow these plants" -thing will most likely just make others to roll their eyes. You could go for the moral stance, of course, but going for the financial one is kinda fail. No nation is forced to trade with another nation at all.

[Christian Democrats]

There are easily foreseeable cases this resolution would certainly be problematic. Not all experiments with altering the genetic code of an organism are for the purposes of the agriculture industry but this resolution fails to address that.

This proposal would not forbid genetic modification; rather, it would limit the use of one particular kind of modification.

[Otaku Stratus]

This has to be one of the worst issues ever put forth.. a sensationalist title, a bunch of whiny language about the big guy stomping all over the little guy.. how in the hell is it winning?

[Potted Plants United]

A large potted plant suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"Although we have been assured that making plants "naturally" incapable of producing seeds is for some reason not against this resolution, we will be voting against, as we do not think that the WA should be interfering with national agricultural practices."

[Miatin]

Great, just what we need... government involvement in corporations. Yeah that has worked just about never! Look my nation didn't get where it was today by letting the government step in and put their nose in everyone's business, and I certainly will not let it begin. As soon as it does, I know for fact my economy will begin to crumble as well as my citizens rights and freedoms. I certainly will not stand for this, because today it is just seeds, but we have seen that throughout history the government knows no middle ground nor where to stop, and I will not let this World Assembly turn in to a 1920- 1945 European fascist society. I say make the right choice and shoot this proposal down!

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Despite the assurances of the Christian Democrats' delegation, we remain a little unconvinced that this proposal will definitely not forbid the development of new seedless crops for the sole purpose of improving consumer experience. Therefore we feel duty bound to make the following public notes on how this proposal can be interpreted should it become law, in the hope that it may be helpful to other countries who are also not at all sure about the rules.

---

Cabinet notes on possible ways to avoid the worst of WA regulations:
Stopping Stopping Suicide Seeds

Definitions:
If, as the preamble indicates, GURT can be considered to include only technologies designed or used with the intent of agricultural monopolization, or the intent of ensuring seed saving becomes obsolete and it is necessary for farmers to buy seeds from the MNCs year after year, then this proposal is not at all irksome. Alternatively if GURT only applies to MNCs, it is very easy to keep a country's business within one country, even if that requires occasional creative re-delineation of borders and the creation of temporary nations (see interpreting Clause 5) that become part of other nations.

Clause 2: Strictly Regulate:
We can regard this by the definition strictly 'maintain the presently-determined speed of'. Even if the presently-determined speed happens to be determined by the free market.

Clause 3: Disclose to the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) all information regarding their activities related to GURT:
Since neither we or the WAFDRA have been told how much information 'all information' includes - all company reports, all information on the chief researchers second cousin's telephone calls to her former lover's pet dog's former owner's aunt-in-law, all information on how far the glass atoms wobbled in the microscope lens? - we can direct them that 'all information regarding anybody's activities related to GURT can probably be best observed with their telescopes and eavesdropping devices in the restaurant at the end of the universe'. Which at least means that the WADFRA can't legally demand pointless bureaucracy.

Clause 4: Bans government funding for any for-profit entity that is engaged in GURT or research of it:
If Clause 2 doesn't permit present normal lawful subsidies overriding the requirements of Clause 4 (which may be a bit of a legal stretch), then it is sadly likely that blanket R&D/University government grants are forbidden by this proposal. A solution might be to work out the notional effective tax required and charge the reduced notional tax, with active (net) funding/subsidization naturally impossible. However, since governments will always tax some things, it is highly unlikely that an entity could be clever enough to receive such subsidies, and also still remain small enough to be notionally owed a subsidy by the government. It would simply become a bigger organization with more notional tax so the final tax bill would tend to zero.
(Note: If R&D tax breaks are considered funding, it might be necessary to set up a competitively and privately operated not-for-loss QUANGO to allow de-facto present R&D investment to continue, and to ensure that it gets/pays precisely as much money from/to the government as it would if it was a collection of normal companies).

Clause 5: Prohibits the transport across a national border, without preapproval from WAFDRA, of any plant or seed that has been modified using GURT:
WAFDRA might set ridiculous requirements to gain preapproval, which is always possible from a... flock? herd? pack? ... committee ... of gnomes who have been given no instructions about when, if ever, they should give their approval. Maybe just to annoy us it will occur on the last day before repeal.
It might be possible to make the border discontinuous by splitting the country in two, with half the country (with GURT technology in) being granted to a GURT company, getting that independent land to merge with the neighbouring country; and then reversing the process again. The half of the country need not be larger than the vehicle containing the technology. Then nothing would ever legally cross a border, and nor would the border cross them: borders would simply be drawn in and then erased around the technology selectively.
(Note: This would require one to be on good terms with the neighbouring country).

We should note none of the above measures would stop us from carrying out normal domestic anti-trust investigations against monopolistic price-fixing on our own terms. We would like to humbly suggest such an approach might work better than potential technological black-outs which drive us to find loopholes to undermine the entire proposal.

Hopefully, at least we ourselves shouldn't need to worry about pesky WA legislation which takes aim, fires, and perhaps misses the point.

[The Imperial State]

The Imperial State does not support this resolution in the least. Since about 90% of our food production is controlled by megacorparations that use these seeds, it would seriously damage our economy and food system. This does not seem like a WA affair.

[The USSR States Of Shemiki]

An infringement on the rights of individual nations, and an all-around liberal agenda. AGAINST

[Motherland]

The reason this tech exists in the first place was because of bans AGAINST GM foods.

In order to protect the local and broader ecosystems GM plants that have such an advantage over other plants MUST be kept out of the general population.

This tech is nothing to do with profits -if you want to stop that just make the gov the sole suppler of the seeds.

For the safety of ecosystems around the world we must stop this poorly researched, agenda driven bill from passing.

[Haelunor]

I am not really sure there is much anyone can do at this point. It is going to pass. Perhaps we should work towards a repeal?

[Araraukar]

Perhaps we should work towards a repeal?

That's usually how it works. Interestingly enough, a resolution that has passed "with flying colours" often gets similar "for" crowd to its repeal.

[Normlpeople]

I voted against. It claims to be environmental, but the crux of it is forbidding "big corporations" from selling sterilized seeds to "the little guy" farmers. Seems like more of an economic and social justice issue... hardly environmental and hardly a WA issue (in fact, with misleading category, perhaps a little illegal as well).

Not that it matters. I will be voting for its repeal shortly.

[Valdynia]

We at the Republic of Valdynia disagree with the views of those who approve of this resolution. While you may all think that this will help the environment without damaging economy too much, well, you are wrong! In countries such as Valdynia, which relies almost completely on its economy, this resolution would be DISASTROUS! We implore you, all World-Assembly nations, oppose this act. It will cause naught but harm to both the government, and the common peoples.

[Ankantr]

So... i see you've pulled a few acronyms and bits of "science" from where the sun don't shine, as it is said. WHO THE HELL TAUGHT YOUR SCIENCE CLASS!!!!!!!! genetics are not a "disease" that others can be "infected" with. what, may i ask, are you on? if a plant cannot grow, it cannot reproduce. if a plant can be engineered to grow but produce incomplete offspring..... well then the corporations deserve a hat tip for that. I can only vote against, and urge others to do so, on the basis that

1. the author of this bill NEEDS TO GO BACK TO SCHOOL!

2. significant parts of this bill have no logical basing

3. based on the authors name and lack of scientific knowledge, the author likely thinks babies come from storks sent by God

4. the author's flag is ugly.

conceptually, this is an ok idea, but it needs revision and research

good day to all.

[Al-Faisal]

We have voted in favor of this resolution.

[Araraukar]

2. significant parts of this bill have no logical basing

Welcome to the world of GA proposals.

However, if I was you, I'd tone down the personal attacks against the author, and instead give better proof to your own claims. (OOC: However, remember this isn't General forum, RL links aren't the final proof of evidence.)

[The Black Hat Guy]

So... i see you've pulled a few acronyms and bits of "science" from where the sun don't shine, as it is said. WHO THE HELL TAUGHT YOUR SCIENCE CLASS!!!!!!!! genetics are not a "disease" that others can be "infected" with. what, may i ask, are you on? if a plant cannot grow, it cannot reproduce. if a plant can be engineered to grow but produce incomplete offspring.....

As aforementioned in this thread, there is a mutation in the terminator gene that allows the plant to survive for multiple generations, allowing it to establish itself within a population and harm a farmer's crops.

well then the corporations deserve a hat tip for that.

They would, if they were not using them in such a harmful and disastrous manner. The manipulation of those in poverty is no commendable action.

1. the author of this bill NEEDS TO GO BACK TO SCHOOL!

I see no factual inaccuracy in the current resolution. Would you mind enlightening the floor as to your intent behind this ad hominem attack?

2. significant parts of this bill have no logical basing

I would again ask you that the delegate provide specifics that may be refuted or accepted.

3. based on the authors name and lack of scientific knowledge, the author likely thinks babies come from storks sent by God

I would appreciate it if the delegate ceased his ad hominem attacks.

(OOC: Also, I just finished yesterday a 4 hour long final for a college level biology course, and I haven't seen any factual inaccuracies in this. What is your background in biology?)