[PASSED] Repeal "Stopping Suicide Seeds"

[Wallenburg]

"My offices are still trying to figure out what the target resolution means, but I believe that we support this repeal."

[Sciongrad]

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the government of Imperium Anglorum believe it's appropriate for the World Assembly to advocate for the primacy of corporate profit-making at the expense of small, independent farmers? Because Sciongrad certainly does not."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the government of Imperium Anglorum believe it's appropriate for the World Assembly to advocate for the primacy of corporate profit-making at the expense of small, independent farmers? Because Sciongrad certainly does not."

Certain that nations are quite able to protect their own farmers from domestic and international exploitation by passing legislation for their own nations to protect and defend against these issues,

Affirms the need to protect native species from genetically modified organisms that out-compete those native species should they spread outside agricultural areas and therefore the need for a 'genetic modification technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile', a technique which is prohibited by 249 GA;

[Sciongrad]

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the government of Imperium Anglorum believe it's appropriate for the World Assembly to advocate for the primacy of corporate profit-making at the expense of small, independent farmers? Because Sciongrad certainly does not."

Certain that nations are quite able to protect their own farmers from domestic and international exploitation by passing legislation for their own nations to protect and defend against these issues,

Affirms the need to protect native species from genetically modified organisms that out-compete those native species should they spread outside agricultural areas and therefore the need for a 'genetic modification technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile', a technique which is prohibited by 249 GA;

"A couple of token preambulatory clauses that obliquely acknowledge the very real issue posed by suicide seeds do not at all mitigate the very real damage this repeal would do to small farmers. I'll note, as well, that the purpose of 'suicide' seeds is decidedly not to protect indigenous plant life but to create an economic framework in which small farmers are dependent on large agricultural corporations. Preventing genetically modified organisms from out competing native species can be accomplished through strict environmental regulation. To suggest that relying on terminator seeds is the only possible way to protect native species from genetically modified organisms belies either an astounding lack of knowledge on the issue or an ulterior corporate motivate. Sciongrad also finds it laughable the notion that simply because nations can protect their farmers that they will. If your government's willingness to support a technology so obviously intended to force small farmers into economic dependence is any indication, many nations will elect not to protect their farmers from suicide seeds."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Preventing genetically modified organisms from out competing native species can be accomplished through strict environmental regulation. To suggest that relying on terminator seeds is the only possible way to protect native species from genetically modified organisms belies either an astounding lack of knowledge on the issue or an ulterior corporate motivate.

V-GURTs can be regarded as a possible technical solution to concerns about the possible adverse effect of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. If all transgenic varieties were V-GURTs they would not be able to spread into the environment and, therefore, biosafety would be ensured without cumbersome administrative procedures, such as those proposed in the framework of the Biosafety Protocol (this one: link). The mixing of specialized products could be avoided. (Source)

Sciongrad also finds it laughable the notion that simply because nations can protect their farmers that they will. If your government's willingness to support a technology so obviously intended to force small farmers into economic dependence is any indication, many nations will elect not to protect their farmers from suicide seeds."

OOC: India and Brazil have already passed national laws to prohibit the technology. It isn't like national governments are unable to do these things.

[Sciongrad]

V-GURTs can be regarded as a possible technical solution to concerns about the possible adverse effect of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. If all transgenic varieties were V-GURTs they would not be able to spread into the environment and, therefore, biosafety would be ensured without cumbersome administrative procedures, such as those proposed in the framework of the Biosafety Protocol (this one: link). The mixing of specialized products could be avoided. (Source)

OOC: I will note that the motto of the organization that provided that evidence is "the ISF represents the interests of the seed industry at a global level."

OOC: India and Brazil have already passed national laws to prohibit the technology. It isn't like national governments are unable to do these things.

I don't like debating OOC, but you have to recognize that the behavior of individual real world nations does not reflect the behavior of nations in NS. There are thousands of nations that identify as free-market paradises. Do you think they intend on limiting the use of suicide seeds? I don't deny that nations are able to do these things. My point is that they're unwilling.

EDIT: I'll bet you money that you won't be able to find a post that I haven't edited at least 5 times. I'm so bad at typing, jeez.

[Imperium Anglorum]

V-GURTs can be regarded as a possible technical solution to concerns about the possible adverse effect of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. If all transgenic varieties were V-GURTs they would not be able to spread into the environment and, therefore, biosafety would be ensured without cumbersome administrative procedures, such as those proposed in the framework of the Biosafety Protocol (this one: link). The mixing of specialized products could be avoided. (Source)

OOC: I will note that the motto of the organization that provided that evidence is "the ISF represents the interests of the seed industry at a global level."

OOC: That does not diminish the truth value of a statement that this technology can be used to prevent the spread of transgenic crops into a native ecosystem, which I am using to negate your statement that this technology would not be able to prevent such spread.

OOC: India and Brazil have already passed national laws to prohibit the technology. It isn't like national governments are unable to do these things.

I do not like debating OOC, but you have to recognize that the behavior of individual real world nations does not reflect the behavior of nations in NS. There are thousands of nations that identify as free-market paradises. Do you think they intend on limiting the use of suicide seeds? I don't deny that nations are able to do these things. My point is that they're unwilling.

Parsons: I would say that many rational reasonable nations would ban things if they became out of hand.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: That does not diminish the truth value of a statement that this technology can be used to prevent the spread of transgenic crops into a native ecosystem, which I am using to negate your statement that this technology would not be able to prevent such spread.

OOC: I didn't mean to suggest that GUR technology can't possibly be used for that purpose. I meant to suggest that there's no reason to, as strict environmental regulations can accomplish that without the devastating impact on small, independent farmers. I pointed out the obvious bias of the source because they're bound to emphasize specious benefits if it advances the interest of the seed industry.

Parsons: I would say that many rational reasonable nations would ban things if they became out of hand.

"I don't agree. The economic dependence of farmers falls neatly within the ideological and economic frameworks of many nations. Not all nations are as reasonably as ours, I'm afraid."

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: That does not diminish the truth value of a statement that this technology can be used to prevent the spread of transgenic crops into a native ecosystem, which I am using to negate your statement that this technology would not be able to prevent such spread.

OOC: I didn't mean to suggest that GURT technology can't possibly be used for that purpose. I meant to suggest that there's no reason to, as strict environmental regulations can accomplish that without the devastating impact on small, independent farmers. I pointed out the obvious bias of the source because they're bound to emphasize specious benefits if it advances the interest of the seed industry.

OOC: Nor does it mean that such benefits are 'superficially plausible, but actually wrong' (OED definition of specious)...

Parsons: Because most environmental regulations in favour of native species have a cost on farmers, the kind of strict environmental regulations you advocate would force farmers to avoid transgenic crops unless they are able to pay for such costly regulations. Since such regulations would put the benefits of those transgenic crops (in that they are able to grow faster with less pesticides, keep longer, produce more, and cost less to grow) outside of the reach of 'small farmers', they would impose both an opportunity cost and the regulation's direct cost directly onto them, making them less profitable. Lifting the ban on such procedures would benefit farmers by allowing them to reap the benefits from transgenic crops whilst still following these strict regulations.

Parsons: I would say that many rational reasonable nations would ban things if they became out of hand.

"I don't agree. The economic dependence of farmers falls neatly within the ideological and economic frameworks of many nations. Not all nations are as reasonably as ours, I'm afraid."

Parsons: (continuing) The only remaining question is whether farmers would be economically disadvantaged by market failure. However, nations do not even need to ban GUR technologies. All they need do is pass a law that states that seed companies must sell both a GURT and a non-GURT variety at the same price. This would deal with the problem by offering farmers a choice between upholding environmental regulations via the strict regulation or by utilising GUR technologies.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Nor does it mean that such benefits are 'superficially plausible, but actually wrong' (OED definition of specious)...

OOC: But it could certainly mean that such benefits have "deceptive attraction or allure" (Merriam-Webster definition of specious)...

Parsons: I would argue that because most environmental regulations have a cost on farmers, the kind of strict environmental regulations you advocate would force farmers to avoid transgenic crops unless they are able to pay for such costly regulations. Because such regulations would put the benefits of those transgenic crops (in that they are able to grow faster with less pesticides, keep longer, produce more, and cost less to grow) outside of the reach of 'small farmers' and thereby impose both an opportunity cost and the regulation's direct cost, lifting the ban on such procedures would benefit farmers.

"That is a shamelessly disingenuous argument, for several reasons. Firstly, on aggregate, small farmers would be put at a much greater economic disadvantage by putting themselves at the mercy of the seed industry. By lifting the regulations, you technically remove a potential economic handicap, but in exchange, these farmers now face a new, more prohibitive economic barrier. But secondly, you overstate the burden of regulations on farmers. The contained use of transgenic crops is not nearly as restrictive of a regulation as you portray it.

(continuing) The only remaining question is whether farmers would be economically disadvantaged by market failure. However, nations do not even need to ban GUR technologies. All they need do is pass a law that states that seed companies must sell both a GURT and a non-GURT variety at the same price. This would deal with the problem by offering farmers a choice between upholding environmental regulations via the strict regulation or by utilising GUR technologies.

"Again, that is true, but by no means is that a likely occurrence in many member nations. The possibility that some member-nations may independently elect to regulate GUR technology is not at all a compelling reason to repeal this resolution.

[Potted Plants United]

A large potted plant in a big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, shaking dust off of its leaves and revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"We are in support of this repeal. Requiring the banning of sterile seeds goes against everything we know of safe GMO farming; the prevention of the accidental escaping of modified organisms that have an unfair advantage over "natural" species of plantlife. We are fairly sure that if the genetically modified organism was, say, an insecticide-resistant insect sold to farmers to be used in more organic pest control, people would prefer them not being able to reproduce outside the lab.

While our selves are excempt of the restrictions due to sapience, we have been hoping for someone to repeal this travesty so that we can be in compliance with WA resolutions when we eventually launch our international seeds and saplings store. Currently we have experimental orchards set up in Araraukar, where they are actually very happy that none of our modified plants are capable of reproduction."

OOC: A better way to do what the target resolution tried to do, would be to prevent seed-producing companies from ripping off the farmers, not actually banning/regulating to death the techniques used.

[Christian Democrats]

SSS was and remains a crucially important piece of international legislation as it curbs corporate exploitation of small farmers in the developing world. We strongly recommend that all ambassadors reread the original resolution. This proposal does not adequately confront its primary argument against the suicide seed. Moreover, this proposal's assertion "that nations are quite able to protect their own farmers from domestic and international exploitation" is fanciful. Many national governments, especially their regulatory agencies, have been captured by major corporations; and small farmers are in the worst position to defend themselves from such unholy alliances of private interests and public power. The liberty of the small farmer to support himself and his family ought to trump the "competitiveness" of the biotech giants.* Strict regulation is necessary because the suicide seed poses an existential threat to the world's poor.

---

* It should be noted that all biotech companies are on equal footing within the jurisdiction of the WA.

[Imperium Anglorum]

A replacement on the lines of the policy I advocated for above solves the issue. Due to the simplicity of doing so, I plan to draft such a replacement.

EDIT: Given that such a replacement has been drafted and will be ready to be submitted should this proposal pass, I hope that no more issues will be raised on the topic of farmer welfare given the effective and simple policies which have been advocated for in our replacement efforts.

[Christian Democrats]

I'm not quite sure why moderation hasn't acted on the GHR that I filed last week and removed this proposal yet. Its first and final preambulatory clauses clearly violate the Honest Mistakes rule.

[John Turner]

A replacement on the lines of the policy I advocated for above solves the issue. Due to the simplicity of doing so, I plan to draft such a replacement.

EDIT: Given that such a replacement has been drafted and will be ready to be submitted should this proposal pass, I hope that no more issues will be raised on the topic of farmer welfare given the effective and simple policies which have been advocated for in our replacement efforts.

And seeing as said replacement is about as illegal as a proposal can be, The Federation withdraws it support of this endeavour.

[Christian Democrats]

I'm not quite sure why moderation hasn't acted on the GHR that I filed last week and removed this proposal yet. Its first and final preambulatory clauses clearly violate the Honest Mistakes rule.

I can't believe the moderators let this proposal reach the floor. How long does it take to discuss and act upon a clear rules violation? Anyhow, I still fully anticipate that this proposal will be removed as it undoubtedly mischaracterizes the original resolution.

[Wrapper]

I'm not quite sure why moderation hasn't acted on the GHR that I filed last week and removed this proposal yet. Its first and final preambulatory clauses clearly violate the Honest Mistakes rule.

Apologies, we're a bit short-handed right now, and as a Forum Mod I can't directly handle GHRs. Someone should get back to you with an official ruling shortly, but my understanding is that we are going to let the voters decide. The target resolution specifies that nations must "ban or strictly regulate V-GURT and T-GURT", thus allowing nations to enact an outright ban on such technology should they choose to do so. The first clause of the repeal can be interpreted as an argument that the target resolution is flawed in that it allows nations to ban such technologies outright.

[Christian Democrats]

I'm not quite sure why moderation hasn't acted on the GHR that I filed last week and removed this proposal yet. Its first and final preambulatory clauses clearly violate the Honest Mistakes rule.

Apologies, we're a bit short-handed right now, and as a Forum Mod I can't directly handle GHRs. Someone should get back to you with an official ruling shortly, but my understanding is that we are going to let the voters decide. The target resolution specifies that nations must "ban or strictly regulate V-GURT and T-GURT", thus allowing nations to enact an outright ban on such technology should they choose to do so. The first clause of the repeal can be interpreted as an argument that the target resolution is flawed in that it allows nations to ban such technologies outright.

That makes absolutely no sense. This proposal clearly states that the original resolution requires a ban on suicide seeds.

Convinced that regulation to prevent the exploitation of farmers is preferable to an outright ban of a technology which has considerable utility in limiting the spread of transgenic crops

. . .

Believing that 249 GA's ban on a 'genetic modification technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile' would make it significantly harder to protect native species from the accidental spread of transgenic organisms without prohibitively expensive administrative protocols

It does not. Stopping Suicide Seeds permits a ban or regulation.

[Meridional Indochina]

The Republic of Meridional Indochina reluctantly votes AGAINST this proposal. But only for the sole reason that, where mentioned in clause 4, there is no tangible contingency proposal to be submitted should this one pass.

We wish to see a dynamically adaptable World Assembly, especially when the matter is related to the world's agriculture and its protection from hostile business interests.
However, until we see a contingency proposal prepared, at least in drafting stage and with good faith in the author to see its completion (and hopeful ratification), we refuse to support this effort to repeal a preventative regulatory measure against economic genetically-engineered malicious plant materials.

[Liagolas]

The Republic of Meridional Indochina reluctantly votes AGAINST this proposal. But only for the sole reason that, where mentioned in clause 4, there is no tangible contingency proposal to be submitted should this one pass.

We wish to see a dynamically adaptable World Assembly, especially when the matter is related to the world's agriculture and its protection from hostile business interests.
However, until we see a contingency proposal prepared, at least in drafting stage and with good faith in the author to see its completion (and hopeful ratification), we refuse to support this effort to repeal a preventative regulatory measure against economic genetically-engineered malicious plant materials.

"What do you mean?" the hooded Mouth of the Dominion to the World Assembly asks, sounding confused. "The proposed replacement is being debated in the next room over."

[The Vault-Tec Council]

Forgive me for asking a simple question in search of a simple answer, but will this legislation allow GMO...or am I reading something into this that isn't so? If this is GMO-related, how would one vote if your nation wanted to keep GMO foods banned?

Again, my apologies if I read this wrong.

[Soem]

The way this is worded is very dangerous and dodgy.....

From what I read I encourage everyone who hates Monsanto and such like to vote against this and if you have voted for, change it.

Read the previous legislation it's reasonably sensible although I'd personally prefer it if it was tested on "other planets", "in space stations", "underground" or on "obscure islands far away from farming lands" in order of preference.

Opening up GM to corporations who think of profit above ethics and the environmental damage will potentially destroy bio diversity on the whole planet decreasing quality of life or life as we know it.

Cane toads in Australia who knew the impact, which adults remember the nursery rhyme there was an old lady who swallowed a fly, there's wisdom there, don't let the idiots destroy this fragile planets ecosystem.

Soem out, peace!

[Teronia]

A lithe young woman, casually dressed in a clean business suit, slowly leans forward.

"Pardon me for interrupting, ambassadors, but this resolution is about removing a ban on self-sterilizing seeds, correct? We have been heavily considering such measures for decades as a means of regulating a number of hardened species within our nation. While it may not seem like much, ambassadors, research into what is effectively a biological killswitch could be invaluable for the control and regulation of potentially hundreds of thousands of invasive species.

We pledge our support for this bill, not out of any misguided attempt to feed the seed industry, but to use the technologies gained by such research to help protect our already damaged environment."


OOC: We can always regulate the seed industry, right? That being said, I can't be the only one who sees the potential of a biological killswitch, injected into an invasive species via retrovirus in order to curb its numbers. Yes, systems would need to be designed to prevent the virus from spreading to the invader's original environment, however such things would actually be possible using such technology given enough funding and research.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Pardon me for interrupting, ambassadors, but this resolution is about removing a ban on self-sterilizing seeds, correct?...

"Incorrect. The target resolution requires that nations 'ban or strictly regulate' such technology. There is no WA ban on it, despite the disingenuous wording of this repeal."

[Louisistan]

Wolfgang De Ville:
After the Representative from Christian Democrats made his case about the repeal misrepresenting the target resolution, regional opinion has swung around. I have therefore withdrawn my votes for the time being and will re-evaluate the case tomorrow.