NationStates

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.

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

“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.)

"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

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

"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Consider looking over World Assembly resolution 158 and resolution 249, also looking into why they were repealed.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).

"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."

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

"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

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.”

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!)

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.