[PASSED] Stopping Suicide Seeds

[Christian Democrats]

This is something our delegation has been interested in pursuing for a while. Genetic use restriction technology is unethical and has harmed agricultural economies immensely. The interests of agribusiness must serve the public welfare, not drive up the costs of farming. We are discouraged that this proposal does not ban the more vile of GURT practices. T-GURT ought to be banned outright, as it serves no purpose other than to extract money from farmers.

V-GURT seeds can have positive benefits for biodiversity, so the proposal should not completely ban them. It should encourage the study of V-GURT seeds, and ensure proper oversight exists so that if the use of these seeds, in certain situations, threaten biodiversity, they are banned. But it is backwards, in our opinion, to ban V-GURT seeds and only encourage member states to ban T-GURT seeds.

Additionally, there are numerous things within my delegation's draft that we would like to see in any regulation of GURT seeds. This is includes promoting scientific studies, and providing grants for biodiversity studies within agriculture. Hopefully the authoring delegation will consider utilizing our draft in improving this one.

- Dr. B. Castro

I disagree. If a V-GURT gene accidentally escaped into the general population, there would be widespread havoc due to the complete sterilization of farmers' seeds. The supposed purpose of T-GURT, on the other hand, is to protect patented genetic traits. If a T-GURT gene accidentally escaped into the general population, then farmers and consumers would not notice the contamination because the special genetic trait would not be expressed, unless the crop were treated with a special chemical compound.

With regard to T-GURT, the chemical sold by the company is the on-and-off switch for the engineered trait. Without the activator compound, a T-GURT plant is the same as a non-GMO crop. No substantial harm is caused to the population. The farmers can still farm.

Preventing the sterilization of seeds, V-GURT, is the primary goal of this proposal.

On your last point, the World Assembly is not made of money. NGOs or national governments can fund genetic engineering studies if they want. I do not believe the World Assembly should centralize control over plant eugenics.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I disagree. If a V-GURT gene accidentally escaped into the general population, there would be widespread havoc due to the complete sterilization of farmers' seeds.

An unlikely event in the first place. Even if it does happen, it is incredibly unlikely that it will occur more than once, as the contaminated crops will, of course, produce sterile seeds. There is room for a lot of scientific research here, to help prevent cross-contamination. That is what my proposal did, and what yours should do. Banning V-GURT, but allowing T-GURT, is just completely backwards. Among the anti-GMO community, T-GURT is universally hated, but V-GURT is at least approached with caution.

With regard to T-GURT, the chemical sold by the company is the on-and-off switch for the engineered trait. Without the activator compound, a T-GURT plant is the same as a non-GMO crop. No substantial harm is caused to the population. The farmers can still farm.

You are glossing over the socioeconomic impact of T-GURT seeds. Farmers are not going to voluntarily purchase seeds that are worse than "enhanced" ones. They are going to purchase the seeds that are resistant to salt, drought, etc. (Not to mention that these seeds tend to dominate markets, anyways.) The companies engineering these seeds are also the ones employing GURT techniques on them. With T-GURT, farmers not only have to purchase the seeds, but they have to purchase the activating agents. Even though they can save seeds from after harvest, they have to continually buy the activating agents, otherwise they will end up with useless and unreliable seeds. T-GURT hurts farmers, especially poor farmers.

if serious changes are not made, I'm going to revive my proposal. I would rather not do that, but I definitely do not want to see the resolution approaching such a serious issue in a backwards manner.

[Christian Democrats]

What if I changed clauses 2 and 3 to this due to the complexity of this issue?

Requires that all member states ban or highly restrict T-GURT and V-GURT in order to protect small farmers from exploitation by large corporations and to prevent genetic contamination of other crops

[Ossitania]

I'm still making my mind up about the T-GURT/V-GURT thing, but I would like to propose the following clause;

"Prohibits holders of genetic patents from pursuing legal action against crop-growers who have patented genetic material introduced into their crops unless this introduction was done with the knowledge and approval of said crop-growers."

This should stop corporations suing farmers whose crops contain patented genetic material as a result of the corporation's own failure to keep a handle on their product.

[Araraukar]

"Prohibits holders of genetic patents from pursuing legal action against crop-growers who have patented genetic material introduced into their crops unless this introduction was done with the knowledge and approval of said crop-growers."

This should stop corporations suing farmers whose crops contain patented genetic material as a result of the corporation's own failure to keep a handle on their product.

That sounds like a sensible provision to add.

[Anime Daisuki]

I remember watching a film about Monsanto and all the stuff they do while in grad school.

Personally, I'd support a resolution like this.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Doesn't really fit as 'Environmental (All Businesses)'.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm still making my mind up about the T-GURT/V-GURT thing, but I would like to propose the following clause;

"Prohibits holders of genetic patents from pursuing legal action against crop-growers who have patented genetic material introduced into their crops unless this introduction was done with the knowledge and approval of said crop-growers."

This should stop corporations suing farmers whose crops contain patented genetic material as a result of the corporation's own failure to keep a handle on their product.

The little-known General Patent Charter restricts biological patents to only the "methods for creation of genetically engineered biological matter." So I don't think suing farmers for using contaminated seeds is allowed in the first place, as the seeds themselves cannot be patented.

[Christian Democrats]

OOC: Doesn't really fit as 'Environmental (All Businesses)'.

I know. I wish we had an "Environmental (Agriculture)" category. Maybe, I can ask the administrators to add that subcategory before I submit this proposal. The subcategories right now are automobile manufacturing, uranium mining, woodchipping, and all businesses.

*the ambassador walks over to Technical*

[Ossitania]

I'm still making my mind up about the T-GURT/V-GURT thing, but I would like to propose the following clause;

"Prohibits holders of genetic patents from pursuing legal action against crop-growers who have patented genetic material introduced into their crops unless this introduction was done with the knowledge and approval of said crop-growers."

This should stop corporations suing farmers whose crops contain patented genetic material as a result of the corporation's own failure to keep a handle on their product.

The little-known General Patent Charter restricts biological patents to only the "methods for creation of genetically engineered biological matter." So I don't think suing farmers for using contaminated seeds is allowed in the first place, as the seeds themselves cannot be patented.

Let's call it a fail-safe in case the GPC is improbably repealed. Though if only the methods of creation can be patented, what impact does that have on the debate about V-GURT and T-GURT?

[Rickgrad]

I support the larger intent of protecting the environment from rouge engineered crops, but the wording is too anti business that the Empire of Rickgrad will not support this resolution in its current form. I don't see why corporations can't develop these plants in a closed green house environment were there is no risk for contamination, maybe this should be our primary focus instead of resolutions dealing with the aftermath.


I do believe corporations are allowed to patent engineered genes, and thus own / do whatever they want with their property.

[Free South Califas]

What if I changed clauses 2 and 3 to this due to the complexity of this issue?

Requires that all member states ban or highly restrict T-GURT and V-GURT in order to protect small farmers from exploitation by large corporations and to prevent genetic contamination of other crops

I'm still making my mind up about the T-GURT/V-GURT thing, but I would like to propose the following clause;

"Prohibits holders of genetic patents from pursuing legal action against crop-growers who have patented genetic material introduced into their crops unless this introduction was done with the knowledge and approval of said crop-growers."

This should stop corporations suing farmers whose crops contain patented genetic material as a result of the corporation's own failure to keep a handle on their product.

We strongly support both the Christian revision and the Ossitanian amendment (unless the latter duplicates TGPC of course).

I'm still making my mind up about the T-GURT/V-GURT thing, but I would like to propose the following clause;

"Prohibits holders of genetic patents from pursuing legal action against crop-growers who have patented genetic material introduced into their crops unless this introduction was done with the knowledge and approval of said crop-growers."

This should stop corporations suing farmers whose crops contain patented genetic material as a result of the corporation's own failure to keep a handle on their product.

The little-known General Patent Charter restricts biological patents to only the "methods for creation of genetically engineered biological matter." So I don't think suing farmers for using contaminated seeds is allowed in the first place, as the seeds themselves cannot be patented.

I think you're right, but just to be sure (OOC: I'm very curious and it seems relevant), let's take a look at TGPC:

DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:
[snip]
• Biological patenting: where research methods, specific sequences, chemical compositions or the process for creation of genetically engineered biological matter are patented;

[snip]
5. RESTRICTS biological patenting to the methods for creation of genetically engineered biological matter only;

So TGPC defines biological patenting as having four components, and then says that of the four, only one may be legally applied. Can an expert on patents and/or biology weigh in on whether there are other components or traits of seeds which could theoretically be patented? If not, the Ossitanian amendment might be redundant, although we note that the delegation in question is fine with that.

[NPC]

Allowing companies to sterilize seeds should be illegal. Not only would major companies monopolize the agricultural industry, they would more than likely only provide a few varieties of each species of plant they carry, therefore creating a monoculture. This would allow for a major disease epidemic to potentially cause a catastrophic crop loss. For an example of a catastrophic crop loss due to monoculture, research the Irish Potato Famine. One variety of potato was grown exclusively, and this particular variety of potato was very susceptible to Potato blight. Due to the monoculture of potatoes being grown in Ireland at the time, the virus spread like wildfire and wiped out the crop.

http://archives.microbeworld.org/news/a ... ehind.aspx

[Araraukar]

For an example of a catastrophic crop loss due to monoculture, research the Irish Potato Famine.

IC: We can't find this in our history books anywhere. Are you sure you're not referring to the Rice Potato Machine? It does excellent curry with a few little tweaks.

OOC: It's a bad idea to blatantly tell delegates to read up on stuff that happened in the real life. You can link to Wikipedia articles for proof, if you make it look like it's something that works in-character. Nationstates is a multiverse, Earth isn't everyone's own planet, some nations span galaxies, some are on a small island somewhere on the far edges of the map. Real-life references in general don't go over well in the WA debates.

[Abacathea]

OOC; the Irish famine is only one example though, and a single example is rarely a good one. Though I do echo ararakaurs statement about RL ref. Besides as a nation to this day you'll find potatoes are still a massively grown crop here. My Sunday dinner just wouldn't be right without my potatoes. That's a worrying thing for a 24 year old to be saying. My god. To the strangers bar!

[Free South Califas]

While we agree that monoculture has potentially devastating social consequences and should be restricted, that is something that can and should be addressed in a separate proposal.

[Ossitania]

Allowing companies to sterilize seeds should be illegal. Not only would major companies monopolize the agricultural industry, they would more than likely only provide a few varieties of each species of plant they carry, therefore creating a monoculture. This would allow for a major disease epidemic to potentially cause a catastrophic crop loss. For an example of a catastrophic crop loss due to monoculture, research the Irish Potato Famine. One variety of potato was grown exclusively, and this particular variety of potato was very susceptible to Potato blight. Due to the monoculture of potatoes being grown in Ireland at the time, the virus spread like wildfire and wiped out the crop.

http://archives.microbeworld.org/news/a ... ehind.aspx

All very well and good except for the part where (1) you never explain why major companies would only provide a few varieties of each species of plant and (2) you miss the point of a "monoculture". Having a few varieties of a few species is not a monoculture. Your example of the Great Famine describes a monoculture - one variety of one species. What you're describing is the opposite of a monoculture.

[Christian Democrats]

I have updated this proposal. Also, I want to point out that Resolution 68, National Economic Freedoms:

REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA unless . . . [that] enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations.

I believe it is obvious that genetic use restriction technology poses a potential "extreme hazard" to peoples living in World Assembly member states. Monopolization is economically hazardous, and widespread genetic contamination is environmentally hazardous.

[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:

"This proposal is of great concern to us, as we are getting ready to launch our international agricultural trading operations soon. We modify all of our products more or less, but in most instances it is nothing more invasive than simply speeding up normal selective breeding of plants.

Some of the more genetically edited products of ours will have genes added to allow them to resist their most common diseases and pests. Since the spread of foreign genes to wildlife and more natural varieties could have adverse effects to biodiversity, we customarily make these products unable to produce pollen.

Currently we are concentrating on perennial plants, such as fruit trees, berry-producing plants and decorative flowering plants, not food crops such as cereals. Those of our products where the seed itself is the edible part, they are infertile by design and are formed without the need of pollen, as indeed are the fruits and berries as well.

Now we would like to ask the Christian Democrats' ambassador, if we can continue our project as planned, or if this proposal, should it pass, would severely hamper our efforts?"

[Walrasia]

I'm concerned about the banning of government funding to nongovernmental entities that are engaged in genetic use restriction technology or research of it.

There are reasons such technology (especially T-GURT) could be useful for experimental research in which you don't want the organism spreading, or you want to test an identical organism with the genes expressed/not expressed. A compromise would be to make an exception for non-commercial research purposes.

I believe this would be covered under clause 2 as highly restricting V-GURT and T-GURT, but it is not entirely clear under clause 4 that NGOs only using V-GURT and T-GURT for these purposes would still be able to receive government funding.

[Libertade]

"Libertade strongly opposes any actions to give biotech corporations control, direct or indirect, legal or physical, over the crops or labor of agricultural workers.

Camila Durruti, People's Commissar for Agriculture and the Environment."

[Christian Democrats]

This proposal is of great concern to us, as we are getting ready to launch our international agricultural trading operations soon. We modify all of our products more or less, but in most instances it is nothing more invasive than simply speeding up normal selective breeding of plants.

This should not be a problem.

Some of the more genetically edited products of ours will have genes added to allow them to resist their most common diseases and pests. Since the spread of foreign genes to wildlife and more natural varieties could have adverse effects to biodiversity, we customarily make these products unable to produce pollen.

Altering the ability of a plant to produce pollen would be acceptable since this proposal would restrict only biotechnologies that make "the seeds of a plant sterile."

Now we would like to ask the Christian Democrats' ambassador, if we can continue our project as planned, or if this proposal, should it pass, would severely hamper our efforts?"

It sounds as though your nation would be allowed to continue its projects as planned.

I'm concerned about the banning of government funding to nongovernmental entities that are engaged in genetic use restriction technology or research of it.

There are reasons such technology (especially T-GURT) could be useful for experimental research in which you don't want the organism spreading, or you want to test an identical organism with the genes expressed/not expressed. A compromise would be to make an exception for non-commercial research purposes.

I believe this would be covered under clause 2 as highly restricting V-GURT and T-GURT, but it is not entirely clear under clause 4 that NGOs only using V-GURT and T-GURT for these purposes would still be able to receive government funding.

Due to your concerns, I have edited Section 4 so that government funding is now banned only for for-profit entities.

"Libertade strongly opposes any actions to give biotech corporations control, direct or indirect, legal or physical, over the crops or labor of agricultural workers.

Camila Durruti, People's Commissar for Agriculture and the Environment."

I guess that means you support this proposal.

Also, I have made a small change to Section 5 of the proposal.

[Monopolasia]

No, no, and no. While the current law may deteriorate health, it is fair to economies which need to temporarily sacrifice health for economic progression. Any nation sufficiently advanced to afford clean energy is already successful, likely due to the exact measures now proposed as being prohibited, and I think the arrogance here is astounding.

[Nua Corda]

We stand in strong support of this proposal, but remain concerned that companies can still use copyright laws to take subsistence farmers to court for copyright infringement if their seeds accidentally blow into the farmer's field from a neighbor. Companies have used this tactic to destroy leaders in the farm community, independent seed-savers and cleaners, or anyone who speaks out against them, and force the rest to bow down and feed their oligopoly. We would support this proposal even more if provision could be added to prevent this.

[I Want to Smash Them All]

I am not a member of this august body & I have given only a rather cursory review of this discussion. So, I wish to give some input, but I apologize if it is repetitive or unhelpful.

Setting aside the issue of genetic alterations "escaping" or "contaminating" other crops (which I believe several Ambassadors have already explained is an unwarranted fear), the question because one of controlling what a business may sell to its customers.

The alleged concern for "subsistence farmers and small farmers" is extremely paternalistic and insulting. Similarly, underlying the proposal is a basic hostility to the exchange of goods that is unseemly for the WA to adopt and even anti-capitalist nations should reconsider. If a farmer and a seed company each make an fully informed decision to exchange goods should the WA say they cannot do so merely because the WA feels the exchange is not in the long-term economic interests of the farmer?

Beyond some wild hyperbole, the concern does not appear to be the farmer's purchase of seeds that will cause illness, injury, or anything but economic harm or that it will cause harm to others, but that farmers are incapable of making wise economic choices.

If the concern is monopolization of agriculture, address that -- which is a distinct concern. If, however, the "problem" is merely that the best way for a farmer to make money is to use certain seeds because they have numerous advantages that, to the farmer, outweigh the disadvantage of having to buy more seeds in the future, why is this a problem? Can no one but "multinational corporations" grow seeds? Without genetic restrictions on the progeny of seeds, would farmers really only purchase seeds once and then be independent? Is it a "monopoly" if a seller has a superior product that farmers want?

Thank you for indulging my long-winded thoughts. Perhaps they are somewhat helpful.