NATION

PASSWORD

DRAFT- GA Proposal:- Ban on Genetically Modified Crops.

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
The Princia
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Mar 29, 2020
Ex-Nation

DRAFT- GA Proposal:- Ban on Genetically Modified Crops.

Postby The Princia » Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:33 am

Knowing that- In some member nations, the use of GM Crops is rising exponentially without any propper regulation.
Acknoledged by- GM Crops can put some long-term effects on the health of sapient individuals.
Schocked by- Governments are not making any regulations to regulate the use of GM Crops.
So hereby the World Assembly defines the GM Crops as-
Any crop's plant whose genetic material is modified artificially by humans in a lab or lab like condition through scientific methods, is considered a GM Crop.
So hereby, The World Assembly-
1. Prohibits any kind of genetic modification of any crop's plant.
2. Allows to continue experiments related to modification of genetic material of a crop's plant with the hope of potential removel of those bad effects of GM Crops.
3. Prohibits the use of GM Crops in member nations.
Last edited by The Princia on Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Princia
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Mar 29, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby The Princia » Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:44 am

Any suggetions will be welcomed. And please let me know that if you support this proposal or not.
Thank you.
The princia

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6529
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:48 am

“I oppose the idea of banning all genetically modified crops. Although there are some risks, a total prohibition on any form of artificially altering plants is hugely disproportionate. Also, scientific research should never be restricted expect for compelling ethical or health concerns.”

(OOC: Welcome to the General Assembly.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Ardiveds
Diplomat
 
Posts: 546
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:55 am

"Ambassador, if these 'long term effects' are as real and dangerous as you believe, why would you ban research into these negative effects and the potential for their removal? We use genetically modified crops for a very good reason and they have clear and significant benefits. We stand firmly opposed to this ban fueled by paranoia and ignorance."
--- Kaiser
Last edited by Ardiveds on Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

User avatar
The Princia
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Mar 29, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby The Princia » Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:15 pm

Ok. I will make those mofifications that you suggested. Scientific experiments will not be prohibited.

User avatar
Komerco
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 14
Founded: Jun 29, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Komerco » Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:58 pm

"It's worth noting that World Assembly resolution 64 already mandates quality assurance in foodstuff production for the benefit of health and living standards in all member nations, which may overlap in some regards with your current set-up (i.e., this proposal bans GMOs, yet a previous proposal prohibits non-safe foodstuff from existing on a large-scale practice to begin with, and if on a minor scale to be explicitly-stated anyway. Some people may see your current draft as maybe a little extreme and certainly overlapping in purpose).

Consider looking over World Assembly resolution 158 and resolution 249, also looking into why they were repealed. They were based on similar things to what you want to get through, and can always be improved upon under new versions. See where you can take things from there.

Happy lawmaking, fellow nation!"

(Don't mind the RP stuff. It's simply that. Consider this post to be the drawing board, I say, much rather than a concrete yes-or-no poll of any sort).
Last edited by Komerco on Fri Jul 03, 2020 3:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Lyroidia
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: Jul 01, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Lyroidia » Fri Jul 03, 2020 3:03 pm

"The WA Ministry of Lyroidia opposes this proposal on the grounds of the fact that this ban would prohibit genetic modification of crops even if proper research is done into the subject and particular modifications are deemed safe. GMOs can be a sufficient food source for member nations that are struggling with supplying food to its people as well. On these grounds, the WA Ministry of Lyroidia opposes the proposal."
Together, Forward For Our Socialist Future!
National Anthem of Lyroidia

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1205
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Attempted Socialism » Fri Jul 03, 2020 3:31 pm

OOC: So, first, your style is very far from what is considered normal (Which you're free to ignore, but be aware it may turn people off) and I think your particular style leads you to some odd grammar.

Second:
The Princia wrote:Knowing that- In some member nations, the use of GM Crops is rising exponentially without any propper regulation.
Acknoledged by- GM Crops can put some long-term effects on the health of sapient individuals.
I am unaware of any such studies. AFAIK GM crops are either unchanged or improved in terms of health effects, depending on whether specific genes are changed. Since laboratory-quality GM is merely a better and more precise form of the GM we've been doing since the dawn of farming, I don't think this is a good introduction.
Schocked by- Governments are not making any regulations to regulate the use of GM Crops.
So hereby the World Assembly defines the GM Crops as-
Any crop's plant whose genetic material is modified artificially by humans in a lab or lab like condition through scientific methods, is considered a GM Crop.
So all crops are GM, since we've artificially bred all crops to be what they are today? Or are we supposed to take the GM out of the lab to do the change, then test it again later? Or should we do without the scientific method, making sure to introduce unknown and exciting new features into the crops?
So hereby, The World Assembly-
1. Prohibits any kind of genetic modification of any crop's plant.
2. Allows to continue experiments related to modification of genetic material of a crop's plant with the hope of potential removel of those bad effects of GM Crops.
3. Prohibits the use of GM Crops in member nations.
1 and 3 prohibits GM crops, 2 allows further experimentation for safety... but even if safe (And remember, all laboratory-GM crops are either as safe or safer than ordinarily-bred GM crops) it is banned. You're banning it regardless of safety, then why do safety research?

And, just to reiterate: There are no bad effects on health from GM on its own. Cross-contamination, suicide-seeds, over-use of pesticides etc. are all unrelated issues to health simply by ingestion. Basically all crops (And all farm animals) are equivalent to GM, except today we can know exactly what we're doing, which leads to fewer errors.


Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated.
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10393
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:18 pm

Big opposition to any ban on genetically modified crops or animals.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Komerco
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 14
Founded: Jun 29, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Komerco » Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:14 pm

OOC: Big vagueness in it all, really; most of the clauses don't nearly specify enough to necessarily be ideologically dissected. Mind you, I am in full support of what has been said by the two nations above me. At this rate, though, it only serves to, *ahem*, nag a sleeping horse to get a move-on.

If anything, let's give the author time to gather and use the feedback given. At any rate, I personally support a 360 degree turn on something related though not necessarily on this topic. At best, it's a touchy subject not worth the time and space to have ten nations says the same thing in ten different IC and OOC ways over a done-and-through piece of international law.

I'd say The Princia has their heart in the right place, though. Let's give 'em that at least.
Last edited by Komerco on Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cretox State
Diplomat
 
Posts: 808
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cretox State » Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:32 pm

OOC: Welcome to the General Assembly!

Generally speaking, GA proposals tend to follow a certain format (some more closely than others). While there’s nothing inherently wrong with trying something different, do know that most resolutions are written in a certain way because that way works.

Additionally, you should probably be looking more towards regulating within a topic (such as GMOs), rather than attempting to enact a blanket ban. GMOs are a key component of agriculture around the world, with ~90% of corn grown in the US being genetically engineered as of 2013.

Also, I would ask why regulating GMOs through a resolution in any stringent manner is even necessary to begin with. Wouldn’t it make more sense to regulate products based on their nature instead of how they were produced? In that case, why can’t GMOs be regulated through laws governing conventional products?
Last edited by Cretox State on Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The North Pacific Vice Delegate
Author: 11 GA + 3 SC resolutions, 4 issues, and a lot of drafts

Killer of Stats
Assume OOC

"above the level of needing to be told how English works" - Candlewhisper Archive
"pure legalese" - Araraukar
"barrel of nonsense" - Tinhampton
"Just hurry up and declare a coup" - Honeydewistania
"a joke with no punchline" - Minskiev
"purge me daddy" - Praeceps
GA 496
GA 503 (1st in category)
GA 504
GA 509 (1st in category)
GA 510
GA 512
GA 520
GA 523
GA 527
GA 529
GA 530
GA 535*

SC 318
SC 331
SC 333

Issue 1427
Issue 1433
Issue 1438
Issue 1444

User avatar
Komerco
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 14
Founded: Jun 29, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Komerco » Sat Jul 04, 2020 4:02 am

Cretox State wrote:OOC: Welcome to the General Assembly!

Generally speaking, GA proposals tend to follow a certain format (some more closely than others). While there’s nothing inherently wrong with trying something different, do know that most resolutions are written in a certain way because that way works.

Additionally, you should probably be looking more towards regulating within a topic (such as GMOs), rather than attempting to enact a blanket ban. GMOs are a key component of agriculture around the world, with ~90% of corn grown in the US being genetically engineered as of 2013.

Also, I would ask why regulating GMOs through a resolution in any stringent manner is even necessary to begin with. Wouldn’t it make more sense to regulate products based on their nature instead of how they were produced? In that case, why can’t GMOs be regulated through laws governing conventional products?


I well believe they already are regulated in the WA.

User avatar
Picairn
Senator
 
Posts: 3879
Founded: Feb 21, 2020
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Picairn » Sat Jul 04, 2020 4:51 am

"We oppose any attempts to ban genetically modified crops, since they have the potential to create a new green revolution that will feed starving countries with hellish climates, which prevents conventional plants from being grown. Our scientists have studied GM crops closely and found little to no evidence that just eating them alone would cause negative health benefits, provided they pass the same rigorous safety standards and checks entailed in Picairnian law and GA resolutions."

OOC: Check this and this
Last edited by Picairn on Sat Jul 04, 2020 4:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Picairn's Ministry of Foreign Relations
Minister: Edward H. Cornell
WA Ambassador: John M. Terry (Active)
Factbook | Constitution | Newspaper
Albrenia wrote:With great power comes great mockability.

Salus Maior wrote:Nothing we say here actually matters.

Moralityland wrote:big corporations allied with the communist elite
Center-left liberal, or "neoliberal scum"
according to the far-left and far-right.
Listen here Jack, we're going to destroy malarkey.

♔ The Empire of Picairn ♔
-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-—————————-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-
✵ Certified brunch-loving liberal and resident optimist of NSG. All Hail Biden!

User avatar
Foril
Attaché
 
Posts: 71
Founded: Apr 10, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Foril » Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:59 am

IC: “Foril strongly opposes any attempt to ban genetically modified crops, as they are widely used across Foril, and Foril’s advanced research level in genetically modified crops makes it a staple in the Forilian diet.”

User avatar
Union of Sovereign States and Republics
Diplomat
 
Posts: 622
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Union of Sovereign States and Republics » Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:30 am

The Soviet Union can not, in good faith, approve this proposal. Genetically modified crops can be a large boon for many developing nations, and are usually a cheaper alternative to natural food and have shown no long-term effects.

(OOC: Welcome to the World Assembly!)
Current IC Year: 2029
The Union of Sovereign States and Republics; USSR
In 1991, a plane carrying would-be conspirators of an armed coup crashed in the Crimean Peninsula. Without the coup, the Union of Sovereign States treaty was signed; and the USSR survived... NS states are not canon.
Current Ruling Party: CENTER-LEFT COALITION; SDPSU, CPSU, APSU
News: Anti-globalist defectors in SDPSU form "National Party;" Center-Left Coalition weakened substantially - Soviet economist warns of "Second Cold War" between USA, USSR, and China - Federation talks collapse in East Africa

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18528
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:54 am

The Princia wrote:Knowing that- In some member nations, the use of GM Crops is rising exponentially without any propper regulation.
So? Why are more regulations necessary?
Acknoledged by- GM Crops can put some long-term effects on the health of sapient individuals.
acknowledged by who? Rivals? Luddites?
Schocked by- Governments are not making any regulations to regulate the use of GM Crops.
Shocked that you believe crops need more regulation without any good reason.
So hereby the World Assembly defines the GM Crops as-
Any crop's plant whose genetic material is modified artificially by humans in a lab or lab like condition through scientific methods, is considered a GM Crop.
Darn that sciencey stuff! Ban it!
So hereby, The World Assembly-
1. Prohibits any kind of genetic modification of any crop's plant.
Draconian claptrap
2. Allows to continue experiments related to modification of genetic material of a crop's plant with the hope of potential removel of those bad effects of GM Crops.
And you just contradicted #1
3. Prohibits the use of GM Crops in member nations.
Prohibition based on fear driven pseudo-science. Excellent plan.


I honestly cannot find any redeeming factor to this. At all.
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Head of the Grays Harbor WA delegation: Sir Henry Rodut, OHE, GHC
3-2-1 lets jam


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Artimasia, Honeydewistania, Old Hope, The Greater Tulsa Area, Tinhampton, Traden, United States of Americanas

Advertisement

Remove ads