[PASSED] Repeal "On Genetically Modified Foods"

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

On Genetically Modified Foods
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mahaj WA Seat

Description: The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the existence and development of genetically modified foods,

AWARE that nations have different opinions on Genetically Modified Foods,

DEFINES Genetically Modified Foods as food or food products that have the genome of the organism directly manipulated through the process of genetic engineering via the introduction of foreign DNA or synthetic genes into the organism of interest,

DECLARES that all genetically modified foods crossing international borders be clearly labeled as being genetically modified,

CONVINCED that through proper labelling of genetically modified foods, less confusion will occur about the GM status of different foods, enabling trade to be quicker and more efficient,

DECLARES that this resolution applies to foods both genetically modified and foods genetically engineered,

CREATES the GM Foods Database as a gathering of genetically modified foods related information,

ENCOURAGES nations to contribute to this database,

STRONGLY URGES nations to abstain from imposing additional restrictions than in this Act on the import or export of genetically modified foods over natural food.

Votes For: 8,534
Votes Against: 2,923

Implemented Wed Jul 20 2011

[WAR158 on NS] [WAR158 on NSwiki] [Official Debate Topic]

Argument: The World Assembly,

Deeply concerned that the definition of “genetically modified foods” used in Resolution #158 on the subject is technically flawed,

Sagely recognising that limiting definition of genetically modified foods to those involving the “introduction of foreign DNA or synthetic genes” does not take account of:


• The transplantation of material from same or similar species (cisgenesis);
  
  
• Genetic modification such as gene knockout without the introduction of new material, rather through the manipulation of the existing material;
  
  
• The use of recombinant RNA instead of DNA as a vector;
Strongly believing that any legislation intended to require labelling of all genetically modified foods should employ due scientific rigour in its definitions,

Further considering the scope of the requirements to label any food crossing international borders to be excessive, given that it would necessitate the labelling of food waste not intended for consumption, food products posing no risk of transgenic contamination, and small quantities intended for personal consumption rather than resale;

Severely doubting that given these flaws these requirements are useful, justified, or in the best interests of member nations, and,

Remaining fully confident in the ongoing enforcement of Resolutions #64, which requires labelling of food products to meet safety and quality standards, and #249, which prohibits harmful genetic modification technologies:

Repeals World Assembly Resolution #158, “On Genetically Modified Foods”.

(Please note from now on I will be replying with my puppet Aah.)

[Chester Pearson]

Let's not and say we did....

[Louisistan]

Not the worst of arguments proposed. We will hold off on voicing support/opposition until we have heard from experts.

[Defwa]

A surprisingly convincing argument.
I'm in the middle of a few things right now, but I would encourage you to look at some previous attempts. There were some earlier this year that used decent but not complete arguments that you could benefit greatly from.

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

I'm in the middle of a few things right now, but I would encourage you to look at some previous attempts. There were some earlier this year that used decent but not complete arguments that you could benefit greatly from.

Perhaps. But those arguments are largely mounting a defence of GM crops as not inherently unsafe. My point with the argument in this repeal is that even if you think GM foods should be labelled, then the technical definition in Resolution #158 is unsound and the requirements needlessly expansive. Adopting the argument that GM foods don't need to be labelled would miss the point a little.

So I'm reluctant to incorporate that argument into the repeal because I think it drags the debate away from the technicality of the original resolution and into a more general pro/anti GM discourse. The strongest way to win support for a repeal is to win support from both sides, rather than gambling that the supporters on one side of a contentious issue outnumber the opponents on the other side despite the original resolution having passed in the first place.

[Jackonia]

Genetic Modification is seen as many as an bad thing, but those that are against it should take into consideration that the effect of Evolution on plants mean that every plant or crop today is genetically modified compared it's original state millions of years ago. Genes are mutating and changing all the time, so Evolution is effectively making all plants and crops Genetically modified to suit the environment. With this in mind, it is therefore logical to only label crops as genetically modified when there have been major changes to the genome by Scientists. There should be a proper definition of the term 'GM' in order to distinquish between Scientific artificial GM and natural GM for suitable labelling to take place.

[Defwa]

Genetic Modification is seen as many as an bad thing, but those that are against it should take into consideration that the effect of Evolution on plants mean that every plant or crop today is genetically modified compared it's original state millions of years ago. Genes are mutating and changing all the time, so Evolution is effectively making all plants and crops Genetically modified to suit the environment. With this in mind, it is therefore logical to only label crops as genetically modified when there have been major changes to the genome by Scientists. There should be a proper definition of the term 'GM' in order to distinquish between Scientific artificial GM and natural GM for suitable labelling to take place.

Yes, I guess you're right, SaWR. People do have a tendency to walk in and completely miss the point.

[Lumeau]

Concerns about GMOs are almost completely due to a misunderstanding of the science behind them.

Lumeau will support a repeal of 158 for any reason.

We drafted a resolution to repeal 158 a while ago, but it did not reach quorum on the first go-around and we never campaigned for it due to limited resources at the Office of World Assembly Liaison. Here's a link to it. We tried to base our repeal effort on scientific principles, but took a slightly different angle than you did. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=271758

In any event, we feel that this failed due to a lack of campaigning, rather than the resolution being flawed.

Hopefully our efforts can provide you with some insight.

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

Here's a link to it. We tried to base our repeal effort on scientific principles, but took a slightly different angle than you did. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=271758

The problem is that argument too became a referendum on GM crops themselves. The way we're trying to approach the repeal is to stress that even those supportive of labelling requirements should not find Resolution #158 adequate. By arguing that the labelling requirements shouldn't exist, I'd be losing ground on that front, as well as possibly contradicting myself.

[Wrapper]

We the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper never gave up on our attempt. We're just, er, engaged in some serious domestic issues that require our undivided attention at this time. That said, we want GAR#158 off the books, regardless of the basis of the argument. You have our support.

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

We the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper never gave up on our attempt. We're just, er, engaged in some serious domestic issues that require our undivided attention at this time. That said, we want GAR#158 off the books, regardless of the basis of the argument. You have our support.

If you are planning on pursuing your repeal at some later point, I will happily shelve my own effort.

[Wrapper]

We the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper never gave up on our attempt. We're just, er, engaged in some serious domestic issues that require our undivided attention at this time. That said, we want GAR#158 off the books, regardless of the basis of the argument. You have our support.

If you are planning on pursuing your repeal at some later point, I will happily shelve my own effort.

No, go ahead, we'd be interested to see what this type of argument brings about.

[Aah]

(Bump for comments. Yes, this is SWR.)

[Aah]

(Final bump; unless any major issues are brought up, this will be submitted once SWR obtains 2 endorsements.)

[Aah]

(At vote bump.)
(Edit: Woah, that was fast! Thanks to whichever mod edited and stickied this while I was typing.)

As has been previously discussed, we will be speaking on behalf of this repeal. Unfortunately, Hauptprinzessin Emilia von Dürchwalter Scheltnitz's credentials as Ambassador Plenipotentiary and Head of Mission of the Embassy to the World Assembly for the United Iron Principality of Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland have been refused, because the Gnomes couldn't find an ID card big enough to fit all that on. As such, they have they have enlisted us to forward their comments, as they felt Ambassador U Li of the US of Aah would have no such problems.

The repeal argument simply takes issue with the original resolution as written: particularly, in its unscientific definition of what actually constitutes GM foods, and in its requirements that all such food be specifically labelled when crossing national borders. The repeal is not taking a position on the general validity of regulating GM foods. We will endeavour to reply on behalf of the Iron Principality to any comments made and to answer those questions that we can.

[Two Chaoses]

Concerns about GMOs are almost completely due to a misunderstanding of the science behind them.

Lumeau will support a repeal of 158 for any reason.

We drafted a resolution to repeal 158 a while ago, but it did not reach quorum on the first go-around and we never campaigned for it due to limited resources at the Office of World Assembly Liaison. Here's a link to it. We tried to base our repeal effort on scientific principles, but took a slightly different angle than you did. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=271758

In any event, we feel that this failed due to a lack of campaigning, rather than the resolution being flawed.

Hopefully our efforts can provide you with some insight.

I partially disagree. They're partially due to a misunderstanding of the science behind them and the extensive safety testing that GMO crops undergo before reaching market, but the greater problem is opponents' use of the naturalistic fallacy and other ideological concerns. Two Chaoses joins Lumeau in calling for the repeal of 158 on both humanitarian and practical grounds.

[Pertunmaa]

Is the proposed legislation supporting or against GMO?

[Aah]

Is the proposed legislation supporting or against GMO?

Neither. The repeal is not taking a stance GM itself: it is simply critiquing the original resolution's definitions as inadequate and the restrictions imposed as excessive. Nations remain free to internally regulate, or not regulate, GM foods irrespective of the repeal.

[Defwa]

Is the proposed legislation supporting or against GMO?

A quick read of the repeal and the target resolution will help guide you in that regard.

[Fjordur]

I urge all to vote against the Bill, [AT VOTE] Repeal "On Genetically Modified Foods"
"Upon reading amendment 158# and the content of "[AT VOTE] Repeal "On Genetically Modified Foods"" The Alþingi Fjörðuri has determined by vote that No. 1 Amendment #158 is indeed clear and concise, and in it as such, that it is not banning the sale or use of Genetically Modified Organisms- but only require it's labeling on a package which already contains labeling. As such the Alþingi Fjörðuri have upon close examination on the bill "[AT VOTE] Repeal "On Genetically Modified Foods"" shows a variety of points of much concern.
1st- By delineating Genetic modification into a series of categories, it is trying to make a point that it makes labeling foodstuffs that have been genetically altered. It is our belief, that they all fall into that category and that, making a case of murkiness that should then remove Amendment #158, is wrong.
2nd. That many of these Genetically Modified Food Items have been actively done so by our species, then not labeling them for the discernment for the Consumer leads us to a double standard that this amendment does not address, as is, in a court, those whom Genetically Modify a certain organism is entitled to Copyrights upon that modification, and those whom are shown using it without due notice and dues to those modifiers- may be sued in a court of law. That Genetic Material that is altered may be codified under Copyright Laws, applying to all when they are not entitled to know of them in a consumers role- Plays a double standard and mocks are legal system as such, as it then clearly benefits a few, at the expense of the International Citizenry. The Alþingi Fjörðuri has as a result of are in the process of banning all food items unlabeled for their ingredients, and their genetic manipulation to foodstuffs to be consumed.

3rd. WIthout mention, by an international body to pass laws upon the defining of foodstuffs which are then to consumed on a national and local level makes the dangerous assumption that the individual nations and regions are no longer allowed to make a final determination on items which will be ultimately consumed by their Citizenry, whom they are upheld to protect unless they cease and desist to ban most items from entering their country. This, then, leads to
4th- An economic black-mail regarding free trade and its effects on individual countries can be made by those whom to choose to wish for labeling upon all foodstuffs which have been genetically modified.
In conclusion, Repealing Amendment #158 would cause For a double standard to be enacted within our Court System regarding this, it weakens every nation, and their citizenry from making a informed free choice, and lastly, sets up for a potential economic manipulation to the World Trade structures that will hurt many, but benefit only a few, and that is individuals whom own the Copyrights to these Genetically modified foodstuffs.
I urge strongly that all vote against the" [AT VOTE] Repeal "On Genetically Modified Foods" Bill. the The Alþingi Fjörðuri is now about to pass a resolution to ban all unlabeled foodstuffs of their content and/or genetic manipulation.

[Defwa]

I urge all to vote against the Bill, [AT VOTE] Repeal "On Genetically Modified Foods"
"Upon reading amendment 158# and the content of "[AT VOTE] Repeal "On Genetically Modified Foods"" The Alþingi Fjörðuri has determined by vote that No. 1 Amendment #158 is indeed clear and concise, and in it as such, that it is not banning the sale or use of Genetically Modified Organisms- but only require it's labeling on a package which already contains labeling. As such the Alþingi Fjörðuri have upon close examination on the bill "[AT VOTE] Repeal "On Genetically Modified Foods"" shows a variety of points of much concern.
1st- By delineating Genetic modification into a series of categories, it is trying to make a point that it makes labeling foodstuffs that have been genetically altered. It is our belief, that they all fall into that category and that, making a case of murkiness that should then remove Amendment #158, is wrong.
2nd. That many of these Genetically Modified Food Items have been actively done so by our species, then not labeling them for the discernment for the Consumer leads us to a double standard that this amendment does not address, as is, in a court, those whom Genetically Modify a certain organism is entitled to Copyrights upon that modification, and those whom are shown using it without due notice and dues to those modifiers- may be sued in a court of law. That Genetic Material that is altered may be codified under Copyright Laws, applying to all when they are not entitled to know of them in a consumers role- Plays a double standard and mocks are legal system as such, as it then clearly benefits a few, at the expense of the International Citizenry. The Alþingi Fjörðuri has as a result of are in the process of banning all food items unlabeled for their ingredients, and their genetic manipulation to foodstuffs to be consumed.

3rd. WIthout mention, by an international body to pass laws upon the defining of foodstuffs which are then to consumed on a national and local level makes the dangerous assumption that the individual nations and regions are no longer allowed to make a final determination on items which will be ultimately consumed by their Citizenry, whom they are upheld to protect unless they cease and desist to ban most items from entering their country. This, then, leads to
4th- An economic black-mail regarding free trade and its effects on individual countries can be made by those whom to choose to wish for labeling upon all foodstuffs which have been genetically modified.
In conclusion, Repealing Amendment #158 would cause For a double standard to be enacted within our Court System regarding this, it weakens every nation, and their citizenry from making a informed free choice, and lastly, sets up for a potential economic manipulation to the World Trade structures that will hurt many, but benefit only a few, and that is individuals whom own the Copyrights to these Genetically modified foodstuffs.
I urge strongly that all vote against the" [AT VOTE] Repeal "On Genetically Modified Foods" Bill. the The Alþingi Fjörðuri is now about to pass a resolution to ban all unlabeled foodstuffs of their content and/or genetic manipulation.

I'm not sure you comprehend a large portion of what you're saying considering your continued use of the phrase 'double-standard' in paces it most certainly does not belong and the description of a resolution as an amendment.

At no point did anyone claim that the target resolution banned the sale of genetically modified foods nor did it do anything to the ability of nations to determine what their population ate. You make the statement that 158 only requires food producers label foods that already require labels, however there is no other WA resolution requiring the labeling of GMO foods. Many nations, given the chance, may choose to not label their foods resulting in a poorly informed public. As it stands, 158 fails to even properly inform consumers due to its insufficient and outdated definition of genetic modification. In order to address those issues, a repeal is necessary.

The proposed repeal also does not say anything about people's rights to patent on GMO foods. 158 doesn't either. In fact, presently, no resolution restricts or encourages or mentions them in any way shape or form.

By point four, it starts to look like you're universal translator has developed an independent intelligence. Happens to all of us. But the gist of what I'm getting from your increasingly incoherent statements is that you want GMO foods labeled for patent protection and consumer education. Patent protection is an open field right now. It has nothing to do with this discussion. Labeling however is currently ineffective and a repeal is necessary to fix that.

[Aah]

I would like to offer a rebuttal but I honestly didn't comprehend large swathes of the speech. Nor, despite the numbering, could I discern what the principal objections were. So, I apologise if the following response, offered by the US of Aah on behalf of the Schutzenphalian delegation, is not comprehensive enough:

• Resolution #64, Food and Drug Standards, already mandates labelling of food to meet standards of safety and quality. So there can be no concern, even with the repeal, about lack of safety.
• Copyright is not generally applied to genetic modification techniques employed in food science. If anything it would be more likely to be covered under patent law or trade secret law, neither of which the WA currently has active law on.
• You are perfectly entitled to ban unlabelled food being imported into your nation.

[Normlpeople]

Clover stood "While I don't object to some parts of the initial resolution, such as mandatory food labeling, I do believe the original resolution far oversteps its bounds, with a poor understanding of the topic it attempts to legislate on. I am happy to support its repeal."

[Potted Plants United]

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

"Though we will continue labeling all of our products as genetically modified in any case, we remember some of the more sensible points brought up in the debate of the target resolution, and will vote for this repeal. Nevertheless, we do hope a better resolution will take its place, as we believe in the right of the consumer to know the origins of the products they purchase."

[Affiliated South Califan Sprawls]

A proposal at the 139th Federal Assembly to support this repeal was passed without objection. We support scientific rigor in regulatory legislation and hope that the extant resolution will be replaced with a better one. Sadly, it has become necessary to remind our fellow delegates that this is not a referendum on GM foods themselves or their labeling as such.