[Draft] Convention on Genetically Modified Foods

[Daves Computer]

This proposal is meant to legally define genetically modified foods for the WA and to protect consumers and the environment from the unique risks posed by these sorts of foods. I understand that the resolution, Food and Drug Standards, does a lot already to protect consumers from unsafe food, but there are dangers uniquely associated with genetically modified foods such as environmental destruction.

Draft 2:

Convention on Genetically Modified Foods
Category: Health| Area of Effect: Research | Proposed by: Daves Computer

---

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that genetically modified foods are a relatively unexplored subject, with the risks and benefits not yet thoroughly known,

Concerned that some institutions warn genetically modified foods may lead to such risks as contributing to the development of cancer, passing antibiotic resistances to consumers, and potentially poisoning the ecosystem with their resistances to herbicides and pesticides,

Defines "Genetically Modified Foods" as foods whose DNA has been altered through means of genetic engineering,

Expands the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) responsibilities to researching the affects of long-term consumption and mass production of genetically modified foods as well as offer educational materials on the subject,

Obligates member nations to share information with the WAFDRA on what genetically modified foods are produced in the borders, as well as the process in designing and manufacturing such products,

Strongly encourages member nations aid in the WAFDA's research directly in ways including but not limited to:

1. Offering financial support,
2. Donating relevant equipment,
3. Dedicating their own research institutions to this research,

Recommends member nations require genetically modified foods be clearly labeled as such for consumers.

Convention on Genetically Modified Foods
Category: Free Trade| Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Daves Computer

---

The World Assembly,

Concerned about the risks associated with genetically modified foods,

Alarmed that genetically modified foods can pose health risks such as:

1. Contributing to the development of cancer,
2. Passing antibiotic resistances to consumers,
3. Causing the development of diseases which are resistant to antibiotics,
4. Causing reproductive disorders, and in some cases, infertility,

Further concerned with that genetically modified foods' resistance to herbicides and pesticides alleviates the overuse of such products and can toxic to species that rely on these plants for habitats and food, substantially harming the ecosystem,

Recognizing that there is also a risk of outcrossing, which may lead to a greater and yet more unpredictable presence of genetically modified foods among crops, worsening these risks,

Defines "Genetically Modified Foods" as foods whose DNA has been altered through means of genetic engineering,

Expands the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) responsibilities to researching the affects of long-term consumption and mass production of genetically modified foods as well as offer educational materials on the subject,

Obligates member nations educate the public on the risks associated with genetically modified foods,

Strongly encourages member nations require genetically modified foods be clearly labeled as such for consumers.

Note for Draft 1: I personally want to take this proposal further and introduce more precautions member nations must take to protect consumers and the ecosystem, but I'm afraid that might be considered micromanaging, and with how popular GMOs may be, it could significantly affect nations' economies and food supply. For now, I'll be leaving it at mild. But I'd love to hear peoples' feedback on whether this legislation is too little, too much, or too ineffective. And if anyone has any recommendations for other regulations I should include in the proposal, please let me know.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Any support that I might give to a proposal of this sort would require you to first show, citing peer-reviewed journals, evidence to support the claim that genetically modified foods—which pass existing laws on food safety—do these bad things that you say they do (eg cause cancer, pass antibacterial resistance, cause microbes to adapt to antibiotics, cause infertility, etc).

[Daves Computer]

Any support that I might give to a proposal of this sort would require you to first show, citing peer-reviewed journals, evidence to support the claim that genetically modified foods—which pass existing laws on food safety—do these bad things that you say they do (eg cause cancer, pass antibacterial resistance, cause microbes to adapt to antibiotics, cause infertility, etc).

I'm not sure if I can find peer reviewed sources that don't require a subscription. But I'll try to find peer reviewed journals and other credible sources that assess the risks and tack it onto my original post in the morning if that's alright. Do you have any databases you'd recommend for finding peer reviewed journals?

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Any support that I might give to a proposal of this sort would require you to first show, citing peer-reviewed journals, evidence to support the claim that genetically modified foods—which pass existing laws on food safety—do these bad things that you say they do (eg cause cancer, pass antibacterial resistance, cause microbes to adapt to antibiotics, cause infertility, etc).

I'm not sure if I can find peer reviewed sources that don't require a subscription. But I'll try to find peer reviewed journals and other credible sources that assess the risks and tack it onto my original post in the morning if that's alright. Do you have any databases you'd recommend for finding peer reviewed journals?

IA is partially pulling your leg, as he knows the studies he has asked for do not exist.

You may wish to review (with no guarantee IA would accept any of these are sources specifically, even though they broadly support the consensus of no problems with GMOs):

https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/71/1/2/1639537
https://www.nap.edu/resource/23395/GE-crops-report-brief.pdf
https://www.nap.edu/read/10977/chapter/9
https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/Documents/Workshop%20Report%20FINAL.pdf
https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/Documents/GM%20foodssafety%20assessment%20of%20genetically%20modified%20foods.pdf
https://www.pps.net/cms/lib/OR01913224/Centricity/Domain/3337/peer%20reviewed%20meta%20study%20on%20GMOs%20copy.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3120150/
https://gaiapresse.ca/images/nouvelles/28563.pdf
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684?journalCode=ibty20
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jsfa.7523
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/signal-to-noise-special-edition-gmos-and-our-food/
https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/safety/Pages/default.aspx
https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

If you can read French I would be happy to add another 5 or 6.

[Stellonia]

"We see no justification for imposing such restrictions upon genetically modified organisms. We are therefore opposed."

[Attempted Socialism]

To the best of my knowledge, the following parts are false, complete fabrications by anti-science anti-GM people. I suggest removing all known falsehoods before contemplating further drafting.

Alarmed that genetically modified foods can pose health risks such as:

1. Contributing to the development of cancer,
2. Passing antibiotic resistances to consumers,
3. Causing the development of diseases which are resistant to antibiotics,
4. Causing reproductive disorders, and in some cases, infertility,

Further concerned with that genetically modified foods' resistance to herbicides and pesticides alleviates the overuse of such products and can toxic to species that rely on these plants for habitats and food, substantially harming the ecosystem,

Defines "Genetically Modified Foods" as foods whose DNA has been altered through means of genetic engineering,

Note for Draft 1: I personally want to take this proposal further and introduce more precautions member nations must take to protect consumers and the ecosystem, but I'm afraid that might be considered micromanaging, and with how popular GMOs may be, it could significantly affect nations' economies and food supply. For now, I'll be leaving it at mild. But I'd love to hear peoples' feedback on whether this legislation is too little, too much, or too ineffective. And if anyone has any recommendations for other regulations I should include in the proposal, please let me know.

I know of no evidence that shows a-d to be true. There's no connection between GM and antibiotics, for instance (Again, it's a complete fabrication). Instead, GM can remove some of the need for antibiotics, leading to fewer multiresistant bacteria. Likewise, GM crops can actually diminish reliance on herbicides and pesticides -- and overuse of both are better tackled as a separate herbicide and pesticide issue.

Under this resolution, applying selective pressure to breed certain genes (Which would include all animals and plants currently domesticated by humans - literally, all. Every. Single. One.) could also be considered genetic engineering.

AFAIK, current GM techniques are much, much safer than simple selective pressure in breeding (As we did for millennia before) since we can change specifically the genes we want, rather than rolling the dice with every new generation. I'm not a geneticist, but this seems plausible to me (Certainly, I would much rather rely on an experiment I can completely control myself, rather than natural experiments -- however well-suited -- in my line of work!).

The only two issues I know of inherent to GM are cross-contamination and suicide-seeds, neither of which are mentioned (And where we have conflicting interests).

[Ignis Cinere]

OOC: Nitpick, but is there supposed to be a “ ‘s ” behind the name of the health agency?
“As the previous ambassador has stated, pretty much everything we eat may be considered “genetically modified” as we have been practicing selective breeding for centuries. Ignoring the part about health risks being false raised by the previous ambassador, you might want to define “genetically modified” in a clause or subclause so as to avoid outlawing everything we eat.”

[Maowi]

"While I greatly dislike the blatantly false fear-mongering in your preamble, the measures you seek to introduce aren't bad - particularly since I suspect the WAFDRA's findings wouldn't be what you seem to be suggesting they'd be. With an edit to that opening preamble, shifting its emphasis towards promoting education and responsible consumption of goods, and a tightening of your definitions, I could see myself supporting this.

"By the way - your "expands" clause should say "effects", not "affects"."

[WayNeacTia]

Any support that I might give to a proposal of this sort would require you to first show, citing peer-reviewed journals, evidence to support the claim that genetically modified foods—which pass existing laws on food safety—do these bad things that you say they do (eg cause cancer, pass antibacterial resistance, cause microbes to adapt to antibiotics, cause infertility, etc).

You're going to waiting a looooooong time to give that support then. I suspect this will sink into obscurity.

[Daves Computer]

Thank you all for your feedback. The consensus I'm getting is many of the concerns I note in my proposal may not be scientifically proven or come from unreliable sources, and therefore the fears of GMOs are unfounded. For my next draft, I will try to search specifically for credible scientific journals. And rather than impose harsh restrictions, instead, my proposal will be instead aimed toward expanding our knowledge of GMOs through research and informing the public. How does this sound?

[Kenmoria]

Thank you all for your feedback. The consensus I'm getting is many of the concerns I note in my proposal may not be scientifically proven or come from unreliable sources, and therefore the fears of GMOs are unfounded. For my next draft, I will try to search specifically for credible scientific journals. And rather than impose harsh restrictions, instead, my proposal will be instead aimed toward expanding our knowledge of GMOs through research and informing the public. How does this sound?

(OOC: Increasing knowledge of GMOs would probably have a higher chance of success, since you would be basing this on science, but could run into micromanagement given that this is quite a niche field.)

[Daves Computer]

Thank you all for your feedback. The consensus I'm getting is many of the concerns I note in my proposal may not be scientifically proven or come from unreliable sources, and therefore the fears of GMOs are unfounded. For my next draft, I will try to search specifically for credible scientific journals. And rather than impose harsh restrictions, instead, my proposal will be instead aimed toward expanding our knowledge of GMOs through research and informing the public. How does this sound?

(OOC: Increasing knowledge of GMOs would probably have a higher chance of success, since you would be basing this on science, but could run into micromanagement given that this is quite a niche field.)

If I were to simply propose that a WA body were to conduct research in this subject and recommend nations contribute to said body's research and inform the public on GM foods, would that be too little or too much?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Increasing knowledge of GMOs would probably have a higher chance of success, since you would be basing this on science, but could run into micromanagement given that this is quite a niche field.)

If I were to simply propose that a WA body were to conduct research in this subject and recommend nations contribute to said body's research and inform the public on GM foods, would that be too little or too much?

(OOC: In terms of legality, that would have to be a mild strength proposal. In terms of people’s opinions, that might be viewed as not really necessitating a piece of WA legislation, but it should be fine.)

[Ardiveds]

OOC: I agree that this seems a like an attempt at fear mongering against GMOs which is bad given fact that not using GMOs could quickly be disastrous for the world's food supply. But anyway, how does this fall into "free trade" category?

[Daves Computer]

OOC: I just posted Draft 2. I understand there's a lot of uncertainty around GM foods and that the subject is not yet explored enough to conclusively say they are a danger. But I believe that albeit limited and small studies suggesting there are very real risks around these products means the WA should act in researching these genetically modified foods with the help of member states. Because the WA serve complaint member states without bias, have access to a lot of resources, and because GM foods are present in many member nations, I think the WAFDRA is most qualified to conduct this research either to bring to light the risks of GM foods or to dispel the myths surrounding it. Though I do believe that I may need more to this resolution beyond giving the WAFDRA new responsibilities, but at the same time, I don't want to force member states to do things they may not want or may see as micromanaging.

[Attempted Socialism]

The resolution would still result in all (Literally all, as in: Every. Single. One.) domesticated animals and plants being labelled GM simply because of improper definitions.

OOC: I just posted Draft 2. I understand there's a lot of uncertainty around GM foods and that the subject is not yet explored enough to conclusively say they are a danger. But I believe that albeit limited and small studies suggesting there are very real risks around these products means the WA should act in researching these genetically modified foods with the help of member states.

OOC: I would need references on this. To the best of my knowledge, no such doubt exists in the academic literature.
These two lines from the suggestion are also deeply problematic:

Recognizing that genetically modified foods are a relatively unexplored subject, with the risks and benefits not yet thoroughly known,

Concerned that some institutions warn genetically modified foods may lead to such risks as contributing to the development of cancer, passing antibiotic resistances to consumers, and potentially poisoning the ecosystem with their resistances to herbicides and pesticides,

Again, AFAIK there's ample evidence to conclude that GM cannot affect cancer in any way, and the institutions that try to warn IRL are selectively unscientific and do so for political reasons. To the best of my knowledge this is also true for the rest of the claims.
You said you'd find peer-reviewed sources for such claims. I have yet to see any such sources, and I'm ready to wager that no such sources will be forthcoming -- or if they can be found they will be refuted and superseded by more recent research.
I cannot in good conscience vote for a resolution that makes such claims without proper support.

Because the WA serve complaint member states without bias, have access to a lot of resources, and because GM foods are present in many member nations, I think the WAFDRA is most qualified to conduct this research either to bring to light the risks of GM foods or to dispel the myths surrounding it.

Sure, but why then mandate a fear-campaign that the WAFDRA will show is unwarranted?

[Daves Computer]

The intention behind my proposal is not to mandate a fringe "fear campaign" but to collaborate with nations in truly finding out whether the concerns some institutions or individuals have are credible. I've refrained from definitely saying there are risks with GM foods to simply explaining that people are divided in how they feel about GM foods. Some believe there is a danger and others feel differently. The hope is to use the unbiased, resourceful body of the WA in identifying the true risks associated with GM foods if any and dispel any myths associated with these sorts of products. The intention of the resolution is not to "expose" or defend GM foods but rather find the simple, unbiased truth through thorough research and the collaboration of member states. Labelling GM foods as such is not a requirement but a recommendation if you recall my last clause. If you believe my definition is improper, I'd appreciate if you have any suggestions for how to improve upon it. And I do not require member nations to alienate GM foods in any way.

Edit: I've shifted my focus to instead collaborate with the international community to truly decide if GM foods are even a risk to consumers to begin with. If they aren't, the WA's research on GM foods can benefit nations also researching this subject to advance their own GM foods and put consumers at ease. But if there truly is a risk, the WA can identify what those risks are and try to dissuade consumers from using them. This legislation is not meant to justify one side or the other over GM food safety. With this change in focus, I don't see scholarly sources justifying one side or the other necessary. Instead, the mistrust of consumers over GM foods and early studies suggesting possible risks is grounds enough to consider researching GM foods further.

[Grays Harbor]

the mistrust of consumers over GM foods and early studies suggesting possible risks is grounds enough to consider researching GM foods further.

“Mistrust” largely driven by deliberate misinformation and sensationalism, and debunked “early studies” largely financed by competitors and anti-science organizations. I hardly see that as grounds enough to mandate large scale indefinite testing, testing whose goal will be to “find something”.
This whole thing is a spurious fear driven solution to a non existent problem.